Loading...
EAC Minutes 04/03/2002 RApril 3, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 3, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ed Carlson Alfred F. Gal, Jr. Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro NOT PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: William W. Hill Larry Stone Barbara Burgeson, EnvironmentalSpecialist, Development Services Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA April 3, 2002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of March 6, 2002 Meeting Minutes IV. Presentation on permitting of municipal potable water wells for Collier County by Terry Bengtsson, South Florida Water Management District V. Land Use Petitions VI. Old Business VII. New Business VIII. Growth Management Update A. Review of Transmittal Amendments for the Rural Fringe. IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 2002 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (403-2400). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision or' this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we call the April 3rd meeting or-- call the roll. MS. BURGESON: Lynne? COMMISSIONER LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal? COMMISSIONER GAL: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let the record show we have a forum with seven members present. MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Is there any additions, deletions, corrections to the agenda? MS. BURGESON: No. There are no changes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No changes? Nothing from the -- from the council? MR. COE: I want some time to talk at the end. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe, end of meeting talk. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. Mr. Sansbury -- I'm sorry -- we do want to add one item under old business, and we do want to talk about the annual report. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Annual report. Okay. Anything else? Okay. We do have the minutes from the March 6th meeting? What is the pleasure? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Move to approve. Page 2 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Move to approve. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved and seconded. In favor? (Unanimous.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Passed unanimously. Okay. All right. Mr. Chrzanowski? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, council members. Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with the Development Services Division. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm sorry. I put the emphasis on the wrong syllable. I got it wrong. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's no correct pronunciation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. "Ski" works. Alphabet. I used to answer to that for years. Last month during the meeting we had a Land Development Code amendment item come up where we were trying to get the requirement that wells get a conditional use deleted from the Land Development Code if those wells don't affect surface water or shallow potable wells. During that presentation, I believe it was Ms. Lynne asked the question of how the Water Management District does their permitting of wells in Collier County. And we have this month with us Terry Bengtsson from the Water Management District, who actually does well permitting, and Mr. -- he's the one in the middle. Mr. Lee Werst is the gentleman over there, and Kurt Harclerode -- I think you see him on TV quite a bit talking about water shortages -- is the other gentleman, in case any questions come up. And I also noticed Dan Jackson. He used to be on -- you all remember him. He used to be one of you a long time ago. COMMISSIONER COE: Now he isn't. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Now he isn't, yeah. Page 3 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: He was the smart one. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I guess I'll just let Terry start with his presentation, and if you have any questions you can ask him. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good, sir. MR. BENGTSSON: Good morning. What I thought I'd do is talk in general terms on the process of getting public supply wells permitted, because there are several steps along the way. The Water Management District has a couple of roles in that process, and so basically the Water Management District is responsible for water supply and water-use permitting throughout South Florida. It's the -- it's the largest district and the oldest in the state. There's five districts overall, and they have their legislative authority to do water-use permitting. Next slide, please. Myself and Lee Werst and Kurt Harclerode are from the Fort Myers Service Center, and our responsibility covers what's called the Lower West Coast Planning Area, and that's Lee and portions of Collier, Hendry, Glades and Charlotte counties. And as I said, I'd like to start in the general terms and then work on the specifics as far as the public supply wells. First of all, there is the water-use permit, and that is established in Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes. And it has many interesting parts. Florida's quite a bit different than other states in the nation, and it combines some of the eastern common-law ideas with western water laws. The principal things to remember is, in Florida, water's not attached to property rights. That water is a part of the state, and the state has the authority to administrator a permitting process. And what that permit is, is the right to use water for a set duration, which is another key component of a water-use permit. Go ahead. Let's go to the next. Who needs one? Well, basically all water use requires a water- use permit except for single-family homes and duplexes. Also, wells Page 4 April 3, 2002 that are drilled for fire protection. Reuse water, the use of reused, reclaimed water and sea water is exempt. There are some current rule revisions that sort of is looking at that as possible changes. There's two types: General permit and an individual permit. The individuals are the larger users. The distinction is made by the quantity of water being requested. Government -- governing board approval is required for the individual permits and general permits in this area, which happens to be in this RTA, which is reduced threshold areas. Any use less than 20,000 gallons a day can get a general permit; otherwise, they're into the individual category, which requires a bit more review, and it doesn't go to the governing board for approval so there's a lot more time associated with getting that permit. There's -- in a fundamental sense, how do you get a water-use permit? There's the basic three-prong tests where it needs to be reasonable and beneficial. It cannot interfere with the existing legal users, which is the concept that does come from the western side of the country where first-in, first-right, and then it has to be consistent with the public interest. While these are concepts, they're somewhat vague as to what's reasonable, what's in the public interest. And fortunately there are some definitions to try to explain what those -- what those concepts are. Again, there's some other terms that are used as far as efficient, economical, public interest. So, you know, there's still some things that are not overly clear in the -- in the rules, in the statutes. Written into the rules is this dynamic concept in that it's recognized that the needs change; possibly hydrology may change; technology certainly changes through time, and so there is this idea within the rules that allows what's reasonable and beneficial to change through time. And the change through time is one of the reasons why permits will have a Page 5 April 3, 2002 duration set where they have to be renewed and reevaluated. One of the primary things associated with the water-use permit is the prior appropriations concept where, if you're designated as a legal user, you have certain -- you have given authorization to use the water. And that legal use is either through a permit or exemption. And that- - in the case of the single-family home, that is the primary exemption, that the homeowner has the right to use the water, to have a well or to withdraw from a nearby canal or surface water body as long as they have access to it. However, the permittees do have this link toward duration of that right. The other item for this three-prong test is the consistency with the public interest. There are a number of things to describe within the laws and statutes guiding the natural resources, water resource and environmental attributes that need to be protected. The primary thing that's being used by the water management districts currently are as -- as far as public interests, are defined and identified in the regional water supply plans. There is a water supply plan that was finished in 2000, April of 2000, and was put together by committee as well as district staff to identify what are the needs, where are the sources, how do you meet the demands in the future. And 2020 was the horizon that was used. How do you get a permit? There's an application process. There's a number of forms and tables. There's an application fee. The primary thing with the application is the applicant must demonstrate that there's no harm to existing legal users to the environment, to water quality, and to the resource in general. And there's a criteria that's established in our rules to go about determining whether or not there is potential harm, what is an acceptable level of harm. And through the permitting process, there is a period of resolution if there are issues that have to be sorted out, and ultimately Page 6 April 3, 2002 there are some assurance standards that are placed within the permit, and they are identified in the limiting conditions of the permit. All water-use permits have conditions that speak towards the need for water conservation; what happens in the case of a water shortage where there's a drought that's been identified. It also calls the applicant to be aware of any -- of compliance to any other ordinances or permits that may be associated with that use of water. Primarily, the well-construction permits have to be obtained. If there are local ordinances associated with those wells or with the other restrictions concerning use, those will have to be adhered to. There are -- you know, there's three major categories. Irrigation is probably the largest category of water use. Then you have public supply, and then commercial and industrial. Go ahead and -- Basically, looking at the entire district, last year we're talking about what's under permit as being 7 billion gallons a day. And primarily agriculture, the most use -- if we look just on our coast, we're looking at some percentages a slightly bit different. Public water supply makes up a little bit larger portion of the pie, agriculture a little bit less. Golf course and landscape irrigation, a little bit higher on this coast than on the district as a whole. Okay. We're focusing in on public supply wells now, and the way we go about issuing a water-use permit for public supplies -- first we have to establish a need. And a need is geared towards the population primarily, whether that be seasonal or permanent, and we need to look at growth projections of that population over the duration of the permit. Then a key component to establishing that need is what is the per capita use of each individual within the service area if in fact we're talking about a utility. Now, a public water- supply permit can also include a mobile home park. Any -- any type Page 7 April 3, 2002 of establishment that is distributing water to the public will require a public water-supply permit. Along with establishing that per capita use, whether or not there are other types of users -- and this includes the large industrial-type uses that are hooked into the utility if in fact we're looking at a utility -- and then irrigation. You know, how much -- what is the potential use from irrigation. For a utility, typically half, or 60 percent of the water that goes through their system is going out onto residential lawns. Other things that we must consider is the efficiency of their system, how the water is being treated. If it is a utility that we're looking at, what are they doing with the waste water? Are they trying to recycle that water, get that water back out to potential users? Rather than using potable water, they can use highly treated effluent. There are newer technologies out there associated with aquifer storage and recovery wells with the reverse osmosis plants that require special consideration and is part of the water supply plans that recently came out last year or the year before that are trying to identify alternative sources. Collier County has certainly moved in that direction where they're looking at brackish water sources rather than high-quality freshwater from the shallow groundwater system. Another item that is considered in -- in issuance of a public water-supply permit is with the water conservation programs that are identified, looking at their system as to where are they potentially losing water. So that all enters into the picture as to what the need is for this permit. Then you have to identify a source. Where are they going to get that water to meet the need? Currently, just looking at the individual permits, there's a breakout of-- about a third of the permits get water from groundwater sources, a third from strictly surface-water sources, and then there's that other third that has both. Page 8 April 3, 2002 Let's look at a picture of the district. In Collier County, principally the source of choice is the surficial and intermediate aquifers. That's the water-table aquifer and the lower Tamiami aquifer. And there are some potential surface water available through the Big Cypress canal system, and now the lower Hawthorn or Floridan aquifer system is being identified as an alternative source, and the utilities are looking to meet their future demands by using the brackish water that's within the Floridan and Lower Hawthorn. So once we've identified the source, the water-use permit is going to tie that source to the permit so that the -- the permittee must use the identified source. Whether it be the lower Tamiami or whether it's the Caloosahatchee River or what have you, the permit has to be tied to that. If for some reason there is a -- the source is not available, then the permit is no longer a valid permit. It has to be modified to reach some other source to meet the need. And some of the factors affecting availability of water in that particular source would be whether or not there's potential for saltwater intrusion, which is clearly something that's been identified in -- in the Collier County area. Wetland impacts. When you have shallow wells or withdraws from surface-water bodies that potentially will affect wetlands in the - - in the vicinity. Other items, of course, affect legal existing users, whether there's going to be impacts to them, and the effects of drought is also considered in that issuance of a water-use permit. Once you get the permit, what to you get? Well, you get the right to use the water and you get to use it as long as that duration is current and you have a certain level of certainty. And that level of certainty currently is permitted on a two- and ten-year basis. So when we do get into dry periods, water management districts has to call a water Page 9 April 3, 2002 shortage condition in effect and calls for restrictions to reduce the demand. And so that is factored into the permit so that--just because you have a permit doesn't mean you can always use the permitted amount. You may have to be called on to reduce your use because there's no control of the rainfall, basically. And that level of certainty not only is a physical condition, there's also -- associated with the permit duration, and it may be tied to whether or not changes have occurred or problems have been identified that may call the permit back for review. There is a legal aspect that is tied to this, you know, impact to existing legal users. Okay. So once the permit-- the water-use permit is issued, then the permittee needs to get the well construction permits if in fact he's going to be using an aquifer. The water management district has the authority to carry out a program of well-construction permits, and they set minimum standards for construction of wells, for the abandonment of wells or the repair of wells. And that has been delegated to them from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Now, the district has, in mm, delegated the authority to Collier County to carry out the well-construction permits as long as they meet the minimum standards that district has. The county has the ability to -- to increase standards to some other higher level, but they must at least have the minimum standards that -- that the district has. Now, there is one caveat to the -- to the county's well- construction program in that they cannot permit themselves when they are going for a well-construction permit. In that case, where the water -- water department for the county needs to get a well- construction permit, they must come to the district not only for the water-use permit but for the well-construction permit within the -- those permits, the -- as long as the construction standards are met, Page 10 April 3, 2002 and there are conditions in there that require the licensed contractor to follow all other local ordinances. There is another level of inspection as far as public supply wells are concerned in that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, through the Department of Health, looks at the water quality aspects and ensures that all drinking water quality standards are met. So in order to get a public supply well permitted, you need to go through the water management district, through the Collier County well-construction permitting process, and also through the health department. If it is the Collier County Water Department, then they go through the district for both water use and well construction but then will be working with the health department as far as the final certification of a drinking well -- drinking-water well. So there's several steps that need to be followed, and then there are apparently in Collier County other requirements that Stan may speak to next. But as far as the water-use permit and those conditions, if you have any questions, I'll try to address them or fall back to my cohort here in the front row. COMMISSIONER COE: You mentioned the permits are only for certain duration. Say, ten years. At the end of that ten years, do they have to redo them or reapply? MR. BENGTSSON: They reapply. And the way we look at a permit renewal is the same way we look at a proposed use, a new application. Granted, that if an existing facility is in place, the -- denying a particular permit may not necessarily occur, but there would be potentially changes to the operation of that facility or some modification, whether it be another source that's necessary or changes in practices of the use of that water to make sure that it's reasonable and beneficial to the public interest. And that's -- that potentially can be a moving target. What's happened in the last couple of years is Page 11 April 3, 2002 that, as far as the water utility in our area, they like to see that permit duration set at 20 years, and that helps them obtain bond money to build facilities that will be required for the -- to meet the future demands. And the district has been willing to grant those longer durations as long as certain targets are met within five-year increments, and usually those targets are tied to reuse, using reclaimed water to -- to meet the irrigation demands that are out there. Usually the alternative sources have to be used in order to get this 20-year duration. So we have seen several of the utilities now go to the deeper wells and use the brackish water to have the money to build the reverse osmosis plants that are necessary to treat -- treat the water and get the salt out of there. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So the way this works is, the -- the -- when you're trying to decide what the potential impact of the groundwater use would be to, say, an adjacent wetland or some other user, the applicant comes to you with the modelling and all the data to show that that's not going to happen, and you just kind of look at that and just verify it, or do you do your own modelling? MR. BENGTSSON: Technically we are only to review what the applicant submits, but in reality, we will be doing our own analysis in many cases. It depends on the level of the water use, and it also depends on the location. Some areas have more concern than others. Currently the primary concern that the district has is the competing-use issue and having too many users and maybe not necessarily enough water availability. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Is anybody going back and looking at the permits and the data submitted by the applicant and doing monitoring to see how closely the actual response is in the groundwater to what was proposed in the application? Page 12 April 3, 2002 MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. Many of the permits do have monitoring conditions in regards to what they pump. Usually it's submitted on a quarterly basis, monthly totals. There are wells that may be required to monitor water levels or chloride content of the water. Those -- that data is -- is submitted to the district and primarily reviewed through the regional water supply planning effort where those things are done every five years. And we have technicians that will gather all that information together and look at it in a regional sense. From a local perspective, permit review will - or water-use review will occur when the permit is being renewed and the status of a particular area is- is evaluated with all available information. In some instances, that may not be a lot of data. In other instances, there's a lot. A lot of information. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So does your agency have enough staff to follow up on the monitoring? MR. BENGTSSON: We can always use more help, that's for sure. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Have you ever had a situation where unexpected things happen and the monitoring well showed a greater drawdown or impact and things had to be modified after the construction of the well? MR. BENGTSSON: There are instances of that. Currently I'm reviewing the City of Naples water-use permit in regard to their east Golden Gate well field. We are currently doing some investigations to establish what are the relationships between canal levels, water- table levels and lower Tamiami water levels and the cause-and-effect relationship between pumping and water levels. And it can get fairly involved, particularly when you go through several years that we've had in the past where exceptionally dry times have come upon us. And obviously, you know, rainfall plays a big part. In any kind of Page 13 April 3, 2002 analysis that you do, you know, it's clear that cause-and-effect relationship between rainfall and water levels -- you know, in part of the year we have plenty of water because it rains very hard, and other parts of the year it's dry. And that's what we're faced with right now. You know, there is the possibility that rainfall patterns are changing over the recent past. The last couple of decades, I think if you look at the rainfall patterns and distributions, there does seem to be a switch. How that enters into our evaluation will primarily be through these regional water supply plans where we will be looking into the future. Where do we need to be in 2020, or the next effort will be 2025. And, you know, the projections are based on best available information. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Does the district have a series of monitoring wells that are constructed and monitored just by the district for your own information to sort of check on the regional situation? MR. BENGTSSON: We do, yes. We have our own wells for particular projects, and then we have wells that the U.S. Geological Survey monitors. Many of those now are on realtime, so-called realtime, where the data is collected on a minute-by-minute interval, basically, and transmitted to a satellite, and you can actually call it up on your computer over the Internet and see what the water level is at various locations. And that has been a very instrumental program and -- for water-shortage conditions that the network is now quite a bit more extensive than it was just three, four years ago. So, you know, the technology keeps moving forward and gives us greater capabilities to -- to track what's going on and hopefully respond, you know, appropriately. Page 14 April 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Is there an annual report produced on that with the locations of the wells and the U.S.G.S. wells and- MR. BENGTSSON: There is. There is something that is available at the U.S.G.S. website, and there is an annual monitoring report. There's a bunch of statistics that are offered for those monitoring stations to see what the trends are. You know, where the water levels -- are they going down or are they just fluctuating with seasonal variations or what have you. So there's quite a bit of information that can be obtained. Big Cypress Basin does a monthly report. They have monitoring sites principally on the canals but also a number of rainfall stations that keeps tab on the hydrologic conditions. I believe also they include the water use from the main utilities. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: The former, I guess, regional director of the U.S.G.S, Henry LaRose -- are you familiar with him? MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: He's retired. MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COE: He's the only one I see out there sort of raising the flag, you know, that -- that there are problems with declines in the aquifers. Can you explain why he would seem to be more concerned than I'm hearing from other agencies? MR. BENGTSSON: He has a historical perspective on what the conditions were like in the early '70s versus what they are like today. It certainly helps to have that background knowledge. You know, one individual's opinion on what is a safe or sustainable level of use or conditions of an aquifer may differ from other interpretations of what's an acceptable level for a given aquifer, for example. It is true that there's a number of wells that show declining trends in water Page 15 April 3, 2002 levels, but that's not surprising. There's a large increase in water use. And one of the mandates for the water management district is to develop all available sources as well as protect the resource. So -- I mean, in one sense that sounds contradictory; in the other, it simply says that the state recognizes that there's growth and we need to provide for that growth. The conditions within the water-use permit sets up the -- the reasonable public interest. And it's a dynamic concept so that, you know, what is considered concerned reasonable is -- may change through time. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, this is -- you know, this is the primary concern of people like me who manage natural areas where the requirement for historic flows and levels never changes. We never want that to change. The wetlands systems we manage -- you know, developed under those historic conditions and, you know, as water use increases and we get an -- we change the rules. We set the bar at a different level. We get this new reality. Now, those of us who don't want our present water levels to change, you know, are very concerned. And do you think after the statement you just made that, you know, the -- the overall conditions do change because there's more demand -- do you think that the land managers, you know, at the private, state and federal level can anticipate that we'll be able to continue what we're doing indefinitely and maintain historic water levels? MR. BENGTSSON: It's a finite resource. And at some point, you know, basically permits will be not allowed in certain areas. I mean, take, for example, Collier County. We have an area that is restricted for-- against irrigation wells in the lower Tamiami. We have concerns for the area in North Naples and on into South Lee, and we basically advise an applicant that you're not going to get a water-use permit if they're planning to use the lower Tamiami Page 16 April 3, 2002 aquifer. So that area is protected because there's enough users of that aquifer and there's potentials for saltwater intrusion. And so, you know, there -- there are areas that are already known to be potentially at risk, that there's enough users out there. And within our water-supply plans, you know, our -- our methods of reaching the demands of 2020 or 2025 is through alternative sources. So, I mean -- I think, you know, the concerns that you're mentioning are -- are voiced in the water-supply plan, and -- and certainly the district is aware, in order to meet -- meet the demands, we're going to be needing to look at how to make, you know, the pie bigger for everyone because there's just simply going to be more people that need a slice. And it's possible that that slice will be smaller for each one of those that has a portion of the pie. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So if I've never-- I'm finishing up. If I've never gotten a water-use permit because I'm relying on nature to manage the water, am I considered an existing legal user? MR. BENGTSSON: If you're referring to your home -- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: A natural area. Any wetland preserve area. Would they be considered existing legal users? MR. BENGTSSON: That's a good question. They are part of the resource, and so they are given a level of protection that's tied to the criteria for a water-use permit. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Can I get a permit without consuming any water or just keep what I have? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good point. MR. BENGTSSON: Now, there are provisions that -- and glossed over in one of those slides -- that speaks towards assurances and that there is water set- set aside to make sure that various environments will persist. The thing that comes to mind, which is the Everglades restoration, there will be diversions or there are Page 17 April 3, 2002 diversions, and there will be more water stored to make sure that all the efforts going into that program will be successful, because obviously it's heavily dependant on hydrology. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe? COMMISSIONER COE: Has anyone in your office or any of the offices of South Florida Water Management taken a look at how many permitted developments are on the books and yet haven't even begun to be constructed yet to determine based on what -- I mean, these are planned developments. And, you know, I've sat on the board for a long time, and we have approved thousands of homes. But is anyone from the planning staff for water or sewer taken a look at that? Because what we've experienced with this county just in the last year -- we've had sewage problems. Now we've got water problems. And we haven't even approached close to building what we know -- we as members of the EAC know has already been approved. So has anybody taken a look at that? MR. BENGTSSON: Well, it's a good question. You know, in the water supply plans, the -- the so-called stakeholders were part of the committee that developed the plan. It included, you know, the various utility, the various planning departments for the counties that are involved with the lower west coast. And so, I mean, presumably those people are the ones that have a pulse on, you know, what is happening or what will likely happen in the next 20 years. Of course, the district -- the district has its planners, and, you know, with developing that plan, they -- they looked at what is likely to occur as far as growth. I don't know if those plans considered the speed at which growth has occurred in the last five years, to be honest. So maybe Paul can better address that. Page 18 April 3, 2002 MR. MATTAUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, director of Collier County Water Department. I stepped in from another meeting because I figured that this issue would come up, especially in light of what's happened over the last couple weeks in the short term and over the last about year and a half or year in the long term. Let -- let me set the record straight. This is not a -- a growth management issue; it's not a concurrency issue. We have 32 million gallons a day of water treatment plant capacity constructed. We have more than that as far as consumptive use permits that we've received from South Florida Water Management District in order to provide 32 million gallons of water a day of potable water, drinking water. The problem was a series of mechanical failures and not a water capacity issue as far as source is concerned. We have sufficient source. I just -- I just am unable to use part of that source right now, due to a series of mechanical failures. So I just want to make sure that everyone is clear on the fact that -- that we have a master plan in process. We are tracking by Mr. Mudd's checkbook that you've probably heard about. All of the developments, all of the things that are coming on line, and we are planning capacity to meet that demand. We currently have an 8- million-gallon-a-day water treatment plant using reverse osmosis. Using an alternative source actually will be our second water treatment plant using an alternative water supply, and that is brackish water from deep wells and utilizing reverse osmosis to treat water. So that -- that plant is under construction, and we expect that plant -- an additional 8 million gallons a day, which will bring us to 40 million gallons a day of water treatment capacity. I might add that our maximum day -- so far demand on the system has been 28.8 million gallons, with a 32-million-gallon system currently in place and a 40-million-gallon system in place by early next year. We Page 19 April 3, 2002 certainly should be able to meet the demand, provided we don't have a whole series of mechanical failures like we just recently experienced. COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. I understand what you're saying about capacity and that there's resources there. How often is this plan updated? We -- we're approving thousands of new units each year. MR. MATTAUSCH: How often is the master plan updated? COMMISSIONER COE: Correct. MR. MATTAUSCH: It was just updated and approved by the Board of County Commission in, I believe, either October or November of 2001. So that master plan was updated, like, just about four months ago. COMMISSIONER COE: And how often will it be updated again? MR. MATTAUSCH: Annually. COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. And then that's reflected-- annually, it reflects whatever we've approved, us and the Board of Community Commissioners. MR. MATTAUSCH: That is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER COE: I understand. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal? MR. GAL: Did you say the South Florida Water District is able to impose water rationing? MR. BENGTSSON: They have rules. MR. GAL: You have the authority to do that? MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. There's rules. I think it's 54021 that requires the district to implement a plan, and it's spelled out in the various phases: Phase I, Phase II and-- Page 20 April 3, 2002 MR. GAL: Does the county also have the ability to do that, or is that your authority? MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. The Board of County Commission can, and in fact did. Saturday afternoon we called a special meeting of the county commission. Because of the situation that we were in short term, the Board of County Commission acted on a request by the Public Utilities Department to going to mandatory water restrictions. And the board has that capability of doing that. We did that through Friday -- this Friday, April 5th at 6 p.m., because of the short-term nature of the mechanical failures and our projected ability to get some treatment capacity back on line. MR. GAL: If the district imposes water rationing, do they tell that to county officials and then they have to implement it? MR. MATTAUSCH: No. If South Florida Water Management District issues an emergency water shortage order, we defer the county. Because we have consumptive-use permits through South Florida Water Management District, they regulate those consumptive-use permits. And one of the conditions of the consumptive-use permit is that we defer to any emergency orders. So if they issue an order, we immediately go under that level of restriction. MR. GAL: I guess my question is, does there need to be an emergency? Why can't the district just impose -- you can only water your lawn twice a week all year long for -- MR. MATTAUSCH: Well, let me not answer for the district, but my understanding -- and we've had -- I know these guys very well. But -- but the current rules are written such that they have to -- they have to wait until we are approaching certain minimum flows and levels, and that's the way that it's built into the rules. And when we reach a certain minimum flow and level, that's when an Page 21 April 3, 2002 emergency water shortage is issued. And, Terry, you can correct me if I'm wrong. MR. GAL: Who changes the rules? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me just comment one thing. I think we're getting two things confused. And that is, the water shortage that we're talking about right now in Collier County is potable water. MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct. On potable water capacity. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And the irrigation restriction that's put in place are just for people that irrigate their lawns with potable water? MR. MATTAUSCH: That is absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And are there not- when restrictions come in from the district, are there not a hierarchy of restrictions; i.e., irrigation happens to be the first one that has to cut back, then possibly ag use, and then possibly, finally, domestic use. There's some level like that there, is there not? MR. BENGTSSON: Yes, sir. That's -- that's correct. I mean, there's various phases, depending on the level of concern and how dry it's been, how long the drought has been in place. An example is, last year we didn't have a decent raining season, so by the time we got into the dry season, we were already in a -- in a bad situation. And eventually some areas of the district had a Phase III, which is fairly strict conditions that all permitted users have to meet. In this area, we were under Phase II, which, you know, requires the two days a week and-- MR. GAL: The residential watering the lawns, isn't that -- did you say that was 50 percent of our water use? MR. BENGTSSON: Typically that's -- for public supply, that's what it works out to be. Page 22 April 3, 2002 MR. GAL: I imagine that's the largest user then, right? The largest use of water. MR. MATTAUSCH: Again, Paul Mattausch. Let me address our system directly, because they're fairly easy numbers to -- to calculate because we put in a certain number of million gallons a day into one end of the system, and what goes into our wastewater plants is another number, and the difference between those two numbers is usually mostly irrigation. Okay. There are some other uses that don't go directly to the wastewater plant, but -- but most of that is irrigation. This time of year, we find that -- that approximately 35 to 40 percent of our potable water supply is going to irrigation. Other times of the year, during the rainy season, it's significantly less. But that number hovers between 20 and 40 percent on a day-to-day basis for our system. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I'd like to restate what Mr. Gal said. I mean, I was kind of appalled. We got everybody educated to watering-- and I'm talking about residential, twice a week. Fine. Everybody -- even the snowbirds understand that. And then in the middle of the tourist season, we go to three days. I think what Mr. Gal is saying, why can't we just limit it to two days? We're conserving water; everybody's used to it; leave it that way except for an emergency where you have to stop watering altogether. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me address that, if I could, because it's a heck of a lot more complex than what we're talking about here. The first thing is enforcement of, say, what the city just did. Now, we send the enforcement people out and we see somebody's sprinklers on. How are they going to determine whether those sprinklers are coming from a well, coming from city potable water or coming from a master irrigation system? That gets Page 23 April 3, 2002 complicated. At the height of the season, when anybody that's on reuse water, the reuse utility wants you to use all the water you possibly can; or their alternative is, in the case of the City of Naples - - is to discharge into the Gordon River. So I agree with you that there are some areas where that should happen, but I think that whole irrigation thing is very, very complex as to what your source is, whether it happens to be reuse, whether it happens to be groundwater, or whether it happens to be potable. In all three of those cases, you have a different situation regarding irrigation. MR. MATTAUSCH: Again, Paul Mattausch for the record. The new City of Naples ordinance does limit irrigation to three days a week on an odd-even basis. The ordinance that will be before the Board of County Commissioners on April 9th for the county to enact is -- is paralleling the City of Naples ordinance so that it will make us -- make it easier for enforcement in the entire region, because we will be on the same schedule as the City of Naples. Part of the confusion arises from the fact that we have some overlap in parts of the system where the City of Naples provides water and sewer service in part of the district. The City of Naples provides water service, and the county provides sewer service in another part of the district, and we bill for the city water use. And then there's part -- the majority of the district is the county district where we provide both water and sewer service. So there's -- there's some confusion. So in order to try to eliminate confusion between irrigation ordinances, we are going to parallel right now what -- what restrictions the city implemented about a month ago. I think -- well, I know that the city ordinance and the county -- the proposed county ordinance both address the use of private wells Page 24 April 3, 2002 and surface-water supplies, and all other uses, other than reclaimed water and saltwater for irrigation. The -- the city ordinance and the county ordinance will regulate the use of wells and surface water in addition to the -- the two potable water-supply systems. MR. GAL: How did they arrive at the three-day figure as opposed to any other number of days you're able to water? MR. MATTAUSCH: There was a lot of discussion and-- and going back and forth. Currently -- currently, until some -- some proposed changes with South Florida Water Management District -- currently their Phase I restrictions are three days a week. And so what we did to be consistent with Phase I restrictions and implement Phase I restrictions mandatorily year-round was to go with the basic Phase I restrictions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I want to get back to what I think Mickey was getting at with his question earlier, which maybe I don't understand what you're trying to get to. But I think what he was asking was, we understand your present condition that, you know, there's enough capacity there; we just have a production problem. And we understand that. But his comments about only being halfway to buildout here -- are we doing the work we need to do to explore the amount of water that's available in the future so we don't run into some kind of crisis in the future that we know the capacities down there and where we can get water in the future -- MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: -- or are we going to slam into a wall, you know? MR. MATTAUSCH: Let me -- we have been an active participant in the Lower West Coast Water Supply plan that was done by the South Florida Water Management District and all of the Page 25 April 3, 2002 governmental and agricultural agencies that are involved. We have been a part of that planning process. We have an ongoing master plan in process to identify those sources. And -- and obviously in -- in the long term, the -- the source that -- that many of us may have to turn to is the Gulf of Mexico and desalination. And -- and there's plenty of water in Collier County to continue to support growth. The difference is how much we want to pay for the water. Desalinization is about twice as expensive on the consumer side as is the current public water supplies, but there is sufficient water resource to support whatever level of growth that -- that we want to sustain. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I got one more question: Can you describe to me how you're monitoring the surficial aquifer to verify that the use of the lower -- the Hawthorn wells and the deeper wells indeed is not affecting the surface water? Is that work being done? MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, it is. Through our permitting process with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, there are certain -- certain regulations that we have to meet to determine whether water supplies are under the direct influence of surface water or not. And if there's a direct link with surface water, obviously it would affect the surface waters. The -- the Collier County lower Tamiami wells are determined -- through years and years of historical testing, not determined to be under the direct influence of surface water. We -- we also have a number of monitoring wells, and we cooperate with South Florida Water Management District on providing our pump-in data and our well drawdown data and also our monitoring well data. We have a number of monitoring wells that have 24-hour-a-day recorders on those. We submit those on a Page 26 April 3, 2002 monthly basis to South Florida Water Management District. And we are also working cooperatively with U.S.G.S, and we're working cooperatively with the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: And so all the data is showing no influence in the surficial from the drawdown in the deeper aquifers? MR. MATTAUSCH: I don't know if we can say that with great certainty. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, Stan said it the other day. MR. MATTAUSCH: I just -- I want to go back and say that -- that the wells in the Collier County public water supply system have been determined to be not under the direct influence, which would indicate that we are not going to -- we're not -- either not going to impact or not going to -- to significantly impact surface water supplies. All of us know that there is some recharge, okay, from the surficial aquifer to the -- the Tamiami aquifer. So is there some impact? Certainly there is some impact. Is it a negative impact? I don't think I could say that at this point. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Hmmm. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski. Again, I'm not sure if I followed what just happened. What I said was that the aquifer that's 700 feet down in the Mid-Hawthorn, I believe it is, is disconnected from the surficial in the Tamiami by aquicludes and aquitards and that there is no interaction between the two. But if I'm wrong about that, please tell me now. MR. BENGTSSON: No. There-- that's what-- I agree. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: All I was asking was, is the data from the monitoring wells verifying the kind of statement Stan made last month, that there is no influence on the surficial aquifer system from the deeper wells? Page 27 April 3, 2002 MR. MATTAUSCH: Okay. I misunderstood, and I didn't hear "from the deeper wells." No. There is sufficient aquitard between the surficial aquifer and the lower aquifer, and there is no influence. I mistook -- I thought you were talking about the surficial aquifer and surface waters. I apologize. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am? MS. LYNNE: Could I speak to the gentleman from South Florida Water Management? I'm sorry. I didn't remember your name. MR. BENGTSSON: MS. LYNNE: Yeah. MR. BENGTSSON: Terry Bengtsson-- Thanks. -- for the record. MS. LYNNE: How do you determine what the carrying capacity is for water for this -- for a given county or a given area? I mean, in order to know whether there's enough water to issue a permit, you have to know what's possible. MR. BENGTSSON: In other words, what's the definition of availability? MS. LYNNE: Uh-huh. MR. BENGTSSON: There is a technical definition to that, and then there's also, you know, a social-economic type answer, sustainability or availability, however you want to label it. In the water-use-permitting process and in the review of an application, the -- probably the greatest constraint on availability is the drawdowns in a wetland. If the withdrawal is from either the shallow water-table aquifer or possibly in the lower Tamiami aquifer -- and we protect wetlands, make sure that the hydrology is such that the wetlands systems will maintain themselves. There's not an exact science to what -- what is the needs of a viable wetland in terms of the hydrology. So there is a presumption that the water-use people use in Page 28 April 3, 2002 the review process, and that's being one foot of drawdown in the -- in water levels in the surficial aquifer where there are wetlands. And the presumption is that that one foot of decline is not going to adversely do harm -- do harm to that wetland system. If you have a large withdrawal that's in the water-table system and it's near a wetland, that will limit how much you can withdraw from that well simply because of that rule or that presumption. As you locate a well farther away from a wetland, the potential impacts are reduced. As you pump the well less, the impacts are reduced. The difficulty in reviewing permits is, once you start getting a number of permits in an area, then you start having to evaluate the accumulative impacts of withdraws on water levels. And this is something that we do have the capability with computer models, and that does -- those types of exercises are performed. The level of accuracy could always be improved, and so that is a process that the district will continually be working on. Big Cypress Basin has recently developed a -- the latest and greatest tool there is in trying to represent the surface water and groundwater systems within one computer model. And it essentially is physically based with all the information that we have available. So I think in the near future, that tool will have an effect on this next round of the water-supply plan in determining what is available and then potentially impacting where do you need to go to meet the demand. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Where -- and is there any public input into your permitting process? MR. BENGTSSON: Oh, yes. I mean, once an application comes in, a concerned citizen or an adjacent legal user, what have you, may voice his concerns, his objections. That can be done during Page 29 April 3, 2002 the permitting process. It can be done at the governing board when there is an official approval. Most of the applications that go to the governing board, the legal review time is -- is actually 21 days after the board date. It's before final agency action is confirmed. So there is that 21-day window if someone, you know, discovers that there is this application that's going to be approved, or the governing board actually has approved it and he has an objection, he can file an objection within the time frame, that he has a legal basis just to voice his objection, and then there is a process that must resolve whatever those issues are. MS. LYNNE: And there's a procedure for notifying adjacent property owners? MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. There's legal notice that's required for all permits. MS. LYNNE: And that includes for doing a new well? MR. BENGTSSON: Well, that's -- be careful now. When a new well -- I mean, a single family resident can get a new well by simply going to the county and getting a well construction permit. And generally that's done through a well-construction contractor. In that case, he does not need a water-use permit, so the Water Management District would not be involved. If it's a commercial activity, then, yes, he has to get a water-use permit first and then get a well-construction permit. Both of those have, I think, a legal required notification. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Mr. Gal asked an interesting question about -- when he was referring to why can't we just have two days of watering, or somebody over there said who makes that -- who makes that rule? You know, we have to use the three days because that's the current rule. How do we change that rule? Page 30 April 3, 2002 MR. BENGTSSON: Actually, the Water Management District is in the process of updating a number of rules pertaining to water use and water shortage. There was a large committee process over the last year that the Department of Environmental Protection sponsored with all the districts in the state, and one of the consistent notes was that the irrigation restrictions should be a two-day-a-week standard. So currently the proposed rules for water shortage has two days a week in all four phases of restriction. MS. LYNNE: Meaning there would be a standard two-day-a- week year-round restriction? MR. BENGTSSON: Not year-round; when there's a water shortage declaration made. The Water Management District will only call a water shortage when there is an emergency for the resource. When there's a concern for the water resource that there is potential harm to the -- either to the environment or to the -- to the water quality or just to the resource itself, declaration is made and is held in place and rescinded once there's a -- recovery that's been seen. MS. LYNNE: So are you saying that it makes no sense for people to conserve water in times when there's no water restrictions? MR. BENGTSSON: Absolutely not. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying these are what have been proposed as rule changes to our current water shortage rules. The ordinance that the county apparently is preparing to present to the commissioners and in the ordinance that the city has passed meets the standards that the district has in place currently for water shortage. They chose to do that. But, I mean, that is a water conservation step that can be looked at as a -- as a minimum. That -- I mean, there's no reason why everybody has to do three days a week. You certainly can do two days a week or one day a week. So, I mean, it's -- it's standard, but it's certainly not a -- it's a minimum standard. Page 31 April 3, 2002 MS. LYNNE: Okay. My last question is, how is public interest served -- and there may be somebody else that can answer this -- by having the water costs double in time? Most, you know, middle- income and working-class people are not going to be able to take the doubling of their water resources, so isn't the public interest served better by conserving and limiting development than it is my increasing -- doubling our water costs? I don't see how it's in the public interest to double our water cost. MR. BENGTSSON: Well, that's getting into that socio- economic realm of water resources and water use and stuff, and I'm certainly not the person to be answering those questions. But I think there's plenty of data that indicates how an inverted rate structure with the potable water does -- is an effective means to limit the amount of water that's being used. It does have a conserving effect. Whether it is fair, I mean, I -- I can't really answer that. I mean, that might be a question for Paul Mattausch or-- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I just want to make a point and ask one more question before you sit down. And that's -- you were talking about the allowable impacts to wetlands and that being a one- foot drawdown. And I just want everybody to understand that a one- foot drawdown of surface water in a wetland would be an absolute disaster. It would be a disastrous impact when -- you know, an inch or millimeters of standing water make a difference in habitats. And so that's really a groundwater issue. That's really a groundwater standard that in your -- when you're in a period of 120 days of drought with no water recharge, that your groundwater monitoring shows that the -- the largest -- the greatest allowable impact is one foot or less. That's my understanding of-- and I hope I'm correct. MR. BENGTSSON: That's correct. Page 32 April 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Okay. Great. MR. BENGTSSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: And that, in my opinion, is too much because it influences fire behavior and increases the flammability of organic soils that dry out when the water goes down another foot. But anyway, some day maybe we'll change that. MR. BENGTSSON: No. I think there is plenty of information that suggests exactly what you're saying is true. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Any of you guys from the district -- I'm one of the people who's a concerned citizen and an interested party, and I'm on all your mailing lists for permit applications. Water use -- surface-water use and -- surface-water and groundwater use, and somehow I completely missed that well field that went in on Immokalee Road. And I'm wondering if just I was on vacation and missed the notice. Anybody who's familiar with that project, it's, like, six wells east of 951 immediately adjacent to the Immokalee Road canal on the north side of the road. MR. BENGTSSON: The-- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Is there -- and my point is -- maybe I did miss it, but I don't think I did. Is there an alternate route for getting a permit? MR. BENGTSSON: No. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: No? Okay. MR. BENGTSSON: There are permits that are evaluated in the Fort Myers Service Center, but I'm the evaluator. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Nothing can get done in West Palm Beach independently? MR. BENGTSSON: There are permits evaluated in West Palm. The staff is larger over there. They can do applications on this coast as well as the east coast. Page 33 April 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So could an applicant here just go directly to West Palm and get it done and circumvent you? MR. BENGTSSON: It's -- it's more of a staffing issue as to who does an application, whether it's done -- primarily, we want to have the applications done on this coast for projects that are on this coast, and likewise, on the east coast and in Orlando. But, you know, depending on workloads and stuff, an application may be sent to one office or another, depending on availability. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: And would that affect the public notification coming out of your office, then? Would I -- MR. BENGTSSON: It shouldn't. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: -- have not been noticed? MR. BENGTSSON: No. Your name should be on the computer system as one that wants to have a copy of staff reports. You know, why you may have been missed, I'm not certain of that, because I do know that I have you on my list. And my understanding is, once it's on that list, it's in the computer system, and you know how that works. Once your name gets stuck on a computer, it seems to never get off. So -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions? Just quick question on-- from the standpoint of modelling, irrigationwise, is there any credit or whatever it might be on irrigation water -- all I want is just -- from aquifer recharge? I mean, is that in the formula at all? I mean, is there any effect on aquifer recharge from irrigation? MR. BENGTSSON: Depending on the type of irrigation system -- when you have a flood, a traditional flood irrigation system, we evaluate where 35 percent-- essentially, of what's been pumped out of the source, whether it be a well or a pond or what have you, 35 percent of what's been pumped will get back into the shallow aquifer Page 34 April 3, 2002 system. And that's based on some, you know, infiltration tests and the like. So there is a consideration of that. A lot of agricultural, preliminarily citrus, have gone to a more efficient drip system or microspray, and the efficiency rating is much higher on that, and the amount of loss is -- is basically to the atmosphere and not back into the ground. So in those instances, there's no recharge. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Hearing none, thank you very much, sir. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Could I ask one of Stan? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yep. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Stan, I had a question. I was not at the meeting, but you had discussed not having conditional permits for the deep wells. Do you always go to the southwest -- do you still have to permit it through the Water Management District? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: And they in turn would inform people anyways? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Their permitting proceeding is totally separate from ours. MS. SANTORO: You're saying that they would still notify the effected parties is what you're saying, so they would still be -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I can't talk for them, but yes, I imagine they would. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: land-use petitions. Old business. Okay. Very good. We have no Annual report. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources director. Last week -- last meeting we talked about the development of the annual report. Working somewhat backwards, the annual report is due to the county commission in May. What I'd Page 35 April 3, 2002 suggest is that we schedule the last meeting in May, which is May 28th, to the Board of County Commissioners to present your annual report where you would have -- you would have either your chair or your vice-chair present to present the annual report to the board. Staff will take your annual report, put it in the executive summary to the board's package and facilitate that all to the county commission. Therefore, your May 1 st meeting is when you'd want to finalize the report. Last -- in the past, you have taken a draft report, which Barbara just handed out to you that was drafted by Bill Hill -- unfortunately Bill couldn't be here today -- for you to add to, subtract from, modify, however you wish. And at your meeting in May 1 st, then we would then take your direction, turn it into the final report, then present to the county commission. So today, with -- in Bill's absence, he did take a shot at it. He gave it to me in the middle of last week, so you can then take that back with you and then be prepared for your May 1 st meeting to go through it and then finalize it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? Hearing none. We'll be back to talk about it, and it will be agenda'd for May 1. Okay. No other new business. We have none. Growth management update. Do we have anything? MS. BURGESON: Before Bill gets on -- into the discussion on the growth management update, I just wanted to let you know that the packages that I handed out at the beginning of the meeting include information on the Sunshine Law workshops, which will be held May 1st and May 6th. They are expected to be an hour and a half long, and if anyone is interested in attending -- and they're recommending that everyone try to attend one of those two meetings -- they need an RSVP by April 19th. You can either contact me or you can contact Page 36 April 3, 2002 Bill, or if you want to contact directly to the county attorney's office, you can let them know, because that's -- we'll need to get back to Nancy Bradley on that. MS. SANTORO: Can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I wish sometimes they would make allowances for working people and have them at night. I cannot attend either during a day. MS. BURGESON: Okay. I can ask them if they can do that. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I have a question about the transmittal of amendments for the rural fringe, and that would be that -- did the DCA in-- receive our recommendations, the recommendations from the EAC that we worked so hard and long on as a stand-alone document? MR. LORENZ: The -- for the record again, Bill Lorenz. The -- this is the transmittal package. Unfortunately, I've just handed out the -- just the transmittal letter, but we do have a summary of the EAC's recommendations and the BCC recommendations, and we did-- and that was transmitted to DCA. Is it -- is it all -- the complete COMMISSIONER CARLSON: list of all the motions we made and -- MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: It's -- So it's not really a summary. MR. LORENZ: It's your motions, correct. I believe the EAC had what? Twenty motions. I think we reflected 20 motions. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: What I'd like to do for you today is, number one, go through the schedule for you for not only the rural fringe but Page 37 April 3, 2002 the rural lands. And also, I did hand out the letter that was transmitted to DCA. As you can see, the transmittal packages is quite extensive. And as Ed Carlson asked the question, they did-- they did receive the -- the CCPC's and the EAC's recommendations as well. Let me -- let me cover the schedule first. Again, the -- the process for growth management plans is the transmittal hearing that the board conducted on February 27th and March 4th. Eventually staff then transmitted that language to DCA on March 13th. DCA will now have -- the official date is May 23rd to provide the county with its Objections, Recommendations and Comment report. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Repeat that, please. MR. LORENZ: May 23rd is the date -- the official date the DCA must give the Objections, Recommendations and Comments report, or the ORC report, back to the county. The county is trying to work with DCA to try to get an earlier ORC report back to us simply because the Board of County Commission adoption hearing is scheduled for June 18th. So that's less than a month between the 23rd and the adoption hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. The planning commission meeting is scheduled tentatively for June 13th, and that -- that still may be up in the air, which means that if-- if we don't get the report from DCA until the 23rd, then we have between the 23rd and the -- and the 13th, if you will, between the planning commission hearing to get some feedback from the EAC. Now, let me talk a little bit about the nature of the feedback from the EAC. When staff gets the ORC report from DCA, let's say that DCA says we have some comment and some recommendations, but everything is fine. We will -- if you adopt it the way it currently stands, we will find you in compliance. Page 38 April 3, 2002 At that particular point, very likely staff would not be making any recommendations for changes to go to the -- go to the county commission. So at that point, we would simply have a -- there have been no -- no changes to be made, and we would then present that to the county commission. On the other hand, the DCA may find certain things that say you have to fix this or this will be found in noncompliance. At that point, staff has got to develop some alternatives or options or certainly make a recommendation as to what the fix will be. So the -- the nature of the response back to the county commission for the adoption hearing is going to be really explicitly focused in on what the ORC report is going to require the county to -- to make some changes. Point of it is, is that -- is that it's going to be less extensive of a review procedure than what we had prior -- for transmittal because we cover the whole -- the whole concept, if you will. Right now we'll be just covering the -- the objections to go back to the county commission, which is -- which is good, and hopefully there's not going to be that many objections because our time line is -- is obviously very contracted here. That brings up the question, then, of course, is when do we bring to the -- to the EAC staff's recommendations in response to the ORC? Obviously if it's going to be -- the window here -- the tightest window is somewhere between May 23rd -- and actually, it's got to be a little later than May 23rd, because if we just get the report we have to have at last a week to respond to it. So you're looking at the - - the end of May, early June, first week of June, to try to have some meeting with EAC to then have your recommendation to go to the -- to the county commission. Page 39 April 3, 2002 Now, in the past, there's no requirement for the EAC to provide comments to the county commission for the -- for the adoption, but certainly we're going to try to facilitate it to the degree that logistically in scheduling that we can do it. So this is -- this is the window that you're looking at for the -- for the transmittal for the fringe. We'll be a little bit smarter, I think, come to your May meeting. We may be able to have some -- some formal comments or semiformal comments from DCA, or at least we'll have the schedule perhaps a little bit better firmed up. So in terms of scheduling a time for this -- the -- the ORC report comments, if you can -- if you can -- all can kind of set aside some time or look at your schedules between the last week of May and the first week of June, it looks like that's the window, and maybe we can finalize that as your-- your May meeting. That's the schedule for the -- for the rural fringe. The one thing I did pass out to you is the -- is just simply the letter that we transmitted, the amendments to DCA. The context of this letter was, to some degree, some of the comments that DCA had made on some preliminary -- preliminary draft that we sent up to them in January time frame, but you can, at your leisure, just go through it and review some of the -- some of the points that DCA had made earlier of their concerns and how they were addressed. The one -- the one item that I would-- I think is the -- is -- is going to be the -- perhaps the more controversial item is how staff is going to address it or how even DCA may respond to the transmittal is that the county commission, in their transmittal, directed staff to apply the amendments simply to the rural fringe area and not to the urban area. So in our transmittal, per the direction of the board, we -- we modified the language such that -- for instance, the wetland Page 40 April 3, 2002 policies only apply to the rural fringe. That was the direction of the board. The -- the urban area, therefore, remains with the old, if you will -- the existing comp-plan language. Obviously we're going to be -- be getting the ORC report from DCA to determine whether that's going to be sufficient or not. So that's going to be -- that's an issue as to how that's -- that's going to be addressed. And obviously there are -- there are several options that exist. If DCA finds that to be in compliance, then of course the -- we bring that back to the county commission. There's not an exception there. The question, therefore, let's say for the EAC, would be to say, well, do you want to go further in the urban area than what we currently have. DCA could, of course, say that it's -- that their existing language applied to the urban area is -- is not -- is not in compliance, and then we'll have to fix it. So then the question then comes as to how do we fix it? There are of course a couple of alternatives. One alternative is to fix it just the way we have it written for the fringe where we have something different than the fringe. So I want to bring -- bring that out as being -- being an issue that I see that will be emerging that at least in terms of what may -- could recommend. That's kind we're going to have to address and -- what types of courses of actions we of the alternatives that kind of at least present themselves in my mind at the moment. But that will be -- that's going to be, for me, a major issue to have to deal with as we move -- move to the adoption hearing on June 18th with the board. The -- the second issue or the second tract that's going on is the - - the eastern lands, which is out in the Immokalee area. That has gone through a separate tract with another advisory committee. That advisory committee has wound -- has completed their work with what they're calling "scenarios." They developed three scenarios of how to Page 41 April 3, 2002 address protection and land-use conversion in the eastern lands. And basically, it's -- it's -- everything that they've developed to date has been incentive based, incentive driven through a stewardship credit- type of program. It's somewhat of a complicated calculation to value natural resource values for a particular parcel of land and to translate to what degree certain uses can -- can occur on that land and then trade off these credits. That's the basis for the -- really the basis for their proposal so far in concept. They have not developed policy language yet. The next step is to develop the goals, objectives and policies that would basically implement that system on a -- in the growth management plan. We haven't seen that language, but that's the next step. We should be getting that language in the next two to three weeks, I believe. That brings up the question, then -- we will then have a transmittal hearing for the rural lands, which is scheduled June 12th. The May 23rd transmittal hearing is scheduled for the planning commission, and we would also need to have a meeting with the Environmental Advisory Council, with you all, sometime before the planning commission for the eastern lands amendments. The week -- let's say the week of-- what's May 23rd? It's a Thursday. We -- at the moment, if we could establish -- I'm sure the language is not going to be available for us May 1st. That would be your -- your regular meeting, and we would suggest to have a special meeting some -- sometime thereafter. The week of the 20th, if-- if you were to meet before the planning commission, we could at least then carry your recommendations to the planning commission if it was earlier -- early in that week. And then the week of May 13th may be another opportunity for a special meeting for the -- for the eastern lands. Page 42 April 3, 2002 Prior to that meeting, I was talking earlier with Allie concerning the growth management plan -- growth management subcommittee meeting earlier and having a presentation on the -- the concept as a -- as it comes today. At least those subcommittee members can be involved with some more detail concerning the -- the proposal. But what we need today is to try to establish a special meeting for your eastern lands transmittal recommendations. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's your pleasure schedulewise? Anybody has any-- COMMISSIONER COE: Well, I'd like to know, one, when is Memorial weekend? Because that may affect when we meet. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: It's the week of the 27th, and I'm gone for the whole week. COMMISSIONER COE: All week? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: All week. COMMISSIONER COE: So that starts -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Memorial Day is the 27th, so it's -- okay. COMMISSIONER COE: So basically you're going to be gone the 25th to the 1st of June, right? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. So that's out. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'll be gone the 23rd and the 24th. COMMISSIONER COE: Anybody else going to be effected? I may be gone over that same period, too. I just haven't looked that far. So basically from the 23rd on, we're going to be hurting for people because there's two people gone. And my recommendation, if we did it, would be, you know, 20th, 2 ! st, something like that but not have a special meeting; just have a regular meeting. Page 43 April 3, 2002 MR. LORENZ: When I say "a special meeting," I'm saying outside of your regular meeting first Wednesday of the month. COMMISSIONER COE: Well, why not do it just during a regular meeting, only don't have the regular meeting on the first or second Wednesday; have it on the 20th or something like that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 22nd. COMMISSIONER COE: Say, the 22nd. Any reason we can't do that? MS. BURGESON: There's a potential that we may have a large agenda with land-use petitions at the May 1st meeting. If we were to schedule -- COMMISSIONER COE: Why? MS. BURGESON: Because we have not had land-use petitions on this month or last month, and it's because -- it's not because we don't have them in house; it's because they haven't been sufficient and completed. So we do have a lot that -- we probably will have -- my guess is four or five on that May 1 st agenda. If we try to combine that with one of these discussions, I'm afraid it's -- may not get it done in a day. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we try doing it the normal on the 1 st and this on the 22nd? How does that sound to everybody? COMMISSIONER COE: Fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: The May 22nd would be your transmittal -- would be your transmittal review for the rural lands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right. MR. LORENZ: And for the -- at the moment, we're not going to be able to schedule a meeting for the -- for the rural fringe, simply because the -- we don't have -- we don't know when the ORC report Page 44 April 3, 2002 is going to come in. So that's going to have to be sometime after the 23rd. I mean, I can't-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, should it happen to come in prior to that time, would it be possible to do them both the 22nd? MR. LORENZ: I mean-- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: If not, we'd be into June. MR. LORENZ: Okay. Well-- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: We would need to get that material ahead of the 22nd so we can -- we can review it. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. That's -- right. That's -- the problem is - - I mean, if we can do it, then we'll shoot for it. If we can't, we just know -- we need to know that, and you're going to have to then set up -- have another meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. 5/22-- MR. LORENZ: And the other thing is, the county commission wanted to have the next set of meetings in the evening. Would that present any problem for the -- for this particular special meeting, then, for you? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Meet in the evening? MR. LORENZ: Start at 5:00 1 think is what they're looking at. MS. SANTORO: It's easier for me. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay with everyone? Okay. COMMISSIONER COE: So the 22nd would be an evening meeting? MR. LORENZ: Yes. We'll shoot for an evening meeting. We'll get back with you as to where the location will be. We'll try to do it here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anything else, Bill? MR. LORENZ: I believe that's it. Margorie, was there anything else that -- Page 45 April 3, 2002 MS. STUDENT: No. MR. LORENZ: -- we need to cover? MS. STUDENT: I have nothing to add. MS. BURGESON: We have public comment both on this item on the rural fringe and also just a regular -- a straight public-comment issue. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: has requested a council comment. public comment, Mr. Coe? Okay. We do also have -- Mr. Coe Do you want to wait until after the COMMISSIONER COE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Go ahead. MS. RYAN: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I guess my first question was answered in that, does DCA know that what was transmitted is different in some aspects from what the EAC had recommended? And I guess that they do. I hope that it isn't lost in the tremendous shuffle of paperwork that was transmitted up there. I don't know if a special letter could be sent or if it will be appropriate to be sent from the EAC, but there are some of the recommendations to the TDR program that really dramatically differs from what was discussed at the EAC rural fringe public hearing. One of the aspects which the conservancy is the most concerned about deals with the issue of, once a willing participant transfers their development rights from a sending area, there are no restrictions placed on their land use on that sending area of land. And, as I recall, the EAC, the planning commission and county staff, up until that March 4th transmittal meeting, had all agreed -- and I believe outside counsel, the county's outside counsel had also agreed that if someone willingly participates and receives financial or transfer credits from transferring their development rights, then it Page 46 April 3, 2002 certainly was legally within the scope of the county to place some restrictions on those sending lands. Our concern is that, once you put in place a system for rural towns and villages and, really, development that is more intense and dense than what was allowed prior to the final order within the receiving lands, you have to do something to compensate in the sending lands by making sure that there are land-use policies in place that protect the really sensitive resources. And it seems that if you increase intensity and density in receiving lands, yet you don't compensate by protecting the sending areas, then there's an imbalance there. So it's one of the areas that the conservancy is primarily concerned about, and I don't know as that really comes out. I haven't seen the transmittal letter, but I don't know if that really comes out in -- in that letter. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, may I respond? I'm looking at the letter. I don't -- I don't know that the letter -- I don't see where it actually specifically points -- directs to the motions, but we have it tabbed as part of the requirements here as what went up as the executive summary. So as -- it should be pretty self-evident to the DCA, but obviously if you wanted to give them a call, you can certainly call them and direct their attention to it. But let me correct one thing. I don't think -- it's not fair to characterize that there are no restrictions on -- within sending lands after you utilize TDRs. There are -- there are limitations. I think the issue was -- in terms of agricultural uses, let me read you what the final transmittal language is. It says, "Agricultural uses, including water management facilities to the extent and intensity that such operations exist at the date of any transfer of development rights would be allowed after-- with the TDRs." Page 47 April 3, 2002 At one particular point, obviously the issue was not to allow any agricultural uses except for-- MS. RYAN: Very diminished uses. MR. LORENZ: -- if you will, unapproved cattle grazing, et cetera. In the discussion with the county commission, the commission wanted to see that individuals who are currently utilizing agriculture be allowed to utilize the same intensity and the same footprint, if you will, after they took advantage of the TDR program. So that's -- that, if you will, is the policy difference. MS. RYAN: And that's one of the concerns that the conservancy is going to bring up to DCA. And when I was in Tallahassee, I did mention it. But it does differ from what the EAC and planning commission had -- had talked about at their hearing. So COMMISSIONER COE: Can I make a comment here? MS. RYAN: -- I just want to point that out. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson and Mr. Coe. COMMISSIONER COE: One comment-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Whoa. He's first. COMMISSIONER COE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Minor comment. That, well, then the conservancy will make those points in a letter to the DCA -- MS. RYAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: -- that we made those recommendations and-- MS. RYAN: And it is part of our letter, yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe? COMMISSIONER COE: I'd just like to reiterate that, you know, although the EAC sits and makes comments and recommendations, we make those because we work for the county Page 48 April 3, 2002 commissioners. We made very strong recommendations to the county commissioners. And obviously, for whatever reason, they decided not to go along with what our recommendations were. And I, like you, very strongly disagree with them, but it's their decision to be made. They're the elected officials. MS. RYAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Any other comment from the public? Hearing none, comments from the council. Mr. Coe? COMMISSIONER COE: Yeah. I got a couple things. Pass this out here. Pass that down. Pass these down to everybody. Last meeting that we had, I had something occur that I never had happen before: I had my integrity questioned. And it bothered me immensely. So what I've passed out to everyone here is some of the newspaper articles that were written as a result of our last meeting, and I feel it's necessary to explain it to the board just briefly so that you understand where I was coming from. Prior to our last board meeting, I had heard rumors that there was agreement reached between Nancy Payton and her group and Bruce Anderson and his group, representing a large landowner in the North Belle Meade area. And if you remember, the North Belle Meade area was one of the areas that we wanted to keep into a NRPA, and that was subsequently changed, of course. Well, it bothered me that this agreement was going to go not to the EAC or the planning commission first; it was going to go directly to the Board of County Commissioners, for whatever reason. As you may or may not remember, we as the EAC, are mandated to see all environmental issues affecting this county. That covers everything. Not necessarily whether we have to approve or disprove it, but we have to at least look at it. Page 49 April 3, 2002 Finding that this was not going to occur, I -- at the time, I was located up in Melbourne, Florida, visiting with my blind mother, and I had access to a very old computer that did not have everybody's e- mail address on it. So I e-mailed several of you all to ask if you would like to get this put on the agenda so we could at least look at it, even though we were going to be looking at it after the Board of County Commissioners had either given it a thumbs up or not. And I want to explain to you why I did this. I did this as a courtesy to you. I did this to get it on the agenda so that it was out in the sunshine and that the environmentalist could take a look at it. I wanted to do it before the county commissioners. Well, as it turned out, of course we did hear it. At the end of the meeting, Eric Staats, who's in the back there, pulled me aside and asked me some questions, and then I made a few comments about the agreement. But it was apparent to me and also to the person that was next to me that that was not the point of the questions. Eric asked me for the e-mails that I had used to ask to have this put on the agenda, and in several questions later I was able to determine the reason that he wanted these was that there had been an inquiry to the county attorney's office regarding whether I had violated the Sunshine Law. And I made a comment that I didn't think I had violated the Sunshine Law, but if he needed to have those -- those e-mails, I'd provide them to him, which I did. As soon as I went home, I gave him all the e-mails. And keep in mind, those were e-mails that came from me that just merely asked would you like to have this on the agenda. The next day there was -- oh, one last comment that I will say. I respectfully said to Eric Staats -- I said, you know, whatever you write, just make sure that you do the research properly and you understand what the law is, and I trust you and I respect you. Well, Page 50 April 3, 2002 the next day, an article came out, and as you see from in front of you, my e-mails were allegedly under scrutiny for possible Sunshine Law violations. Well, over the last 30 days, I haven't said anything. Come to find out, evidently there was no inquiry whatsoever, other than the fact that Eric had called to Mr. Manalich from the assistant county attorney, and asked him if this would be a violation of the Sunshine Law. Like any good attorney, he said, well, I haven't seen anything so I can't really comment on it. I don't know, Eric. Were those e-mails provided to the assistant county attorney so he could look at those? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Address the public. Make your comments. If Mr. Staats wants to say something, he may. COMMISSIONER COE: Well, as a result of that, a couple days later, on the 10th -- because I was trying to figure out why would anybody write an article about something that really was a non-news item. On the 10th, the editor came out with another article. This was on the Sunshine Law. He had gone to an editor's meeting for all the editors in the State of Florida, and they had decided that March 10th was going to be the Sunshine Law day to write an article about the Sunshine Law, which of course he wrote about. But I still wonder in the back of my mind whether the article that was written a couple days earlier was also the Sunshine Law article that the editors of the state wanted. Last but not least, finally yesterday, after waiting a month, I sent an electronic mail to Mr. Manalich. And I'm going to read this so everybody can hear it. Those of you that have a copy can read it. I said, "Can you give me the results of the investigation that you conducted as reported in the Naples Daily News by Eric Staats on the 7th of March for my alleged violation of the Sunshine Amendment? Page 51 April 3, 2002 Has any inquiry been made, and by whom? And was the complaint filed with the State Ethics Committee? Because it's my understanding that they are the only ones that rule on the Sunshine Amendment. He sent me a reply back: "Good afternoon, Mr. Coe. I've not been able to speak with your committee staff liaison about this matter at this time. I also intend to speak with you about this subject. This matter came to my attention when it was mentioned to me by Eric Staats. "My office will follow up only for the purpose of offering constructive comments regarding the Sunshine Law to any effected county commission member. My office does not investigate whether a violation exists, nor does it adjudicate such matters. I have not been made aware of any ethics commission complaints regarding your situation. "I look forward to speaking with you in the near future," and he signed his name. Now, the reason I wanted to make sure that this was clear in a public forum, because of course I know this is televised, but most importantly I wanted to clear my name, so to speak. Because I will tell you this, that after 58 years on this earth and almost 30 years of working, I have never, ever had my -- my integrity questioned like this. So I just want to make it clear to all the other members of the board, I had no other thing on my agenda other than to bring something into the sunshine to this board so that we could take a look at it, period. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Coe. Any other comments from the council? Hearing none, we stand adjourned. Page 52 April 3, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:47 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMISSION THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY LINDA SULLIVAN, RPR Page 53