Recommendations for a Drought Resistant Florida

Recommendations
for a

Drought Resistant Florida
July 2007

1

Cover Photos
We appreciate being able to use photos from the following sources:

Top Row: micro irrigation (SFWMD), rain sensor (James Phillips).
Bottom Row: Water Conservation Area II (SFWMD), water efficient landscaping (SFWMD).

The Department of Environmental Protection thanks the members of the Work
Groups that contributed to the development of this report.

Issue Area Work Group Leader(s) Work Group Members

Agricultural Irrigation Bill Bartnick (DACS), John Fitzgerald (SJRWMD), Gary Ritter
Camilo Gaitan (DACS) (SFWMD)

Landscape Irrigation Deborah Green (Water Barbara Larson (Florida Yards and Neighbor-
Authority of Volusia), Don hoods), Nestor Garrido (SFWMD), Bruce
Brandes (SJRWMD), Adams (SFWMD), Alison Ramoy (SWFWMD),
Brent White (SWFWMD), Russ Prophit (Florida
Irrigation Society), Skip Wright (Florida
Irrigation Society), Mike Thomas (DEP),
Pamela Reynolds (Polk County), Michael
Dukes (UF), Lisette Staal (UF)

Water Pricing Steve Lawrence (Charlotte Jay Yingling (SWFWMD), Grace Johns (Hazen
County) and Sawyer), Tom Swihart (DEP), Connie
Kummer (PSC), Jan McLean (City of Tampa),
Jane Bucca (SFWMD), Catherine Walker
(SJRWMD)

Indoor Water Use Norm Davis (Hillsborough Pam Reynolds (Polk County), Katherine Pordeli
County), Melissa Musicaro (SJRWMD), Jan McLean (City of Tampa), Dave
(SWFWMD) Bracciano (Tampa Bay Water).

Reuse of Reclaimed Lauren Walker-Coleman Anthony Andrade (SWFWMD), Liz Block (Toho
Water (DEP) Water Authority), Ching Garvey (SFWMD),
David York (private citizen), Catherine Walker
(SJRWMD)

Institutional- Maribel Balbin (Miami-Dade Lois Sorensen (SWFWMD), Tonya Simmons
Commercial-Industrial County) (Malcolm Pirnie), Brent White (SWFWMD),
Uses George Surry (Leak Doctor Co.)

2

Contents

Background ................................................................................................................................ 4
Summary of Drought Smart Ideas............................................................................................. 6
State Leadership ........................................................................................................................ 9
Agricultural Irrigation................................................................................................................12
Public Water Supply..................................................................................................................15
Landscape Irrigation .................................................................................................................17
Water Pricing .............................................................................................................................22
Indoor Water Use.......................................................................................................................26
Reuse of Reclaimed Water .......................................................................................................29
Institutional-Commercial-Industrial Uses ................................................................................32

3

Background
Climate and rainfall patterns in Florida, in combination with growing water demands, create
exceptional challenges, especially during times of drought. Even though average annual rainfall in
Florida is 54 inches (greater than any other state but Louisiana), it is not evenly distributed and has
some unusual characteristics that tend to produce periods of water shortages. Major statewide or
regional droughts occurred in recent decades, including the early 1970s, the early 1980s, the 1989-
1990 period, and the 1999-2001 period. In mid-2007, as in other periods in the past, a severe
drought began affecting parts of Florida. Both water users and natural systems are threatened from
a prolonged period of below average precipitation.
The current drought is particularly severe in the South Florida Water Management District. In past
droughts, the region has been able to rely on the storage capabilities of different regions of the
watershed, such as the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, the Water Conservation Areas, and Lake
Okeechobee. Never before have all three of these regions had critically low water levels at the
same time. As of the middle of June, no water has flowed in the Kissimmee River for 222
consecutive days, water levels in Lake Okeechobee have fallen below the historic low reached
during the 2001 drought, and water levels within two of the Water Conservation Areas have
declined to below their floor elevations. In response to the drought, the District, for the first time in
its history, issued Phase III water shortage orders (45% reduction goal) for several regions.
Throughout the rest of the state, the drought continues, but has not required the same demanding
actions that were needed in South Florida. For the twelve-month period from May 2006 to April
2007, Florida had the second driest period on record. This set the stage for the wildfires burning
throughout the state in May and June. Since January, 3,020 wildfires have burned 310,857 acres on
state jurisdiction, and 261 wildfires have burned 146,212 acres on federal jurisdiction. Many rivers
and lakes are nearing record low levels. In the Northwest Florida Water Management District,
many of the rivers are flowing in the 1st to 5th percentile range. In the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, the Peace and Hillsborough Rivers are only flowing at the 4th percentile. In
May, portions of the Suwannee River Water Management District were experiencing rainfall
deficits of up to 30 inches.
In June, the start of the summer wet season brought some relief. Portions of southeast Florida
received more than ten inches of rain. Unfortunately, northern sections of the South Florida Water
Management District received much less. On June 25, the level of Lake Okeechobee was at 8.91
feet NGVD, only slightly above the record low of 8.89, because the rain did not extend into the
main watersheds feeding the Lake. Average or above average rainfall in the summer wet season
may lessen the effects of the drought, but the fall dry season may be more challenging.
The water management districts’ adopted water shortage rules govern their response to drought. In
the current drought, the districts have implemented different measures, based on the seriousness of
the drought in their regions, the particular mix of sources and water users, and the experience
acquired in previous droughts. In early June, the South and Southwest Florida Water Management
Districts had one or more emergency water shortage orders in effect; Suwannee River had a
voluntary water shortage advisory in effect; Northwest had issued a water shortage warning; and St.
Johns River was monitoring water resources closely.
It is likely that such responses will always be necessary in times of severe water shortage brought
on by drought, but we can reduce the frequency of drastic responses by being more “drought smart”
in our use of water. Being efficient during times of normal rainfall makes more water available to

4

recharge aquifers and replenish surface waters. In times of water shortage, effective conservation
allows more users to share the limited water available.
While this report focuses on improving water use efficiency as a drought response, it is also
important to develop drought resistant alternative water supplies. The 2005 legislature created the
Water Protection and Sustainability Program to help fund the development of alternative water
supply projects at the local level. In fiscal year 2005-2006, that program contributed $100 million
in state matching funds to local governments for alternative water supply projects. An additional
$60 million was allocated for fiscal year 2006-07.
In response to the 2007 drought, the Department of Environmental Protection, in coordination with
the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the South Florida Water Management
District, and the Florida Division of Emergency Management, produced the April 17, 2007 Florida
Drought Action Plan. The “Action Steps” in the plan include the following:
Continue to implement the Conserve Florida program [the statewide water conservation
program for public water supply] and consider implementation of any of the fifty-one
recommendations in the 2002 Florida Water Conservation Initiative not yet fully implemented.
(Mid-term Action Step, p. 13)
In response, participants in the Conserve Florida program met on April 26 in Altamonte Springs,
May 16 in West Palm Beach, and June 19 in Tampa to consider the feasibility of water
conservation measures that might be of assistance in the current drought. The Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services also participated, to facilitate statewide drought response
coordination, even though they are not a direct participant in Conserve Florida. The participants
also requested the Florida Section of the American Water Works Association to propose additional
utility participants if appropriate.
Six Work Groups were established to consider short-term and mid-term responses to the drought
with priorities for potential immediate benefit. To the extent possible, recommendations were
asked to be related to the water conservation “Best Management Practices” and “Measures” already
included in the Conserve Florida planning Guide and the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services’ Manual of Agricultural Best Management Practices. Research recommen-
dations were made, as appropriate, and will be considered in the Research Agenda being developed
by the Conserve Florida Clearinghouse.
This report builds on the recommendations from each of the six Work Groups that contributed ideas
to address the drought. The full reports from each Work Group may be found in the 2007 Drought
Response Report folder at ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/owp/ConserveFlorida. The Department thanks
the Work Groups and very much appreciates their work. In some cases, this report integrated
separate recommendations of the Work Groups, made them more specific, or made other
modifications.
Following this introduction is a table summarizing all the recommendations, broken down by topic
area (State Leadership, Agricultural Irrigation, Public Water Supply, etc.). Each recommendation
has been evaluated as high, medium, or low in terms of short and mid-term drought responsiveness,
water saved, cost-effectiveness, and ease of implementation. Within topic areas, recommendations
are listed in order of their responsiveness to drought, and secondarily by the amount of water saved.
Following the table is a one-page description of each recommendation that provides additional
information. Implementing the recommendations will require policy, funding, and regulatory
actions.

5

Summary of Drought Smart Ideas

Drought Water Conservation
Responsiveness Amount of Cost Ease to
Water Conservation Alternative
Short-term Mid-term Water Saved Effectiveness Implement

State Leadership
SL-A: The state should consider an Executive Medium High Medium High Medium
Order requiring water audits and conservation
plans for state facilities, and encouraging audits
and conservation plans for local governments.

SL-B: The water management districts should Medium High Medium High Medium
immediately form a Working Group to share
experiences in the current drought and improve
responses to the current water shortage orders.

SL-C: The water management districts should Low High Medium High Medium
begin the process of formally revising their
adopted water shortage plans and rules to
develop more effective and specific water
shortage measures.

Agricultural Irrigation
AI-A: Provide more mobile irrigation labs to Medium High High High Medium
achieve water conservation Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for agricultural irrigation.

AI-B: Increase implementation of agricultural Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
water conservation Best Management Practices.

AI-C: Improve methods for measuring water use Low High High Medium Medium
and estimating agricultural water demands.

Public Water Supply
PWS-A: Develop goal-based conservation Low High Medium High Medium
plans, using the Conserve Florida Guide, for the
state’s larger utilities over the next five years.

PWS-B: Implement automated meter reading Low Medium High Medium Low
programs to provide real-time identification of
high water usage.

6


Landscape Irrigation
LI-A: Provide more mobile irrigation labs for Medium High High High Medium
improving efficiency in landscape irrigation.

LI-B: Require all local governments to adopt Low High High High Medium
landscape ordinances consistent with the
standards developed by the “Landscape
Irrigation and Florida-Friendly Design
Committee” (section 373.228, Florida Statutes).

LI-C: Establish a statewide training and Low High High High Medium
certification program for irrigation design,
auditing, and installation professionals, in
coordination with the EPA WaterSense Program
and the Florida Irrigation Society.

LI-D: Revise and enforce the statutory provision Low Medium High High Medium
(s. 373.62, F.S.) that requires operational
sensors on all automatic irrigation systems.

LI-E: Develop more effective enforcement and Low Medium High Medium Medium
education programs to promote compliance with
landscape irrigation restrictions

Water Pricing
WP-A: Define minimum requirements for Low High High High Medium
conservation rates and require their use by
utilities in the development of their rate
structures, based on the AWWA Rate Manual
and the WateRate software application

WP-B: Phase in conservation rate structures Low High High High Medium
statewide within three years.

WP-C: Develop consensus on criteria for Low Medium Medium High Medium
adopting drought rates as part of utility
conservation rate structures

WP-D: Phase in informative billing statewide Low Medium Medium High Medium
within three years.

Indoor Water Use
IU-A: Expand programs to replace inefficient Low Medium High High Medium
toilets, targeting the greatest efficiency
opportunities.

IU-B: Require property sales agreements to Low Medium High High Low
include a provision that inefficient water using
devices will be brought up to current codes.

IU-C: Support the adoption of national standards Low Medium High Medium Low
for more water efficient clothes washers,
dishwashers, and plumbing devices.

7


Reuse of Reclaimed Water
RW-A: Implement appropriate watering Medium High High High Medium
guidelines on reclaimed water use, for those
reuse systems with adequate storage.

RW-B: Encourage utilities that meter reclaimed Medium High High High Medium
water customers to implement volume-based
rate structures. When feasible, the utility should
implement inclining block rates or special
drought rates during droughts.

RW-C: Encourage reuse utilities to give priority Low Medium High High Medium
to reuse activities that maximize recharge
fractions and/or potable water offsets.

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional
ICI-A: The water management districts should Low Medium Medium High Medium
issue emergency orders requiring utilities to
implement a water audit program for all ICI
customers.

ICI-B: The water management districts should Low Medium Medium High High
confirm the existence and implementation status
of conservation plans for all ICI permittees.

8

State Leadership

SL-A: The state should consider an Executive Order requiring water
audits and conservation plans for state facilities, and encouraging
audits and conservation plans for local governments.

Drought Responsiveness Water Conservation
Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Short-term Mid-term Water Saved Implement
Low Medium Medium High Medium

Specific recommendation
The state should consider an executive order mandating water conservation audits and plans for
state facilities, including water use reduction goals, a schedule for implementation, and reporting
requirements. Where such plans already exist, they should be reviewed and updated as needed. The
order should encourage local governments to adopt similar orders for county and municipal
facilities (Miami-Dade County Resolution R-1200-05 is an example of local leadership).

Reasons for recommendation
The state should lead by example. Many state facilities are older and inefficient in terms of water
use. Even in newer facilities, there are many examples of water use inefficiency. Some measures
that could be taken, such as leak repairs and replacement of faulty and/or poorly designed irrigation
equipment, and the review and adjustment of irrigation scheduling and management practices,
could have significant immediate effects in areas affected by drought. Other responses, such as
toilet and urinal replacements, would take longer to implement and, therefore, not have much effect
in mitigating the current drought. However, they would reduce potable demand in a large water use
sector, leaving more potable water available for essential uses in future droughts.

Cost-effectiveness and water savings
The cost of implementation and the amount of water saved will vary depending upon the specific
conservation measures taken. Water savings could range from minimal to large depending upon
the type of facility and its age.

Who should implement it?
Implementation would be largely through the Florida Department of Management Services and
individual building superintendents.

9

SL-B: The water management districts should immediately form a
Working Group to share experiences in the current drought and
improve responses to the current water shortage orders.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Medium High Medium High Medium

The water management districts should cooperatively evaluate their experiences in the current
drought and develop strategies to achieve more consistent and effective public responses to water
shortage orders.

Public compliance with water shortage orders is variable. District staff should cooperatively try to
determine the reasons for the variations in response and develop strategies to improve compliance.

Costs would be minimal. Improved public compliance could save significant amounts of water.

The water management districts would implement the recommendation.

10

SL-C: The water management districts should begin the process of
formally revising their adopted water shortage plans and rules to
develop more effective and specific water shortage measures.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
low High Medium High Medium

The districts should reevaluate their water shortage plans and rules, and revise them to improve
their effectiveness and promote additional consistency.

During a water shortage, it is important that the districts’ responses to the shortage have the desired
effect of reducing consumption and improving efficiency. Experiences in the last and current
droughts have led to questions about the effectiveness of some routinely employed drought
responses. For example, do irrigation restrictions actually save water, or do people negate the
effect of fewer watering days by watering longer on the days they are allowed to irrigate? The
districts need greater certainty that their water shortage responses are effective.

Costs for planning and rule development are part of the normal district operating budget. Water
savings could be significant if substantial improvements in compliance are achieved.

The water management districts would implement the recommendation.

11

Agricultural Irrigation

AI-A: Provide more mobile irrigation labs to achieve water
conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agricultural
irrigation.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Medium High High High Medium

Expand the number of Mobile Irrigation Labs (MILs) to include areas of the state that don’t have
MILs (mostly the central portions of the state and western panhandle). MIL operators should be
trained to provide other water conservation services. The districts should consider, as a permit
condition, requiring large agricultural users to have a MIL evaluation. Highly inefficient users
should be required to implement MIL recommendations within a specified time period. The district
could provide a longer duration permit as an incentive for permittees that achieve a high level of
efficiency. (See the related recommendation for additional MILs for landscape irrigation.)

Mobile Irrigation Labs provide free or low-cost irrigation system evaluations and information
related to water conservation opportunities. They identify problems and recommend solutions for
existing systems, provide guidance on the selection and installation of new systems, and assist with
irrigation management and planning. The primary goal is to ensure efficient use of irrigation water.
Since 2002, the number of MILs has increased by 6 statewide, to a total of 21 in 2007. Three of
these were agricultural MILs that encompass portions of northeast Florida, Lake County, and
Northwest Florida, and serve a total of 14 counties. Since 2005, the recommendations provided by
these MILs have the potential to save 1.5 billion gallons of water every year. For all urban and
agricultural MILs combined, the savings potential increases to 1.75 billion gallons. Actual water
savings can be expected to vary from year to year and farm to farm depending upon such factors as
climatic conditions, crop(s) grown, number of acres in production, etc.

It costs approximately $100,000 to $150,000 per year to operate a MIL. Water savings, as noted
above could be very substantial, particularly if MIL evaluations and implementation of all cost-
effective recommendations were mandatory for large agricultural operations.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Water Management Districts,
the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts
should work together to support a comprehensive MIL program designed to provide services to
agriculture producers statewide.

12

AI-B: Increase implementation of agricultural water conservation
Best Management Practices.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

The water management districts should consider using the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services’ “Agricultural Water Conservation Best Management Practices” manual as part
of their water use permitting program, and could offer regulatory incentives based on successful
implementation of the practices in the manual. If necessary, the manual could be modified to
reflect district needs. The Mobile Irrigation Lab operators should distribute these manuals during
their evaluations.

Implementing Best Management Practices and increasing educational programs could result in
significant long-term water savings. This may work best if it can be combined with regulatory and
financial incentives.

Best Management Practices are designed to be cost-effective although initial capital outlay for some
practices is significant. Actual savings are variable depending upon the BMP being implemented.
Education is critical to effective implementation. In some cases, cost-sharing would expedite
implementation.

The water management districts and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
should collaborate to improve the BMP manual, increase implementation of BMPs, and develop
crop-specific BMP documentation.

13

AI-C: Improve methods for measuring water use and estimating
agricultural water demands.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low Medium High Medium Medium

To the extent practical, considering regional differences in factors such as climate, soils, and
farming practices, develop consistent methodologies for water use measurement and estimating
agricultural water needs. Appropriate measurement (not necessarily metering) and reporting of
water use, for those who use more than 100,000 gallons of water per day, is already required by
section 62-40.540(6), Florida Administrative Code, and should be implemented by all of the water
management districts.

Measuring agricultural water use and estimating crop water needs are fundamental to improving
water use efficiency in the agricultural sector, particularly during times of drought. This
information helps the Districts allocate the appropriate quantity of water for a particular crop
through consumptive use permitting. Over-allocation wastes water and under-allocation might
harm agricultural production.
Proper management of the irrigation system is difficult if one does not know the amount of water
applied to the crop. Measuring devices are also critical for detection of problems leading to
significant waste of water, such as broken pipes. Excessive irrigation results in higher energy costs,
and higher overall costs of production. Appropriate levels of irrigation minimize field runoff and
leaching of fertilizer. Benefits associated with this effort will include: savings of surface and
groundwater resources, improved information to be used in planning and management, energy
savings, and reduced operation and maintenance expenses.

The development of consistent methodologies could be done at minimal cost. Costs at the farm
level to implement accurate water measurement methods will vary depending upon the measure-
ment method chosen. Water savings could be very significant.

The water management districts and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
should work together to implement this recommendation.

14

Public Water Supply
PWS-A: Develop goal-based conservation plans, using the Conserve
Florida Guide, for the state’s larger utilities over the next five years.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness


The water management districts should encourage medium and large utilities (those with more than
10,000 connections as defined in the Conserve Florida water conservation Guide) to develop cost-
effective, goal-based water conservation plans. They should focus on utilities seeking new permits
or renewals of existing permits, with emphasis on utilities that have higher than average water
usage for their size.

The vast majority of public water supply is produced by a small subset of the state’s larger public
water supply utilities. The Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department, the state’s largest utility,
used the Conserve Florida Guide to develop a cost-effective, utility specific, goal-based
conservation program. Expected water savings should exceed what would have been required
under the district’s normal permit requirements. Use of the Guide should become the preferred
method for developing public water supply conservation plans.

The Guide is specifically designed to create conservation plans that are cost-effective and result in
improved water savings for the utility over its current practices.

The water management districts should identify the most appropriate mechanisms to move their
large utilities toward use of the Guide as the preferred means of developing the conservation plans
required under district consumptive use permitting rules. Smaller utilities should be considered on
a separate timeframe, and may require longer to implement.

15

PWS-B: Implement an automated meter reading program to provide
real-time identification of high water usage.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low Medium Medium Medium Low

Utilities should consider upgrading to automated meter reading technology, which allows quick
identification of high water usage from leaks, irrigation systems, etc.

Reason for recommendation
Water users may often be unaware that their irrigation systems are over watering their lawn or that
they have leaking pipes or fixtures. Automated meter reading technology can identify when water
use deviates from normal, and a utility service person can visit the customer and let them know
there may be a problem. For example, it can identify when water is being used late at night when
people are normally in bed, indicating a possible leak, or a sprinkler system coming on because of
an improperly set timer.

The technology is currently being used by a number of utilities and is thought to be cost-effective.
Anecdotal information indicates that it is effective at alerting utility personnel to potential leaks and
other problems.

The utilities would implement the recommendation.

16

Landscape Irrigation

LI-A: Provide more mobile irrigation labs for improving efficiency in
landscape irrigation.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

Expand the number of Mobile Irrigation Labs (MILs) providing services to homeowners and
businesses to improve efficiency for landscape irrigation to include those areas of the state without
access to MILs. Private contractors certified by the Florida Irrigation Society and/or the Irrigation
Association, and existing MIL operators should be trained and retained to conduct simple audits,
teach operators how to set controllers, and develop seasonal schedules for each customer.

Mobile Irrigation Labs provide free or low-cost irrigation system evaluations and educational infor-
mation related to water conservation opportunities. They also identify and solve problems with
existing irrigation systems, provide guidance regarding the selection and installation of new
systems, and provide assistance with irrigation management and planning. The primary goal of
every MIL is to educate irrigation system operators on the efficient use of irrigation water.

It costs approximately $100,000 to $150,000 per year to operate a MIL. Water savings could be
very substantial. Since 2002, the number of MILs has increased by 6 statewide, to a total of 21 in
2007. Three of these were agricultural MILs that encompass portions of northeast Florida, Lake
County, and Northwest Florida, and serve a total of 14 counties. A University of Florida study
found baseline moderately sized homesites were using 74 percent of domestic water outdoors.
Study homesites with irrigation systems decreased water consumption by an average of 22 percent
while maintaining quality landscaping.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Water Management Districts,
the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts
should work together to fund a comprehensive MIL program designed to provide services to
homeowners, businesses, and agriculture producers statewide.

17

LI-B: Require all local governments to adopt landscape ordinances
consistent with the standards developed by the “Landscape Irrigation
and Florida-Friendly Design Committee”(section 373.228, Florida
Statutes).

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low High High High Medium

Local governments should develop and adopt landscape irrigation and Florida-Friendly landscape
ordinances that are consistent with the standards developed by the Committee on Landscape
Irrigation and Florida Friendly Design Standards (December 2006). As part of the public outreach
associated with the new ordinance, a program to assist residents with timer settings and other
aspects of irrigation system operation should be implemented (mobile irrigation labs could be used
for this).

Up to one-half of public water supply in Florida is devoted to landscape irrigation. The Committee
was created by statute to develop recommendations for local landscape irrigation and design
ordinances. Proper landscape design and irrigation system standards can save significant amounts
of water and money, while achieving both attractive landscapes and protection of our natural
resources. The recommendations of the Committee should be implemented at the local level in
order to ensure implementation.

Properly designed and installed landscapes and irrigation systems are more cost-effective and save
significant amounts of water compared to those that are poorly designed and installed.

Local governments would develop and implement ordinances. Ordinances should be adopted first
in the counties and cities with high rates of water use for landscape irrigation. The water manage-
ment districts could require development of landscape irrigation ordinances, based on the
Committee’s recommended standards, within the consumptive use permitting process.
Alternatively, the legislature could amend section 373.228, F.S. to require all local governments to
develop the ordinances. It could also consider eliminating section 373.185(3), which allows deed
restrictions, covenants or local ordinances enacted prior to October 1, 2001 to prohibit a property
owner from installing a xeriscape or Florida-friendly landscape on his or her property.
The districts should also consider cost-sharing with utilities to provide educational programs for
inspectors and local officials on enforcement of these new local ordinances. The Florida Yards and
Neighborhoods program, Mobile Irrigation Labs, and contractors available through the Florida
Irrigation Society may be able to help with education and outreach aspects of implementing the
new ordinance with the allocation of adequate funds.

18

LI-C: Establish a statewide training and certification program for
irrigation design, auditing, and installation professionals, in
coordination with the EPA WaterSense Program and the Florida
Irrigation Society.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

Specific Recommendation
A statewide training and certification program should be developed to ensure that irrigation
installers, designers, managers, and landscape maintenance professionals are aware of the most up-
to-date technologies and practices for water efficient design, installation, and operation of an
irrigation system. The state and the water management districts should support the start-up of these
programs until they become self-sufficient through tuition. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes should be
revised to include statewide irrigation licensure and require that a licensed professional be on the
job site during installation.

Training in the proper design, installation, and maintenance of irrigation systems can significantly
reduce lawn and landscape water use. Certification would provide homeowners, builders, and other
customers with a mechanism to identify properly trained irrigation professionals and ensure they
are getting an efficient and quality product. The Florida Irrigation Society has developed a program
and will undertake its Statewide Licensure Initiative in July 2007.

Properly designed and installed irrigation systems are more cost-effective than those that are not
and they save significantly more water. There would likely be landscaping benefits as well, due to
all plants receiving the appropriate amount of water for proper growth. Initial costs of installation
may be higher due to having a licensed professional doing the installation.

Local governments and water management districts should work together to implement in
cooperation with the Florida Irrigation Society and other appropriate stakeholders. Training would
likely occur through professional organizations, or educational institutions such as the University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Program for Resource Efficient Communities
(PREC), and the TREEO center.

19

LI-D: Revise and enforce the statutory provision (s. 373.62, F.S.) that
requires operational sensors on all automatic irrigation systems.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low Medium High High Medium

Section 373.62, Florida Statutes, should be amended as follows (additions are underlined, deletions
are struck through):
Any person who operates purchases and installs an automatic lawn sprinkler system after May
1, 1991, shall install, and must maintain, and operate a rain and/or soil moisture sensor
device(s) or switch that will override the irrigation cycle of the sprinkler system when
adequate rainfall has occurred or when adequate moisture is present in the soil.
All licensed irrigation contractors shall test for correct operation of each rain and/or soil
sensor devise(s) on each property on which the contractor is contracted to perform work. In
the event the rain and/or soil moisture sensor device(s) is not in proper operating condition or
no rain and/or soil moisture sensor device(s) is installed, the contractor must repair the
existing device or install a new device(s) and confirm proper operation of such device(s) prior
to completing any service to the system on the property.

Up to one-half of public water supply in Florida is devoted to landscape irrigation, and automatic
irrigation systems are the “water guzzlers” of urban water use. They are being installed more and
more as a standard feature in many new homes and developments in Florida. Rain and soil
moisture sensors are often improperly installed, and may later be damaged or disabled by the
homeowner. Proper installation and maintenance of rain or soil moisture sensors helps ensure that
irrigation systems do not operate when there is precipitation or when soil moisture is adequate.

Rain or soil moisture sensors are inexpensive. Recent research at the University of Florida has
shown that properly installed and maintained sensors could save very significant amounts of water.
Rain sensors are not as effective in a drought as soil moisture sensors, since there is generally little
rain to trigger them during a drought. Soil moisture sensors automatically shut the irrigation system
off when sufficient water has been applied, which makes them a better drought management tool.

The Legislature would need to make the statutory revision. If the statute is amended, local
governments and water management districts should work together to implement this recommen-
dation. It could also be accomplished by amending the Florida Building Code. Incentives, such as
rebates, should be considered.

20

LI-E: Develop more effective enforcement and education programs to
promote compliance with landscape irrigation restrictions.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low Medium High Medium Medium

The water management districts should encourage local governments and utilities to develop
creative enforcement solutions to promote greater compliance with irrigation restrictions. This
could include rebating fines if the homeowner allows a system audit and complies with the audit
recommendations. It could also involve incentives such as free or low-cost rain or soil moisture
sensors. The goal is to achieve willing compliance through education and technical assistance,
resorting to fines only for willful offenders.

Enforcement of irrigation restrictions through fines can reduce water use, but is unpopular and
costly to implement. A different approach could be to help homeowners comply, rather than fine
them for non-compliance.
A frequent response from homeowners is that they didn’t know they were violating the restrictions
or that they didn’t know their irrigation controller was improperly set. While this may not always
be true, it provides an opportunity to educate the homeowner, adjust their irrigation controller, and
ensure that they have a functioning rain or soil moisture sensor. This alternative approach to
enforcement may be more effective on some homeowners than a fine.

This approach could result in considerable water savings during a drought if non-compliance rates
are high and sufficient resources were applied to address the problem. Enforcement staff would
need training to be able to provide the technical assistance, and there would be additional costs
involved if subsidized rain sensors or other equipment are provided to the homeowner.

The water management districts should encourage local governments and utilities to implement the
recommendation. Potential partners could be Florida Yards and Neighborhoods and county
extension agents. Funding would be necessary.

21

Water Pricing

WP-A: Define minimum requirements for conservation rates and
require their use by utilities in the development of their rate
structures, based on the AWWA Rate Manual and the WateRate
software application.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

The water management districts, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Public Service
Commission, public water suppliers, and other stakeholders should collaboratively develop
minimum statewide requirements, based on the AWWA Rate Manual and the WateRate software
application, that define what a conservation rate structure is. All utility rate structures should be
amended, if necessary, to meet the minimum requirement.

Water management districts often require utilities to implement conservation rate structures in
which the price of water escalates as use goes up. However, there is no statewide minimum
standard and conservation rate structures vary widely from utility to utility. Poorly designed
conservation rates are known to have little or no effect on water use. Appropriately designed and
applied conservation rates have been proven to reduce water use and should be universally imple-
mented even during normal rainfall periods.

Conservation rate structures are cost-effective and can result in significant water savings.

The water management districts have the authority to require utilities to adopt a conservation rate
structure, but cannot fix rates. The utilities have the rate setting authority and are responsible for
implementing specific rates.

22

WP-B: Phase in conservation rate structures statewide within three
years.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

The legislature and the water management districts should require all utilities to phase in effective
conservation rates at least as effective as those recommended in the American Water Works
Association manual, “Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges.” First priority should be on
utilities with more than 5,000 customer connections and those in areas designated as Water
Resource Caution Areas by the water management districts. Although most conservation rate
structures are oriented towards residential usage, it is recommended that all rate classes be subject
to conservation rates appropriate to their rate class.

Reasons for Recommendation
Water conserving rate structures can significantly reduce water use without government expendi-
ture or new regulation, while helping to protect both the quantity and quality of water resources.

The only utility cost is the process of determining an appropriate rate structure. Customers that use
large amounts of water will see higher bills unless they implement measures to reduce their use.
Water savings can be significant and lasting.

Utilities can decide to amend their rate structures on their own initiative, with the approval of the
appropriate rate setting authority. The water management districts can require holders of water use
permits to promote water use efficiency, including requiring conservation rates, but cannot set rates.
Legislative guidance would be helpful in promoting more effective conservation rates. The Florida
Public Service Commission can require conservation rates for utilities that it regulates (less than ten
percent of the total).

23

WP-C: Develop consensus on criteria for adopting drought rates as
part of utility conservation rate structures.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

Utilities, in coordination with the water management districts, should develop consensus on criteria
for adopting drought rate structures appropriate for their service areas that would be implemented
immediately upon declaration of a water shortage by the water management district. The drought
rate could be a surcharge added to the utility’s existing rate structure, or a separate rate structure
automatically implemented during water shortage. Drought rates can be tiered so that they increase
with the severity of the drought. Billing procedures that do not allow a customer to respond to
price, such as bills based on use estimates, should be eliminated.

Reason for the recommendation
Drought rates are intended to achieve a targeted reduction in water use proportionate to the severity
of a drought. They have been used successfully in California and in limited cases in Florida,
including Charlotte County and the City of Englewood. By reducing water consumption they can
help mitigate the environmental and economic impacts of a drought. If designed properly, they
have the added benefit of helping utilities remain financially viable during times of mandatory
usage restrictions.

The only utility cost is the development of the rate structure. Water users will incur increased costs
during drought, with large users seeing the most significant increase.

The desired consensus could be the product of case studies, research investigation, and/or the
development of model rate structures. Drought rates should be implemented by the utilities, with
oversight by the water management districts or the Public Service Commission as applicable.

24

WP-D: Phase in informative billing statewide within three years.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

All utilities with more than 5,000 connections should phase in informative billing within three
years. At a minimum, customers’ bills should include the rate structure, monthly rates, amount of
water used in the current month, amount of water used the previous month, and amount of water
used the same month in the previous year. Information showing the average usage of customers in
the same customer class, seasonal rates and the applicable months, and who to contact for water
conservation information, could be included as well.

Informative billing helps consumers use water efficiently by enabling them to see the relationship
between their water usage and their water bill. This allows them to make informed decisions
regarding steps they can take to reduce their consumption. A bill that helps customers save water
and money is a fundamental requirement of any well-run utility.

Utilities that do not already have informative billing will incur cost, which in some cases could be
significant, to develop an informative billing system. Over time, this cost will be offset by
customer savings and more efficient use of water.

Informative billing would be implemented by utilities at the direction of the appropriate water
management district, local government, or the Public Service Commission. Because most billing
programs and formats are unique for each utility, the details of how to best implement the recom-
mendation should be determined by the individual utilities. Legislative guidance could speed
implementation of informative billing.

25

Indoor Water Use

IU-A: Expand programs to replace inefficient toilets.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

Implement toilet incentive/replacement programs that use only WaterSense labeled high efficiency
toilets (HETs). Though currently not on the shelves, the EPA anticipates having WaterSense
labeled HETs available for distribution to consumers later in 2007. For some funding agencies, this
requirement would take effect only when HETs are readily available to consumers to avoid
hindering program participation.

Reasons for Recommendation
Replacement of older, inefficient toilets is a relatively simple way to permanently reduce indoor
home water use. Improvements in technology and testing methodologies have resulted in highly
efficient toilets that also have a high level of customer satisfaction. The WaterSense label ensures
that the toilet bearing the label performs up to a high standard of performance and efficiency.
While toilet replacement programs have a low impact on drought in the short term, the long-term
effect of using HETs exclusively in Florida should be considerable.

Toilet replacement programs are cost-effective and save considerable amounts of water.

Water management districts should require the use of HETs in the water conservation programs of
the public water supply utilities they regulate. Utilities should consider pooling their resources to
support a bulk purchase program. If a government is conducting a large program they could bulk
purchase those toilets on their own, based on a set of specifications. If a number of governments
were conducting smaller scale programs, those governments could collectively bulk purchase the
toilets.

26

IU-B: Create a water auditor inspection program for the sale of new
and existing homes, supported by a refundable utility service fee.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low Medium High High Low

Local governments should consider requiring a water audit at the time of home sale.

Identifying plumbing leaks and other water inefficiencies is a necessary first step to correcting
them. By requiring an audit at the time of sale, inefficiencies can be identified at a time when the
owner has an incentive to correct them.

The audit program should not represent a significant cost since many utilities already have audit
programs. Water savings would vary from home to home, but would likely be significant in many
cases if the auditor’s recommendations were implemented.

The local government would have to adopt an ordinance requiring it. The utilities would
implement it as part of their conservation program.

27

IU-C: Support the adoption of national standards for more water
efficient clothes washers, dishwashers and plumbing devices.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low Medium High Medium Low

Support national efforts to establish new mandatory water efficiency standards.

National standards and labeling give consumers the ability to select and purchase the most efficient
appliances they can afford. Many consumers will purchase more efficient appliances even at higher
cost if given the knowledge to choose.

Efficient appliances vary in their cost-effectiveness depending upon how much the consumer is
paying for water and energy. The water saving potential is medium in the mid-term.

All water managing agencies, utilities, and local governments should support improved efficiency
standards.

28

Reuse of Reclaimed Water

RW-A: Implement appropriate watering guidelines on reclaimed
water use for those systems with adequate storage.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

Recommendation
The practice of exempting reclaimed water from irrigation restrictions imposed through water
shortage orders during drought should be lifted, to the extent possible, if there is if sufficient
reclaimed water storage.

During the dry season, reuse demand can climb dramatically and, in some cases, be three to four
times the demand experienced during the wet season. Systems have to be designed around the dry
season demand in order to have sufficient reclaimed water for all customers. Designing systems
with this constraint severely limited the ability of utilities to further expand their systems and,
therefore, the utilities had to rely heavily on alternate disposal systems such as surface water
discharges during the wet season. Where available, utilities began to pursue supplemental supplies
for augmentation of the reclaimed water system during the dry season, so that better use of
reclaimed water could be achieved year-round.
This recommendation would continue the general trend in Florida of recognizing the value of
reclaimed water during both normal and drought periods.

There is no cost associated with restricting use of reclaimed water during a declared water shortage,
except the cost, if any, from landscape damage if the water shortage is severe. The water saved
would be significant.

The water management districts should remove from their rules and policies the automatic
exemption for reclaimed water systems irrigating in droughts.

29

RW-B: Encourage utilities that meter reclaimed water customers to
implement volume-based rate structures. When feasible, the utility
should implement inclining block rates or special drought rates during
droughts.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness

Not all reclaimed water systems meter customers, for but those that do, the value of the water
should be reflected appropriately in a volume-based rate. The charge for service should be based
upon the volume that is used by the customer. During droughts, inclining block or drought rates
should be implemented.

When metering of reclaimed water service and a volume-based rate structure is in place, signifi-
cantly less reclaimed water is used. Systems that currently have a flat fee could be encouraged to
adopt volume-based rates through funding assistance for the installation of meters. A condition of
the funding could be the adoption of the rate structure that would reflect the volume of reclaimed
water utilized by the customer.

Most utilities in Florida currently charge a flat monthly fee for reclaimed water service. This is due
to the fact that many systems began implementing reuse at a time when it was important to have use
of reclaimed water be more attractive to the customer than the use of potable water for irrigation, to
encourage growth of the customer base. In addition, there was generally a much greater volume of
reclaimed water available than the customer base could support and overuse was not discouraged.
As a reuse system with this type of rate structure becomes mature, shortages of reclaimed water
become prevalent. The recent drought exacerbated this situation and shortages of reclaimed water
became even more prevalent in mature reuse systems. Observations made in the SWFWMD
indicate that, before efficiency standards were implemented, when a customer switches from
potable water to reclaimed water for irrigation, the volume used for irrigation is often as much as
four times greater than that observed for potable water. Conservation rates, usable only in systems
than meter use, send a powerful price signal to encourage efficient use.

The Department of Environmental Protection, the water management districts, utilities, and the
Public Service Commission all have a role in the implementation of this recommendation.

30

RW-C: Encourage reuse utilities to give priority to reuse activities
that maximize recharge fractions and potable water offsets.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low Medium High High Medium

Especially in times of drought, reuse options that increase aquifer recharge and/or potable water
offsets should be favored over other options.

As noted in the 2002 Water Conservation Initiative report, reuse activities may have differing levels
of desirability based on their anticipated potable quality water offsets and recharge fractions.
Ground water recharge and indirect potable reuse will figure prominently in water resource
management and should be encouraged. Ground water recharge involves the discharge of
reclaimed water into rapid infiltration basins, or after additional treatment, through injection wells
to recharge the underlying ground water resource. Indirect potable reuse involves discharging high-
quality reclaimed water that has received additional treatment into a surface water body that serves
as a potable water source. Both ground water recharge and indirect potable reuse are regarded as
highly desirable forms of reuse resulting from their relatively high recharge fractions

These highly desirable types of reuse are usually cost-effective and produce the biggest amounts of
available water.

The Department of Environmental Protection, the water management districts, utilities, and the
Public Service Commission share responsibility for this with local governments.

31

Institutional-Commercial-Industrial Uses

ICI-A: The water management districts should issue emergency
orders requiring utilities to implement a water audit program for all
ICI customers.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Medium Medium Medium High Medium

When conditions warrant it, the water management districts should issue an Emergency Order
similar to SWFWMD’s Executive Director Order No. SWF 01-14 (March 21, 2001). Article 75.a.i.
of the 2001 Order required municipal utilities in the Tampa Bay Region to implement a water audit
program for non-residential customers and to submit a report to SWFWMD.

The recommendation identifies an existing mechanism the districts can use, if warranted, to find
and correct water use inefficiencies at large water using facilities that are not under direct
permitting control of the districts.

The cost of the audits is not high and potential water savings could be significant. Corrective
actions could range from inexpensive to very costly.

The water management districts would implement the recommendation, as warranted by the
severity of the drought.

32

ICI-B: The water management districts should confirm the existence
and implementation status of conservation plans for all ICI
permittees.

Amount of Ease to
Cost Effectiveness
Low Medium Medium High High

The water management districts should require all permitted ICI users to confirm that they have a
water conservation plan, and report the status of plan implementation within 30 days. For ICI users
whose permits do not contain a requirement for a conservation plan, the water management district
should amend the permit, if permissible under WMD rules, to require one. The WMDs should, if
possible under the terms of the permit, require that older plans be updated to incorporate new Best
Management Practices and improved technologies. Where compliance monitoring is inadequate, it
should be given greater priority, especially during drought.

Industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) water users frequently supply their own water. Often
they are large water users and, therefore, represent an opportunity to significantly reduce water use.
Generally, permittees are required to develop and implement a conservation plan as a condition of
their water use permit, but compliance monitoring and enforcement is sometimes inadequate. A
conservation plan with regular compliance monitoring and enforcement is necessary to ensure that
all appropriate conservation measures are being taken.

A robust conservation program saves water and money. Life-cycle cost effectiveness varies upon
the specific conservation practices employed.

The water management districts should initiate implementation by contacting all ICI permittees
regarding the existence and implementation status of their conservation plans. The districts should
follow-up with recommended improvements, compliance monitoring, and enforcement as needed.

33

Recommendations for a Drought Resistant Florida

For more information, please contact:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Water Policy
2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 46
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
850-245-8677
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/index.htm

Recommendations for a Drought Resistant Florida

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Recommendations for a Drought Resistant Florida (20)

More from Finola87v (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Recommendations for a Drought Resistant Florida