TECHNICAL REPORT Water 2070 Mapping Florida’s Future – Alternative Patterns of Water Use in 2070 A research project prepared for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services & 1000 Friends of Florida Prepared by the Geoplan Center at the University of Florida P. O. Box 115706 Gainesville, Florida 32611-5706 Margaret H. Carr Professor Department of Landscape Architecture Paul D. Zwick, Ph.D Professor Department of Urban and Regional Planning November, 2016
Transcript
TECHNICAL REPORT
Water 2070 Mapping Florida’s Future – Alternative Patterns of Water Use in 2070 A research project prepared for the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services & 1000 Friends of Florida
Prepared by the
Geoplan Center at the University of Florida
P. O. Box 115706 Gainesville, Florida 32611-5706
Margaret H. Carr Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture
Paul D. Zwick, Ph.D Professor
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
November, 2016
2
About the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services supports and promotes Florida agriculture, protects the environment, safeguards consumers, and ensures the safety and wholesomeness of food. Our programs and activities are so varied and extensive, they touch the life of just about every Floridian. www.freshfromflorida.com
About 1000 Friends of Florida The state’s leading not-for-profit smart growth advocacy organization, 1000 Friends of Florida is building better communities and saving special places in one of the fastest growing states in the nation. We promote vibrant, sustainable, walkable, livable communities which provide residents with affordable housing choices and transportation alternatives. We work to protect natural lands that cleanse and store fresh water needed for residents, agriculture and the environment, provide refuge for wildlife, and support abundant recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. Above all, we strive to give citizens a meaningful role in shaping the futures of their communities and state. Founded in 1986, 1000 Friends of Florida is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization. www.1000friendsofflorida.org
About the GeoPlan Center Established in 1984, Geoplan is a multidisciplinary GIS laboratory located in the University of Florida’s School of Landscape Architecture and Planning, College of Design, Construction and Planning. It was developed in response to the need for a teaching and research environment for Geographic Information Systems, or GIS. Under its auspices spatial analysis is conducted in support of a broad range of academic disciplines. www.geoplan.ufl.edu
1. Executive Summary 1 2. Introduction 4 3. A Word on Water Supply 5 4. Water Demand for the 2010 Baseline 6 5. Water Demand for the 2070 Trend Scenario 10 6. Water Demand for the 2070 Alternative Scenario 11 7. Results, Comparisons and Observations 12 8. References 27 9. Appendices
1. Table of projected population by county 2010 – 2070 29 2. GPD Per Capita Water Demand from USGS for Urban 33
Areas by County for Use in 2010 Baseline and 2070 Trend Projections
3. Counties with greater than 1 million freshwater GPD 36 2010 mining and industrial demand (from Marella, R, 2014)
4. Regional Results – Supporting Tables and Figures 37
List of Figures Page
Figure 1. Statewide water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario and 3 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios in gallons per day Figure 2. Urban census block groups in 2010 Baseline, 2070 Trend 7 and 2070 Alternative using the >=2000 people/square mile threshold Figure 3. A comparison of the state development scenarios, with 13 demand mapped in gallons/day/acre. Figure 4. Statewide water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario and 14 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios in gallons per day Figure 5. A comparison of the water demand for the Panhandle Region 15 scenarios mapped in gallons per day per acre Figure 6. A comparison of the water demand for the Northeast Region 16 scenarios mapped in gallons per day per acre Figure 7. A comparison of the water demand for the Central Region 17 scenarios mapped in gallons per day per acre Figure 8. A comparison of the water demand for the South Region 18 scenarios mapped in gallons per day per acre Figure 9. A comparison of total (development plus agriculture) demand 19 for the four regions of the state and the three scenarios in gallons per day Figure 10. A comparison of regional development and agriculture water 20 demand for the four regions of the state and the three scenarios in gallons per day Figure 11. The map at left shows Florida’s protected lands (in dark green) 24 in 2010. The map at right depicts the recommendation of Florida 2070 Alternative, which includes protected lands as of 2010 with the addition of lands included on the Florida Forever Acquisition list and lands identified as Priorities 1 & 2 in the Florida Ecological Greenways Network.
iv
List of Tables Page
Table 1. A comparison of statewide water demand for the 2010 2 Baseline scenario, 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios Table 2. Simplified water budget for Florida 5 Table 3. Urban – Suburban/Rural Population split where urban census 7 block groups were defined as those having a >=2000 people/square mile threshold. Block groups for 2010 Baseline were based on 2010 population distribution. Block groups for the 2070 scenarios were based on the projected population distribution for each. Table 4. Calculation of Weighted Average for SF (Suburban/Rural) 8 and Apt/Condo (Urban) and a ratio between the two Table 5. Alachua County GPD Demand using 2010 USGS GPD/capita 9 Table 6. 2010 Baseline Public Supply for Alachua County using >= 2000 9 threshold to determine Urban Block Groups Table 7. Projected agriculture GPD water demand for three scenarios 11 Table 8. A comparison of statewide water demand for the 2010 Baseline 12 scenario, 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios Table 9. Total demand (development plus agriculture) for the four regions 19 of the state and the three scenarios in gallons per day
v
Acknowledgements
The working team for this project was comprised of representatives of 1000 Friends of Florida, The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), and the University of Florida’s GeoPlan Center. 1000 Friends representatives include Ryan Smart, President, Vivian Young, AICP, Communications Director and Charles Pattison, FAICP, former Policy Director. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) was represented by Corinne Hermle. GeoPlan was represented by Dr. Paul Zwick, and Peggy Carr, Professors in the School of Landscape Architecture and Planning. At the time of this study DACS was under the leadership of Secretary Adam Putnam. Members of 1000 Friends of Florida Board of Directors in place at the time of this study were:
Board of Directors Tim Jackson, Chair
Lester Abberger F. Gregory Barnhart
Robert S. Davis Lee Constantine
Courtney Cunningham James Nicholas Nathaniel Reed
Roy Rogers Earl Starnes
Susan Trevarthen Victoria Tschinkel
Terry Turner Jacob D. Varn
Mark Watts
Funding for this project was provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation.
Generous and critical support was provided for the water demand modeling by University of Florida and USGS colleagues. We particularly acknowledge the careful review of our methodology by Jennison Kipp Searcy, Lynn M. Jarrett, and Pierce Jones, all part of the University of Florida’s Program for Resource Efficient Communities. Their study Envision Alachua: Resource Efficiency, Establishing Water Consumption Baselines for Alachua County, 2014 provided important demand data for Alachua County. Carol Lippincott and Wendy Graham of UF’s Water Institute provided project-shaping suggestions and helped greatly with tracking down water demand data. Richard Marella of the U. S. Geological
vi
Survey also provided critical input and review. His report Florida Water Demand 2010 served as the foundation for our water demand modeling. Thanks also to Scott King, President, Florida Irrigation Society, who reviewed and provided input on irrigation demand reduction strategies.
Water 2070 1
1. Executive Summary
The purpose of Water 2070 is to explore the impact on water demand of alternative future population distribution scenarios that accommodate Florida’s projected 2070 population. The land use scenarios came from the companion study, Florida 2070. Complete results and methodologies are described in the Florida 2070 Technical Report (Carr and Zwick, 2016). Both the Florida 2070 and Water 2070 projects are a joint effort of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1000 Friends of Florida and the University of Florida’s Geoplan Center. Water 2070 is based upon three population scenarios identified in the companion report, Florida 2070:
2010 Baseline – the pattern of land use and associated population distribution
for the year 2010
2070 Trend – the land use pattern most likely to occur if 2070 population
projections are met and counties continue to develop at 2010 gross development
densities. The population increase projected for 2070 uses the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research medium projection of roughly 15 million
additional residents as the basis.
2070 Alternative – the land use pattern that accommodates the projected 2070
population more compactly than in the 2070 Trend and increases protected
lands.32
This report summarizes the methodology used to estimate water demand for these three population distribution scenarios. This methodology distinguishes between per capita rates of consumption in urban areas and suburban/rural areas, with the rates being higher in the latter due to the additional water demands of residential landscape irrigation. This approach was grounded in work done by the University of Florida’s Program for Resource Efficient Communities, Envision Alachua: Resource Efficiency, Establishing Water Consumption Baselines for Alachua County (Taylor et al. 2014). Water 2010 Baseline, as noted, is based on the actual 2010 population distribution as identified in Florida 2070. Water demand for this scenario was derived from the US Geological Survey report prepared by Richard Marella, Water Withdrawal, Use and Trends in Florida, 2010 (2014). A per capita gallons per day (GPD) water demand quantity was derived for each county in the state from the Marella report. This, combined with the 2010 population of each county, provided a total GPD demand. Water 2070 Baseline provides a basis of comparison for water demand projections for the two 2070 population distribution scenarios. Water 2070 Trend is based on the addition of 15 million new residents, assuming 2010 development patterns continue. The water demand projection for this scenario began with the same 2010 per capita GPD county estimates used for the 2010 Baseline, but each county’s quantities were increased to reflect its population increase and the spatial distribution of that population.
Water 2070 2
Water 2070 Alternative is based on accommodating 15 million new residents with more compact development patterns and increased protected lands. The water demand projection for this scenario began with the 2010 per capita GPD county estimates, but these estimates were conservatively reduced to reflect:
A potential reduction in water demand that would result from a more compact
pattern of development, and
Widespread adoption of water conservation measures.
The final county water demand estimates also reflect each county’s population increase and its spatial distribution within each county. The report also incorporates agriculture irrigation demand estimates for all scenarios. These were derived from the Florida Statewide Agriculture Irrigation Demand study (Balmoral Group, 2015), which addressed water demand for crop, livestock and aquaculture for the period from 2015 to 2035. Statewide Water Demand estimates are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1 for the three scenarios, distinguishing between the water demand for development and agricultural irrigation but excluding water demand for mining and power generation. It reveals a substantial increase in total demand for both 2070 scenarios, but the more compact pattern of development and increased water conservation measures incorporated into the modeling assumptions for the Alternative result in an estimated development-related demand savings of roughly 1.7 billion GPD from the Trend. The Alternative scenario has an increase in agricultural irrigation of approximately 536 million GPD over the Trend scenario. This results from the fact that substantial acres of irrigated agricultural land is protected in the Alternative scenario. Table 1. A comparison of statewide water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario, 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios
2010 Baseline 2070 Trend
% Change Baseline - Trend
2070 Alternative
% Change Baseline - Alternative
% Change Trend - Alternative
Development Demand (GPD) 3,139,370,035 6,480,557,237 106% 4,704,530,221 50% -27%
Total 5,269,311,481 8,094,862,839 54% 6,854,783,791 30% -15%
Water 2070 3
Figure 1. Statewide water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario and 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios in gallons per day
As described above, this study only examines two categories of water use on the demand side, water to support development and water to support agriculture, leaving other demand numbers unprojected. Of particular concern, and not within the scope and budget of this project, is the water needed for the health and function of natural systems. Key observations from this study include:
1) Water 2070 Trend reflects that population growth, water use habits and irrigation
will increase development-related demand for freshwater in Florida by as much as 100 percent over the 2010 Baseline.
2) Water 2070 Alternative shows that if more compact development patterns, increased land conservation, and water conservation measures are adopted, there is the potential to decrease total water demand for development from the Trend projections. The 2070 Alternative will have roughly 27% less development-related water demand than the 2070 Trend.
3) Because Water 2070 Alternative has more area classified as urban than does the Water 2070 Trend (due to the more compact development), the per capita development-related demand for the Alternative is less than the Trend.
4) Statewide agriculture irrigation demand in the 2070 Alternative is slightly greater than in the 2010 Baseline because irrigated agricultural lands are protected from development in the Alternative scenario.
5) Total water demand is greatest in the Central Region, followed by the South, Northeast and then the Panhandle in all scenarios. This is correlated with population.
6) Agriculture irrigation demand remains relatively unchanged in the Panhandle and Northeast Regions across all the scenarios, suggesting that projected development will not significantly impact irrigated agricultural lands. The Trend scenario results in a decrease in agriculture demand in the Central and South Regions due to the projected loss of agricultural land.
Water 2070 4
2. Introduction
The purpose of Water 2070 is to explore the impact on water demand of alternative future population distribution scenarios that accommodate Florida’s projected 2070 population. The land use scenarios came from the companion study, Florida 2070. Complete results and methodologies are described in the Florida 2070 Technical Report (Carr and Zwick, 2016). Both the Florida 2070 and Water 2070 projects are a joint effort of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1000 Friends of Florida and the University of Florida’s Geoplan Center. Water Demand Water 2070 is based upon three population scenarios identified in the companion report, Florida 2070:
2010 Baseline – the pattern of land use and associated population distribution
for the year 2010
2070 Trend – the land use pattern most likely to occur if 2070 population
projections are met and counties continue to develop at 2010 gross development
densities. The population increase projected for 2070 uses the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research medium projection of roughly 15 million
additional residents as the basis.
2070 Alternative – the land use pattern that accommodates the projected 2070
population more compactly than in the 2070 Trend and increases protected
lands.
This report summarizes the methodology used to estimate water demand for these three population distribution scenarios. This methodology distinguishes between per capita rates of consumption in urban areas and suburban/rural areas, with the rates being higher in the latter due to the additional water demands of residential landscape irrigation. This approach was grounded in work done by the University of Florida’s Program for Resource Efficient Communities, Envision Alachua: Resource Efficiency, Establishing Water Consumption Baselines for Alachua County (Taylor et al. 2014). Water 2010 Baseline, as noted, is based on the actual 2010 population distribution as identified in Florida 2070. Water demand for this scenario was derived from the US Geological Survey report prepared by Richard Marella, Water Withdrawal, Use and Trends in Florida, 2010 (2014). A per capita gallons per day (GPD) water demand quantity was derived for each county in the state from the Marella report. This, combined with the 2010 population of each county, provided a total GPD demand. Water 2070 Baseline provides a basis of comparison for water demand projections for the two 2070 population distribution scenarios. Water 2070 Trend is based on the addition of 15 million new residents, assuming 2010 development patterns continue. The water demand projection for this scenario began with the same 2010 per capita GPD county estimates used for the 2010 Baseline, but
Water 2070 5
each county’s quantities were increased to reflect its population increase and the spatial distribution of that population. Water 2070 Alternative is based on accommodating 15 million new residents with greater infill and redevelopment in existing communities, more compact patterns for new development, and increased protected lands. The water demand projection for this scenario began with the 2010 per capita GPD county estimates, but these estimates were conservatively reduced to reflect:
A potential reduction in water demand that would result from a more compact
pattern of development, and
Widespread adoption of water conservation measures.
The final county water demand estimates also reflect each county’s population increase and its spatial distribution within each county. The report also incorporates agriculture water demand estimates for agricultural irrigation for all scenarios. These were derived from the Florida Statewide Agriculture Irrigation Demand study (Balmoral Group, 2015), which study addressed water demand for crop, livestock and aquaculture for the period from 2015 to 2035. The mapping and modeling undertaken in this study primarily used a 30 meter x 30 meter (approximately ¼ acre) grid or cells. Data from the Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL) was used extensively.
3. A Word on Water Supply Modelling water supply is an extremely complex endeavor well beyond the scope and budget of this study. If one assumes water mining (taking more water from groundwater sources than is replenished) is unsustainable and that the environmental and financial costs of desalinization are too great to employ, then Florida must live off a water budget based on annual rainfall. However, as total annual rainfall is not a constant amount, water storage for the years of below normal annual rainfall should also be factored in. A gross simplification of that budget is in Table 2. Table 2. Simplified water budget for Florida
Supply Demand
Average annual rainfall
Annual water for development Annual water for agriculture
Annual water for mining Annual water for power generation Annual water for natural systems (including evapotranspiration and
freshwater flows into estuarine and marine environments)
Water 2070 6
As described above, this study tackles two estimates on the demand side, water to support development and water to support agriculture, leaving many additional demand numbers unprojected. Of particular concern, and not within the scope and budget of this project, is the annual water needed for the health and function of natural systems.
4. Water Demand for the 2010 Baseline Per Capita Demand – This was based on estimates of per capita water demand for each county from USGS data found in Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends in Florida, 2010, Report 2014-5088 (see Appendix 2):
1. The 2010 USGS estimate of recreational landscape irrigation per county was
divided by the 2010 county population resulting in a per capita recreational
landscape irrigation value (e.g., 6 GPD/capita for Alachua County).
2. The 2010 USGS Public Supply Gross GPD Per Capita. (e.g., 129 GPD/capita for
Alachua County). The public supply per capita includes water delivered to all
other users, e.g., commercial and industrial users, as well as system losses.
3. Because the water demand for mining skewed the results significantly, it was not
included in these calculations. And for the 2070 scenarios it is unclear whether
water for mining will still be in as high a demand and in the same counties.
Appendix 3 includes a list of those counties with 2010 mining demand taken
directly from the USGS report.
4. Freshwater used in power generation was not included in the per capita demand
calculations. As much as 98% of the freshwater used is returned to its source,
so little water is lost to other potential uses. (Marella, personal communication
7/2016)
Agricultural water demand – Estimates were based on the Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services’ Florida Statewide Agricultural Irrigation Demand (FSAID)
study. In this study the Balmoral group estimated irrigation demand for 2015
agricultural lands in three categories, crop, livestock and aquaculture lands. The
volumes for each census block group and each county were summed to give 2010
estimated agriculture demand in GPD.
Urban and Suburban/Rural Demand Differential - The Taylor et al 2014 Envision
Alachua study suggests that a distinction should be drawn between water demand in
urban areas and suburban/rural areas. This was achieved by first identifying urban and
suburban/rural census block groups. After evaluation of multiple block group values,
those with >=2000 people/square mile were determined to be urban, while those with
less than 2000 people/square mile were identified as suburban/rural. Table 3 shows the
breakdown of the population totals and percentages in each category for the three
scenarios. And Figure 2 maps the urban census block groups for the 2010 Baseline.
Water 2070 7
Table 3. Urban – Suburban/Rural Population split where urban census block groups were defined as those having a >=2000 people/square mile threshold. Block groups for 2010 Baseline were based on 2010 population distribution. Block groups for the 2070 scenarios were based on the projected population distribution for each.
Category 2010 Baseline
% 2070 Trend % 2070 Alternative
%
Urban > = 2000/Sq. Mile
11,792,893 63% 17,424,661 52% 20,068,561 59%
Suburban/Rural < 2000/Sq. Mile
6,983,656 37% 16,360,650 48% 13,701,258 41%
Total Population 18,776,549 33,785,311* 33,769,819*
*Population totals vary slightly due to the coarseness of GIS modeling. Figure 2. Urban census block groups in 2010 Baseline, 2070 Trend and 2070
Alternative using the >=2000 people/square mile threshold.
BASELINE
TREND
Water 2070 8
ALTERNATIVE
Calibration of Statewide Factors to distinguish between urban and suburban/rural
water demand - The second step was to use Alachua county data from Taylor et al. to
calibrate statewide factors that could subsequently be used to modify the per capita
GPD figures for each county. Determining these factors was based on the following
assumptions:
Water demand from Taylor et al. for single family units with irrigation plus single
family units without irrigation is roughly equivalent to water demand generated in
suburban/rural census block groups, and
Water demand from Taylor et al. for apartments plus condos is roughly
equivalent to water demand generated in urban census block groups.
Table 1 (page 15) from Taylor et al. was used to derive a weighted average GPD for
Single Family and for Apartment/Condos and then a ratio between those two weighted
averages was calculated. The suburban/rural – urban ratio that resulted is 2.26 to 1
(Table 4).
Table 4. Calculation of Weighted Average for SF (Suburban/Rural) and Apt/Condo (Urban) and a ratio between the two
SFD Homes Apts. + Condos
Weighted Average GPD: 308 109
Weighted Average GPD per person (GPD/person)* 123 55
Ratio 2.26 1 *From Taylor et al., Table 1, page 15; GPPD numbers derived assuming 2.5 people/household in SFD homes and 2.0 people/household in apartments and condos.
Next, factors that could be applied to each county’s per capita GPD demand for the two block group classifications were tested, maintaining the 2.26:1 ratio. Factors of 1.4:0.6 suburban/rural to urban proved to be most appropriate. This was determined by using data for Alachua County from Taylor et al. as described below.
Water 2070 9
Calculations for Alachua County - Alachua County public supply water demand
calculated for 2010 in the USGS study served as the starting point (Table 5). This
number was calculated based on a 129 GPD per capita demand regardless of the
population distribution between urban and suburban/rural block groups. It is the total
GPD demand of 31,906,344 that must be matched when dividing the county block
groups into urban and suburban/rural, multiplying each block group each class by a
GPD value and summing the two.
Table 5. Alachua County GPD Demand using 2010 USGS GPD/capita
USGS Avg. GPD/capita for Alachua County
Alachua County 2010 Population
Estimated 2010 GPD Demand for Alachua County
Public Supply 129 247,336 31,906,344
Table 6 uses the > = 2000 people/square mile threshold to divide the county block groups into urban and suburban/rural, the USGS 2010 average public supply GPD/capita and the factors of 0.6 (urban) and 1.4 (suburban/rural) to generate a total 2010 GPD demand. Given the result is roughly equivalent to that estimated for the county by USGS without distinguishing between per capita demand for urban and suburban/rural census block groups, it was determined the factors of 0.6 and 1.4 could reasonably be applied to urban and suburban/rural per capita GPD demand rates for all counties. Table 6. 2010 Baseline Public Supply for Alachua County using >= 2000 threshold to determine Urban Block Groups
Population USGS Avg. GPD/capita Factor Total GPD
Urban Block Groups 127,750 129 0.60 9,887,850
Suburban/Rural Block Groups 119,586 129 1.40 21,597,232
Totals 247,336
31,485,082
Calculations for Block Groups - Using the > = 2000 people/square mile threshold, the 1.4 factor for suburban/rural census block groups, and the 0.6 factor for urban census block groups, demand estimates were generated as follows:
1. Calculate the population of each suburban/rural and urban block group for each
county
2. Multiply each county’s suburban/rural block group populations by the 1.4 factor
and then by the USGS county average per capita public supply GPD
3. Multiply each suburban/rural block group population by the recreation landscape
average GPD/capita, to yield recreation landscape demand.
4. Sum these two totals for each suburban/rural block group to yield development
demand.
5. Repeat steps 2 – 4 for urban block groups, using the .6 factor.
Water 2070 10
6. The sum for each block group (public supply + recreation demand) equals total
development demand.
7. Agricultural demand as described above is added to the development total for
each block group.
Calculations for Counties – Census block group totals for each county were summed
to arrive at county demand for development, agriculture and both combined.
Mapping - To map the 2010 Baseline results, the GPD development demand and the
GPD agriculture demand for each census block groups were summed. Given that each
block group has a different area, the total block group daily demand was divided by the
acres of each block group, yielding gallons/day/acre (GPDA). These are the values
represented in the Baseline map series. A geometric scale was used in mapping
because of the large range of high and low GPDA values.
5. Water Demand for the 2070 Trend Scenario
Agricultural water demand – Estimates of 2070 demand were based on the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Florida Statewide Agricultural
Irrigation Demand (FSAID) study. The study’s 2035 GPD demand projections (the
latest projected in the study) and associated spatial extent of agriculture lands served
as the starting point. However, because the Trend scenario allowed any agricultural
land (irrigated or not) to become developed if needed to accommodate the projected 15
million population increase, the total acres of agricultural land in the Trend scenario was
roughly 2 million less than in the 2010 Baseline. This results in lower statewide GPD
demand for agriculture in the 2070 Trend than in the 2010 Baseline with the same trend
occurring in many census block groups and counties.
Per capita demand for Block Groups - Exactly the same methodology and values
were used to estimate development-related demand for the 2070 Trend as for the 2010
Baseline. This was done to demonstrate how demand would increase as a function of
population growth while maintaining the status quo patterns of development and rates of
water consumption.
Calculations for Counties – Census block group totals for each county were summed
to arrive at county demand for development, agriculture and both combined.
Mapping - To map the 2070 Trend results, the GPD development demand and the
GPD agriculture demand for each census block group were summed. Given that each
block group has a different area, the total block group daily demand was divided by the
acres of each block group, yielding gallons/day/acre (GPDA). These are the values
represented in the Trend map series. The same geometric scale was used for mapping
the Trend as for the Baseline.
Water 2070 11
6. Water Demand for the 2070 Alternative Scenario Agricultural water demand – Estimates of 2070 demand were based on the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Florida Statewide Agricultural
Irrigation Demand (FSAID) study. The study’s 2035 GPD demand projections (the
latest projected in the study) and associated spatial extent of agriculture lands served
as the starting point. One of the key modeling assumptions distinguishing the
Alternative scenario from the Trend scenario was the protection from development of all
irrigated agriculture lands. This resulted in approximately 1.3 million more agriculture
acres in the Alternative than in the Trend. So not surprising, the GPD agriculture
demand is greater in the 2070 Alternative than in the 2070 Trend (Table 7). It is also
greater than the Baseline. This is attributable to the fact that in the FSAID study greater
irrigated agricultural demand was projected for 2035 than existed in 2015.
31. Projected agriculture GPD water demand for three scenarios
2010 Baseline 2070 Trend 2070 Alternative
Agriculture Demand (GPD)
2,129,941,436
1,614,305,600
2,150,253,570
Calculations for Block Groups – To project development demand for each block group in the Alternative scenario, it was assumed that per capita GPD demand for each county was reduced by 20%. In Taylor et al., they predict the savings from water conservation might be as great as 40%, but a more conservation 20% was used in this study. Otherwise, the same > = 2000 people/square mile threshold, the 1.4 factor for suburban/rural census block groups, and the 0.6 factor for urban census block groups, were used to estimate demand as follows:
1. Calculate the population of each suburban/rural and urban block group for each
county
2. Multiply each county’s suburban/rural block group populations by the 1.4 factor
and then by the USGS county average per capita public supply GPD reduced by
20%
3. Multiply each suburban/rural block group population by the recreation landscape
average GPD/capita, to yield recreation landscape demand.
4. Sum these two totals for each suburban/rural block group to yield development
demand.
5. Repeat steps 2 – 4 for urban block groups, using the .6 factor.
6. The sum for each block group (public supply + recreation demand) equal total
development demand.
7. Agricultural demand as described above is added to the development total for
each block group.
Calculations for Counties – Census block group totals for each county were summed
to arrive at county demand for development, agriculture and both combined.
Water 2070 12
Mapping - To map the 2070 Alternative results, the GPD development demand and the
GPD agriculture demand for each census block group were summed. Given that each
block group has a different area, the total block group daily demand was divided by the
acres of each block group, yielding gallons/day/acre (GPDA). These are the values
represented in the Trend map series. The same geometric scale was used for mapping
the Alternative as for the Trend and the Baseline.
7. Results, Comparisons, and Observations State and regional water demand for the 2010 Baseline, 2070 Trend and 2070 Alternative are mapped using gallons per day per acre (GPDA) per census block group. The visual comparison of these maps reveals significant differences among the three scenarios and among the four regions of the State. Supporting tables and graphs assist with comparing the three scenarios and are particularly useful for comparing 2070 Trend with 2070 Alternative.
STATEWIDE RESULTS
From the maps and comparative data below it is clear that the 2070 Alternative scenario accommodates the projected population increase with significantly lower water demand for development, and results in greater water demand for agriculture than 2070 Trend (Table 8). The development savings can be attributed to two factors:
1. Its more compact development pattern (i.e., more of the future population are in
urban block groups than in suburban/rural block groups) which creates less water
demand than a more sprawling development pattern, and
2. The reduction in per capita demand rates assumed for this scenario. The
increased agricultural demand resulted from the protection from development
that was afforded irrigated agriculture lands identified in the FSAID study (The
Balmoral Group, 2015).
Table 8. A comparison of statewide water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario, 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios
2010 Baseline 2070 Trend
% Change Baseline - Trend
2070 Alternative
% Change Baseline - Alternative
% Change Trend - Alternative
Development Demand (GPD) 3,139,370,035 6,480,557,237 106% 4,704,530,221 50% -27%
Total 5,269,311,481 8,094,862,839 54% 6,854,783,791 30% -15%
Water 2070 13
Figure 3. A comparison of the state development scenarios, with demand mapped in gallons/day/acre.
Water 2070 14
Figure 4. Statewide water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario and 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios in gallons per day
REGIONAL RESULTS
Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8 contain three scenario maps of the total water demand (development and agriculture) for each of the four regions of the state. Total demand is mapped in gallons per day per acre for each census block group.
Water 2070 15
Figure 5. A comparison of the water demand for the Panhandle Region scenarios mapped in gallons per day per acre.
Water 2070 16
Figure 6. A comparison of the water demand for the Northeast Region scenarios mapped in gallons per day per acre.
Water 2070 17
Figure 7. A comparison of the water demand for the Central Region scenarios mapped in gallons per day per acre.
Water 2070 18
Figure 8. A comparison of the water demand for the South Region scenarios mapped in gallons per day per acre.
Water 2070 19
Figures 9 and 10 and Table 9 provide comparative results for the 4 regions of the state for each scenario. More detailed results for each region, including county demand totals are provided in Appendix 4. All four regions demonstrate a similar pattern for total demand (development plus agriculture) among the three scenarios (Figure 9 and Table 9), with the 2010 Baseline having the lowest total water demand, and the Alternative having the lowest demand of the two 2070 scenarios. It is also clear that the counties grouped in the Panhandle have the lowest total demand, followed by the Northeast Region. The Central Region has the greatest total demand in all scenarios. Figure 9. A comparison of total (development plus agriculture) demand for the four regions of the state and the three scenarios in gallons per day.
Table 9. Total demand (development plus agriculture) for the four regions of the state and the three scenarios in gallons per day.
BASELINE TREND ALTERNATIVE
PANHANDLE 404,082,159 651,241,141 516,383,928
NE REGION 655,354,495 1,231,911,829 972,862,097
C REGION 2,101,627,664 3,262,758,689 2,791,869,395
S REGION 2,108,247,153 2,948,951,178 2,573,668,371
Figure 10 shows the development and agriculture demand for each region, revealing a more complex pattern. In the Panhandle and Northeast Regions, development-related demand in all three scenarios is significantly greater than the agriculture demand, and the agriculture demand is relatively flat for all scenarios. This suggests that the irrigated agriculture lands in these regions are not likely to be significantly impacted by projected development.
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
PANHANDLE NE REGION C REGION S REGION
BASELINE TREND ALTERNATIVE
Water 2070 20
However, the results for the Central and South Regions differ. In the Central Region, the Trend development-related demand is roughly double the Baseline development demand and even the Alternative development demand is projected to exceed 2 billion GPD. These high development demand projections reflect that the Central Region has the highest projected population increase of all the regions. Because of this, agricultural lands will be lost to development in both 2070 scenarios. This results in lower agriculture irrigation demand in the Central Florida Region in both 2070 scenarios. The South Region Baseline scenario has a higher agriculture demand than development demand. It is the only region and scenario in which this occurs. This is attributable to the large acreage in the region currently under irrigation including portions of the Everglades Agricultural Area and the nurseries in south Miami-Dade County. In the 2070 scenarios, the development demand outstrips the agriculture demand, but agriculture demand in the Alternative scenario is projected to be greater than for the 2010 Baseline. This results because additional irrigated agricultural lands were projected to be added in the South Region by 2035 in the FSAID study (The Balmoral Group, 2015). Figure 10. A comparison of regional development and agriculture water demand for the four regions of the state and the three scenarios in gallons per day
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
PANHANDLE NE REGION C REGION S REGION
BASELINE Development BASELINE Agriculture
TREND Development TREND Agriculture
ALTERNATIVE Development ALTERNATIVE Agriculture
Water 2070 21
OBSERVATIONS One of the biggest issues facing Florida today is the availability of sufficient water to meet the needs of people, agriculture and the environment. Diminishing water supply and declining quality combined with a growing population make the historic competition between users even more intense. In poll after poll, protection of drinking water consistently ranks as a top environmental concern for the public. Clean and abundant water also is needed to ensure that Florida’s multi-billion dollar agriculture and tourism industries—the two mainstays of this state’s economy—remain strong and viable over the long term. Water 2070 reveals both challenges and opportunities for managing water demand in the future:
1) Water 2070 Trend reflects that population growth, water use habits and irrigation will increase development-related demand for freshwater in Florida by as much as 100 percent over the 2010 Baseline.
2) Water 2070 Alternative shows that if more compact development patterns, increased land conservation, and water conservation measures are adopted, there is the potential to decrease total water demand for development from the Trend projections. The 2070 Alternative will have roughly 27% less development-related water demand than the 2070 Trend.
3) Because Water 2070 Alternative has more area classified as urban than does the Water 2070 Trend (due to the more compact development), the per capita development-related demand for the Alternative is less than the Trend.
4) Statewide agriculture irrigation demand in the 2070 Alternative is slightly greater than in the 2010 Baseline because irrigated agricultural lands are protected from development in the Alternative scenario.
5) Total water demand is greatest in the Central Region, followed by the South, Northeast and then the Panhandle in all scenarios. This is correlated with population.
6) Agriculture irrigation demand remains relatively unchanged in the Panhandle and Northeast Regions across all the scenarios, suggesting that projected development will not significantly impact irrigated agricultural lands. The Trend scenario results in a decrease in agriculture demand in the Central and South Regions due to the projected loss of agricultural land.
The results of this study and findings in the Florida Conservation Coalition’s Water Conservation White Paper (March 11, 2014), indicate there are two basic options: 1) to increase supply (through alternative water supply such as reclaiming water and desalinization plants) or 2) to reduce demand (through water conservation and increased efficiency). While desalinization is a multi-billion dollar proposition that raises serious environmental concerns, the other options – water conservation, increased efficiency, and reclaiming water – all provide significant and cost-effective results. As Florida’s 2070 population grows by another 15 million residents, what can realistically be done to reduce water demand and increase water supply to ensure sufficient water exists for people, farming and nature?
Water 2070 22
Reduce Water Demand Water 2070 Alternative shows that the combination of a modest reduction of 20% in per capita rate of water consumption along with more compact development patterns and increased conservation lands as outlined in Florida 2070 reduces statewide development-related water demand by 27% when compared to the Water 2070 Trend. Several studies indicate that reducing the use of and increasing the efficiency of automated irrigation systems would result in a significant reduction in development-related water demand in Florida. According to the University of Florida IFAS Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Program (Landscaping Principles cards at http://www.floridayards.org/landscape/FFY-TipCards.pdf), at least 50% of water used by households is used outdoors for landscape irrigation. The Taylor et al. report, Establishing Water Consumption Baselines for Alachua County (2014) reports that Alachua County single family homes that have an automated irrigation system (indicated either by a sprinkler system or irrigation meter) consumed an average of 358 gallons of water per day (GPD), while those without such a system consumed an average of 190 GPD, a 47% reduction. Another study by the same group, Reduced Impact Development Practices at ‘Restoration’ (Jones et al. 2009) reveals that installing soil moisture sensors which override timer-based controls on irrigation systems can reduce the amount of water used for landscape irrigation by more than 50%.
Thus, the single most effective strategy to reduce water demand in Florida is to significantly reduce the amount of water used for landscape irrigation.
Not only does this conserve water, but it also will result in savings to homeowners through reduced water bills. Additionally, if enough people conserve water, community costs associated with supplying water and addressing sewage and stormwater can be significantly reduced, resulting in tax savings. Two statewide initiatives already exist to promote significant reductions in water demand in Florida:
Florida Water Star (www.floridawaterstar.com) is this state’s water conservation certification program for new and existing homes and commercial developments and addresses both outdoor and indoor water conservation. Initially established by the St. Johns River Water Management District in 2006, it became a statewide initiative in 2012.
Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ (www.ffl.ifas.ufl.edu/), a joint program of the University of Florida’s IFAS Extension and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, provides residents, developers and landscaping professionals with water conservation and other strategies to better protect Florida’s environment.
But much more needs to be done to expand awareness of and participation in these programs. Efforts to reduce residential water demand in particular should also focus on reaching Homeowner Associations and landscape professionals who often promote irrigated landscapes. Providing meaningful incentives to increase participation in the above programs is essential. An example of a successful incentive program is the South Florida Water Management District’s Water Savings Incentive Program (Water Sip) which funds such conservation measures as rain and soil moisture sensors, water conserving appliances, rain barrels and the like. In another example, the City of Clermont requires that all new homes be dual metered for potable water, with one meter for inside use and one for outdoor use. Homeowners are given a “budget” for outdoor use, with disincentives for those who exceed that budget. Some states require water efficiency standards be met through their state building codes resulting in uniform standards statewide. For example, Georgia and North Carolina require the use of Water Sense-labeled products in new development. In Florida, Appendix F of the State Building Code recommends that irrigation systems be installed to meet certain efficiency standards, but it is not required. Additionally, Chapter 373.62 in the Florida Statutes requires “any person who purchases and installs an automatic sprinkler system after May 1, 1991, shall install a rain sensor device or switch which will override the irrigation cycle of the sprinkler system when adequate rainfall has occurred.” Some counties have melded requirements and incentives to increase water efficiency. In 2015, Alachua County adopted a new landscape irrigation efficiency code for unincorporated areas. Among other things it requires all new irrigation systems installed after April 1, 2016 be approved by the County and inspected. Professionals installing or maintaining irrigation systems within the county must register their business. County inspection fees on newly installed systems are waived for irrigation professionals who are certified to inspect their own work or who hire a Florida Water Star Certifier for the inspection. Certain county fees also are waived for new construction that achieves Florida Water Star Certification resulting in savings in both initial construction costs and long-term water bills. In the Orlando area, the Toho Water Authority has mandated compliance with Florida Water Star standards as a condition of service for all new residential construction, and preliminary results are showing considerable water bill savings for homeowners. As shown in the Water 2070 Alternative, significant water savings result from more compact development patterns. Establishing Water Consumption Baselines for Alachua County (Taylor et al. 2014) shows that on average, apartments and condominiums represent 41% of the total residential sample but use only 20% of the water, showing significant water savings associated with increased density. Not only does more compact development help with reducing water demand, there are also economic benefits for the community and developer alike. Reduced Impact Development Practices at ‘Restoration,’ (Jones et al. 2009) notes that the redesign of the 3500-acre Volusia county development, Restoration, from typical sprawl to compact development would result in a net savings to the developer of $14 million through
Water 2070 24
eliminating the golf course, reducing earthwork by using low impact development strategies, and reducing roadways that results in reduced stormwater infrastructure. Finally, a brief note on water budgeting is in order. With the increased pressure brought by an additional 15 million residents by 2070, it becomes more important to monitor the amount of groundwater used by major permitted water users and require them to submit goal-based water conservation plans as part of the permit approval process. Increase Water Supply The above strategies all relate to reducing water demand which remains the most cost-effective approach. With regard to increasing water supply in Florida, viable options are available. Some communities have already implemented innovative water reclamation efforts geared to irrigation. As one example, the City of Pompano Beach constructed the OASIS water reuse plant to treat wastewater to higher standards, and is incentivizing single-family residential connections to the plant to use this reduced cost, reclaimed water for outdoor irrigation. Another example can be found on the campus of the University of Florida where all water for irrigation comes from reclaimed water. A Few Words on Protected Lands It is important to understand the value of protected lands in this whole equation. Florida 2070 Alternative calls for the additional protection of lands on the Florida Forever Acquisition list and lands identified as Priorities 1 & 2 in the Florida Ecological Greenways Network. Figure 11. The map at left shows Florida’s protected lands (in dark green) in 2010. The map at right depicts the recommendation of Florida 2070 Alternative, which includes protected lands as of 2010 with the addition of lands included on the Florida Forever Acquisition list and lands identified as Priorities 1 & 2 in the Florida Ecological Greenways Network.
Water 2070 25
These protected lands provide boundless recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike, and shelter and sustain Florida’s flora and fauna. They also are essential to recharge Florida’s aquifer – the source of much of the state’s water supply – and to cleanse our drinking water. While not within the scope of this study, the value of natural lands in the protection of Florida’s water supply should not be underestimated.
RECOMMENDATIONS How do we move this discussion from the theoretical to what steps actually should be taken? Below are a series of recommendations to more effectively manage Florida’s water supply for the benefit of residents, agriculture and the environment alike: Expand Public Water Conservation Efforts
Increase funding and outreach for the Florida Water Star and Florida-Friendly
Landscaping™ programs to promote greater water conservation in new and
or comparable water conservation technology for all new development
Require permitted water users to monitor the amount of groundwater used
Partner with developers and local governments to establish conservation goals,
water budgets and water use monitoring strategies prior to the approval of new
development
Update the Florida Building Code to require indoor and outdoor water efficiency
standards for new construction and major remodeling
Adopt registration and training standards for irrigation professionals
Establish conservation rate structures that incentivize lower levels of water
consumption
Construct and incentivize the use of reclaimed water facilities
Reduce Personal Water Use
Use Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ and other measures to reduce or eliminate
landscaping water use, and seek formal Florida-Friendly Landscaping™
recognition
Lessen the need for irrigation by using the right plants in the right locations,
grouping them according to water needs, and using rain barrels or cisterns to
capture rainwater for irrigation
Reduce stormwater runoff through mulching plant beds, using porous surfaces
for patios, walkways and driveways, and creating swales or low areas to hold and
filter water on your property
If an automated irrigation system is used, ensure that it is designed and operated
to meet strict water conservation criteria including drip systems, soil moisture
sensors, automatic rain shutoff sensors and/or other technology to significantly
reduce water use
Water 2070 26
Make sure the irrigation system is calibrated correctly and check it regularly for
breaks and head alignment
Do not water if it has rained in the last 24 hours or if rain is forecast in the next 24
hours
Select Florida Water Star certified properties when purchasing a new home, and
follow Water Star guidelines when remodeling an existing home
Use Water-Sense labeled high-efficiency appliances to significantly reduce
indoor water consumption
As Florida’s population continues to grow, less water will be available for per capita human use. Now is the time to move forward on serious water conservation efforts before it is too costly, or too late. Not only is water conservation the smart thing to do, but it can result in significant savings on Floridians’ water bills and taxes. Water conservation helps to protect Florida’s rivers, lakes and aquifer – and the people, wildlife and farms that depend on them now and in the future.
Water 2070 27
8. References 1. Carr, M. and P. D. Zwick, Florida 2070 Technical Report, 2016, Prepared for
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and 1000 Friends of Florida.
2. Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida Estimates of
Population 2015, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, 2015. https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/Research%20Reports/estimates_2015.pdf
3. Florida Conservation Coalition, Water Conservation White Paper, March 11, 2014.
4. Florida Geographic Data Library. Since 1998, the GeoPlan Center has housed and maintained the Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL), an online statewide clearinghouse of geospatial data. The FGDL contains over 400 geospatial layers from 35 different local, state, federal and private agencies. www.geoplan.ufl.edu
5. Marella, Richard L., Water Withdrawal, Use and Trends in Florida, 2010 US
Geological Services, Department of the Interior, Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5088, 2014.
6. Taylor, Nick and J.K. Searcy, L. Jerome and P. Jones, Envision Alachua:
Resource Efficiency, Establishing Water Consumption Baselines for Alachua County, Prepared for Plum Creek by Program for Resource Efficient Communities, University of Florida, 2014.
Prepared for Office of Agricultural Water Policy, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Agricultural-Water-Policy/Agricultural-Water-Supply-Planning
8. US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov 9. Jones, Pierce H., Barbra C. Lawson and Mark W. Clark, University of Florida
Program for Resource Efficient Communities, University of Florida, Reduced
Impact Development Practices at ‘Restoration,’ 2009: American Institute of
Physics.
10. Zwick, P.D., and M. Carr, Florida 2060, a population distribution scenario for the State of Florida, 2006, Prepared for 1000 Friends of Florida.
*USGS - Water Withdrawals Use and Trends in Florida, 2010, page 18 – 19, Table 4. Public-supply population, water use, withdrawals, transfers, and treated water in Florida by county, 2010. Data used: gross per capita water demand ^^USGS - Water Withdrawals Use and Trends in Florida, 2010 page 36 - 37, Table 9. Recreational-landscape irrigation water withdrawals in Florida by county, 2010. Data used were total freshwater for each county.
Water 2070 36
Appendix 3. Counties with greater than 1 million freshwater GPD 2010 mining and industrial demand (from Marella, R, 2014)
County USGS 2010 Mining and
Industrial GPD Bradford 1,300,000 Brevard 6,000,000 Broward 1,480,000 Collier 1,980,000 Duval 16,580,000 Escambia 54,310,000 Glades 7,280,000 Hamilton 25,820,000 Hardee 1,720,000 Hernando 7,540,000 Hillsborough 11,730,000 Jackson 1,510,000 Lake 5,390,000 Lee 8,860,000 Manatee 3,670,000 Marion 6,620,000 Miami-Dade 33,370,000 Nassau 31,780,000 Okaloosa 2,290,000 Orange 19,710,000 Palm Beach 3,670,000 Polk 43,030,000 Putnam 24,930,000 St. Johns 1,040,000 Santa Rosa 1,220,000 Suwannee 1,780,000 Taylor 39,510,000 Volusia 1,550,000 Wakulla 1,120,000
Florida 2070 - LAND 37
Appendix 4. Regional Results – Supporting Tables and Figures
PANHANDLE REGION RESULTS Panhandle Region water demand in gallons per day for the 2010 Baseline scenario, 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios
BASELINE
Development Agriculture Total
BAY 66,462,838 1,190,695 67,653,533
CALHOUN 4,095,000 2,437,714 6,532,714
ESCAMBIA 54,010,362 2,455,047 56,465,409
FRANKLIN 4,122,993 0 4,122,993
GADSDEN 12,525,030 5,053,481 17,578,511
GULF 3,845,604 139,162 3,984,766
HOLMES 6,615,764 1,360,506 7,976,270
JACKSON 13,879,134 23,234,854 37,113,988
JEFFERSON 4,664,476 4,938,548 9,603,024
LEON 47,238,492 668,740 47,907,232
LIBERTY 2,283,645 24,538 2,308,183
MADISON 6,632,280 14,353,497 20,985,777
OKALOOSA 30,303,504 926,683 31,230,187
SANTAROSA 39,264,176 3,420,387 42,684,563
TAYLOR 6,848,792 366,711 7,215,503
WAKULLA 10,802,376 194,114 10,996,490
WALTON 21,631,899 1,032,292 22,664,191
WASHINGTON 6,199,104 859,721 7,058,825
TOTAL 341,425,469 62,656,690 404,082,159
TREND
Development Agriculture Total
BAY 110,658,151 46,800 110,704,951
CALHOUN 5,269,320 716,145 5,985,465
ESCAMBIA 66,313,994 5,046,777 71,360,771
FRANKLIN 4,281,144 59,002 4,340,146
GADSDEN 15,604,380 3,786,158 19,390,538
GULF 4,406,136 0 4,406,136
HOLMES 7,882,012 773,958 8,655,970
JACKSON 28,248,564 27,446,472 55,695,036
JEFFERSON 5,425,404 6,104,477 11,529,881
LEON 80,106,012 2,647,373 82,753,385
LIBERTY 3,800,433 138,218 3,938,651
MADISON 7,186,005 21,300,249 28,486,254
OKALOOSA 52,641,336 87 52,641,423
SANTAROSA 83,736,516 10,500,134 94,236,650
Florida 2070 - LAND 38
TAYLOR 8,832,792 1,063,446 9,896,238
WAKULLA 19,227,429 315,917 19,543,346
WALTON 56,573,529 509,696 57,083,225
WASHINGTON 8,664,951 1,928,124 10,593,075
TOTAL 568,858,108 82,383,033 651,241,141
ALTERNATIVE
Development Agriculture Total
BAY 86,479,450 46,800 86,526,250
CALHOUN 4,200,750 716,145 4,916,895
ESCAMBIA 52,150,106 5,075,151 57,225,257
FRANKLIN 3,618,645 59,002 3,677,647
GADSDEN 12,504,024 3,792,929 16,296,953
GULF 3,911,460 0 3,911,460
HOLMES 6,243,552 773,958 7,017,510
JACKSON 11,241,440 27,446,472 38,687,912
JEFFERSON 4,526,026 6,111,401 10,637,427
LEON 60,954,791 3,338,294 64,293,085
LIBERTY 3,034,902 138,751 3,173,653
MADISON 5,698,296 21,300,684 26,998,980
OKALOOSA 39,623,822 87 39,623,909
SANTAROSA 64,601,925 10,613,081 75,215,006
TAYLOR 7,038,898 1,063,177 8,102,075
WAKULLA 15,305,080 325,075 15,630,155
WALTON 45,156,825 415,919 45,572,744
WASHINGTON 6,948,200 1,928,809 8,877,009
433,238,192 83,145,736 516,383,928
Panhandle Region water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario and 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios in gallons per day
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
BA
Y
CA
LHO
UN
ESC
AM
BIA
FRA
NK
LIN
GA
DSD
EN
GU
LF
HO
LMES
JAC
KSO
N
JEFF
ERSO
N
LEO
N
LIB
ERTY
MA
DIS
ON
OK
ALO
OSA
SAN
TAR
OSA
TAYL
OR
WA
KU
LLA
WA
LTO
N
WA
SHIN
GTO
N
BASELINE
Development Agriculture
Florida 2070 - LAND 39
NORTHEAST REGION RESULTS
Northeast Region water demand in gallons per day for the 2010 Baseline scenario, 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios BASELINE
Development Agriculture Total
ALACHUA 40,866,672 15,032,078 55,898,750
BAKER 8,489,550 492,890 8,982,440
BRADFORD 9,183,440 1,061,663 10,245,103
CLAY 28,010,466 1,260,704 29,271,170
COLUMBIA 18,477,298 4,210,741 22,688,039
DIXIE 4,138,344 4,924,222 9,062,566
DUVAL 133,975,982 1,630,294 135,606,276
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
BA
Y
CA
LHO
UN
ESC
AM
BIA
FRA
NK
LIN
GA
DSD
EN
GU
LF
HO
LMES
JAC
KSO
N
JEFF
ERSO
N
LEO
N
LIB
ERTY
MA
DIS
ON
OK
ALO
OSA
SAN
TAR
OSA
TAYL
OR
WA
KU
LLA
WA
LTO
N
WA
SHIN
GTO
N
TREND
Development Agriculture
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
BA
Y
CA
LHO
UN
ESC
AM
BIA
FRA
NK
LIN
GA
DSD
EN
GU
LF
HO
LMES
JAC
KSO
N
JEFF
ERSO
N
LEO
N
LIB
ERTY
MA
DIS
ON
OK
ALO
OSA
SAN
TAR
OSA
TAYL
OR
WA
KU
LLA
WA
LTO
N
WA
SHIN
GTO
N
ALTERNATIVE
Development Agriculture
Florida 2070 - LAND 40
FLAGLER 17,948,836 12,750,089 30,698,925
GILCHRIST 4,217,811 10,651,292 14,869,103
HAMILTON 3,818,142 10,408,431 14,226,573
LAFAYETTE 2,261,850 8,859,560 11,121,410
LEVY 9,955,444 18,226,045 28,181,489
MARION 91,517,936 13,611,010 105,128,946
NASSAU 29,240,796 739,863 29,980,659
PUTNAM 24,355,850 15,305,356 39,661,206
STJOHNS 38,237,314 28,524,235 66,761,549
SUWANNEE 9,556,730 26,412,736 35,969,466
UNION 5,437,250 1,563,575 7,000,825
TOTAL 479,689,711 175,664,784 655,354,495
TREND
Development Agriculture Total
ALACHUA 72424380 18240930.57 90665310.57
BAKER 14505320 637055.1579 15142375.16
BRADFORD 11024958 1175813.769 12200771.77
CLAY 75136182 1668669.227 76804851.23
COLUMBIA 28030330 16922493.15 44952823.15
DIXIE 6332760 2757335.853 9090095.853
DUVAL 245663162 261567.7399 245924729.7
FLAGLER 63424136 4092970.549 67517106.55
GILCHRIST 6232968 12272525.19 18505493.19
HAMILTON 4686828 11122204.47 15809032.47
LAFAYETTE 3278535 15113111.94 18391646.94
LEVY 14763464 28329312.52 43092776.52
MARION 270398212 15724099.55 286122311.5
NASSAU 62284988 0 62284988
PUTNAM 30890265 7330701.404 38220966.4
STJOHNS 121322662 3843894.205 125166556.2
SUWANNEE 16353460 36939094 53292554
UNION 7499800 1227639.472 8727439.472
TOTAL 1054252410 177659418.7 1231911829
ALTERNATIVE
Development Agriculture Total
ALACHUA 55,343,005 18,420,358 73,763,363
BAKER 11,598,590 635,899 12,234,489
BRADFORD 8,829,018 1,176,242 10,005,260
CLAY 54,387,222 2,430,594 56,817,816
COLUMBIA 22,367,175 16,953,880 39,321,055
DIXIE 5,025,603 2,829,126 7,854,729
DUVAL 164,628,018 265,277 164,893,295
FLAGLER 38,133,436 5,285,585 43,419,021
GILCHRIST 4,951,800 12,353,481 17,305,281
Florida 2070 - LAND 41
HAMILTON 3,808,800 11,131,636 14,940,436
LAFAYETTE 2,609,568 15,131,271 17,740,839
LEVY 11,865,555 28,446,290 40,311,845
MARION 173,952,117 31,819,140 205,771,257
NASSAU 49,270,706 0 49,270,706
PUTNAM 37,229,640 7,666,550 44,896,190
STJOHNS 90,957,366 26,479,454 117,436,820
SUWANNEE 12,786,454 36,972,175 49,758,629
UNION 5,893,317 1,227,750 7,121,067
TOTAL 753,637,390 219,224,707 972,862,097
Northeast Region water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario and 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios in gallons per day
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
BASELINE
Development Agriculture
0
50000000
100000000
150000000
200000000
250000000
300000000
350000000
TREND
Development Agriculture
Florida 2070 - LAND 42
CENTRAL REGION RESULTS
Central Region water demand in gallons per day for the 2010 Baseline scenario, 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios
BASELINE
Development Agriculture Total
BREVARD 75,309,616 18,671,024 93,980,640
CITRUS 42,628,016 1,675,952 44,303,968
DESOTO 11,006,840 93,930,270 104,937,110
HARDEE 4,999,735 66,257,798 71,257,533
HERNANDO 38,805,702 3,712,391 42,518,093
HIGHLANDS 19,512,180 97,985,896 117,498,076
HILLSBOROUGH 134,170,392 53,134,427 187,304,819
INDIANRIVER 41,122,688 63,025,897 104,148,585
LAKE 91,528,136 24,008,645 115,536,781
MANATEE 45,167,828 86,265,818 131,433,646
OKEECHOBEE 8,026,172 31,471,783 39,497,955
ORANGE 169,363,466 10,225,013 179,588,479
OSCEOLA 62,141,306 28,934,529 91,075,835
PASCO 71,386,082 15,812,338 87,198,420
PINELLAS 72,817,120 34,994 72,852,114
POLK 116,591,990 130,728,128 247,320,118
SARASOTA 52,543,204 9,312,840 61,856,044
SEMINOLE 58,525,752 2,564,679 61,090,431
STLUCIE 46,560,744 69,545,887 116,106,631
SUMTER 35,303,220 5,396,715 40,699,935
VOLUSIA 74,651,984 16,770,467 91,422,451
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
ALTERNATIVE
Development Agriculture
Florida 2070 - LAND 43
TOTAL 1,272,162,173 829,465,491 2,101,627,664
TREND
Development Agriculture Total
BREVARD 132,314,176 11,782,948 144,097,124
CITRUS 66,910,490 878,671 67,789,161
DESOTO 11,017,820 112,072,192 123,090,012
HARDEE 47,556,405 35,524,306 83,080,711
HERNANDO 87,582,356 3,836,485 91,418,841
HIGHLANDS 29,923,332 77,058,532 106,981,864
HILLSBOROUGH 241,203,276 4,718,978 245,922,254
INDIANRIVER 83,937,260 70,398,748 154,336,008
LAKE 219,651,509 4,165,913 223,817,422
MANATEE 107,572,558 74,509,480 182,082,038
OKEECHOBEE 9,464,940 24,237,967 33,702,907
ORANGE 298,211,792 3,787,229 301,999,021
OSCEOLA 139,600,588 41,279,424 180,880,012
PASCO 179,388,858 2,231,176 181,620,034
PINELLAS 76,702,300 0 76,702,300
POLK 332,346,530 46,906,344 379,252,874
SARASOTA 86,855,940 7,499,062 94,355,002
SEMINOLE 91,756,066 705,269 92,461,335
STLUCIE 142,647,446 32,539,803 175,187,249
SUMTER 141,605,748 631,578 142,237,326
VOLUSIA 165,647,554 16,097,640 181,745,194
TOTAL 2,691,896,944 570,861,745 3,262,758,689
ALTERNATIVE
Development Agriculture Total
BREVARD 95,575,410 14,121,032 109,696,442
CITRUS 61,810,424 865,936 62,676,360
DESOTO 29,675,068 103,631,000 133,306,068
HARDEE 4,142,528 69,706,595 73,849,123
HERNANDO 62,401,108 8,627,809 71,028,917
HIGHLANDS 35,501,758 58,441,270 93,943,028
HILLSBOROUGH 209,307,424 32,666,211 241,973,635
INDIANRIVER 56,799,750 74,822,674 131,622,424
LAKE 131,763,480 12,579,728 144,343,208
MANATEE 98,331,465 70,994,423 169,325,888
OKEECHOBEE 15,977,226 19,338,748 35,315,974
ORANGE 243,092,340 8,609,220 251,701,560
OSCEOLA 183,898,742 38,719,829 222,618,571
PASCO 127,728,388 12,944,743 140,673,131
Florida 2070 - LAND 44
PINELLAS 64,154,062 0 64,154,062
POLK 223,466,574 122,327,343 345,793,917
SARASOTA 69,248,536 5,782,689 75,031,225
SEMINOLE 69,143,658 1,057,060 70,200,718
STLUCIE 74,026,212 57,205,936 131,232,148
SUMTER 94,604,336 1,853,771 96,458,107
VOLUSIA 108,672,608 18,252,281 126,924,889
TOTAL 2,059,321,097 732,548,298 2,791,869,395
Central Region water demand for the 2010 Baseline scenario and 2070 Trend and Alternative scenarios in gallons per day
