REPORT RECLAIMED WATER DEFICIT & AUGMENTATION OF RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM PROJECTION STUDY ON LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY. December 2014

Transcription

1 RECLAIMED WATER DEFICIT & AUGMENTATION OF RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM PROJECTION STUDY ON LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY REPORT December 2014 Prepared by: Ray O. Avery, Utility Consultant for The Clay County Utility Authority

2 INDEX 1. Executive Recap of the Storm Water Harvesting Study Including the Results and Recommendations 2. Reclaimed Water Demand Analysis a. Analysis of Reclaimed Water Supply and Demand to 2035 b. Reclaimed Water Usage Analysis of 12 Months ended May 31, 2014, to Determine Gross Per Capita Per Day for Demand c. Wastewater usage analysis of 12 months ended May 31, 2014 to Determine Gross Per Capita Per Day for Supply 3. Storm Water Harvesting Potential a. Storm Water Harvesting Recap of Yields & Cost b. Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, Footage of Pipe Required to Generate Yield over six Month Pumping Cycle and Cost based on all Drainage Areas Studied c. Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, Footage of Pipe Required to Generate Yield over six Month Pumping Cycle and Cost based on Areas Yielding over 50,000 GPD d. Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, Footage of Pipe Required to Generate Yield over six Month Pumping Cycle and Cost based on Areas Yielding over 70,000 GPD e. Storm Water Harvesting Conceptual Master Plan

3 Executive Summary

4 Executive Recap of the Storm Water Harvesting Study Including the Results and Recommendations Utilities in Northeast Florida (Region 1 of the St. Johns River Water Management District ( SJRWMD ) have been advised by the SJRWMD that according to their models and analyses, we will reach the maximum allowable level of pumping from the Floridan Aquifer prior to The estimated amount of the projected deficit and the matter of whether or not there is truly a deficit at 2035, is still being debated and better tools are being created by the SJRWMD and the Suwannee River Water Management District ( SRWMD ) to make that determination. Regardless of the outcome, it is obvious that if we avoid a declaration of Region 1 as a Water Resource Caution Area with this planning session, the same issue will come up again in 5 years when the Water Management Districts ( WMDs ) re-evaluate the water supply as required by law. So with this obvious problem on the horizon we must come up with ways to extend this resource and/or develop alternative water supplies. It is our belief and that of the WMDs that we can overcome this deficit through 2035 with conservation methods. This includes the continuation of our reclaimed water initiative. Continuation of our reclaimed water initiative depends in large part on the availability of an adequate reclaimed water supply and/or the availability of acceptable sources of supply for augmentation of our reclaimed water system. Currently we have a Consumptive Use Permit ( CUP ) that allows us to use MG per year of potable water to augment our reclaimed water system. This can be used on peak days in the quantities necessary to augment our reclaimed water system, up to the annual limit of the permit. However, this permit expires on March 8, It is our opinion that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to renew or extend this permit to continue to use potable water for this purpose. We are going to have to look for an alternative for this augmentation. So with this in mind, we have developed a study to determine how much our reclaimed water deficit will be at 2035 and how much augmentation of the reclaimed water system will be required at that time. During the process of securing our existing augmentation CUP to use potable water to augment our reclaimed water system, our application came under much scrutiny. It was the desire of the SJRWMD that we modify rates or provide other incentives for our customers to reduce their consumption of reclaimed water (currently our reclaimed usage charge is approximately half that of our potable water usage charge). We did not want to do this as we were in the process of constructing transmission mains that would give us the ability to transfer our available reclaimed water supplies to all parts of our reclaimed water system thereby creating excess reclaimed water for our reclaimed water system for several years to come. This was all part of a dual purpose program to remove as much flow from the surface waters as possible due to the numeric nutrient criteria regulations and our inability to consistently pass the chronic testing requirements of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( FDEP ) for our wastewater effluent discharges to the marine section of the St. Johns River. So we were able to negotiate an augmentation CUP permit with the understanding that as our demands for reclaimed water begin to exceed our supply, we will either tighten up our reclaimed rates to encourage conservation of that resource or seek other alternative sources of water for augmentation.

5 Storm Water Harvesting December 1, 2014 Page Two In this analysis, we have assumed that 80% of our growth will use reclaimed water. We based our projections on current per capita per day data for the 12 months ended May 31, 2014, for both wastewater supply and the reclaimed water demands. With water savings fixtures in new homes and other various conservation initiatives, we have already experienced a significant decline in the liquid volume of wastewater we get from each account. As new development occurs, we expect that volume to continue to decline. At some point, we are going to need more water to maintain the operation of our wastewater collection system. We are already experiencing wastewater force mains plugging up due to the decrease in liquid volume we are receiving in our wastewater system without a corresponding decline in the solid waste we receive. Our study indicates our peak reclaimed water demand at 2035 will exceed our reclaimed water supply by at least MGD. In an effort to determine how we will be able to deal with that deficit, it seems that we have a couple of options. First, we could increase our reclaimed water usage rates to encourage our customers to use less reclaimed water. We believe this would be effective but could put us in a position to have to return more of our flow to the surface waters for disposal. This would be counterproductive to our original intent of reducing flow to the surface waters. Our next option was to see if Storm Water Harvesting may be a better long term approach and may generate more potential benefits as an alternative water supply to cover this deficit rather than increasing our reclaimed water rate for that purpose. So we initiated a study to determine the estimated yield and cost of the Storm Water Harvesting approach. This study included the drainage areas flowing to the First Coast Outer Beltway ( FCOB ) as well as all other drainage areas along the FCOB that we anticipate will be developed within the next 30 years. Many of these areas are planned DRIs as well as other large tracts that are currently undeveloped at this time. Our conclusions from this study indicate that it may be feasible to harvest the available storm water by using horizontal wells for all drainage areas that will produce an annual average of at least 70,000 GPD. In total, we identified 46 such sites that collectively would produce an annual average daily flow of approximately MGD. Our anticipated design would allow us to pump peak flows of approximately MGD. This would more than cover our reclaimed water needs for the next 20 years and would allow us to offset additional volumes of potable water that may be needed to help in the maintenance of our wastewater system. By putting these systems in place as the area develops this will spread the cost over the next 30 years. The major cost that we will have to front before the actual need for the supply occurs is the area along Phase 3 of the FCOB. Since this portion of the installation will be in FDOTs right of way, it is important that the horizontal wells be installed as part of the FCOB construction. We estimate this cost to be approximately $5.1 million of which approximately $550,000 would be for design and permitting and approximately $2.9 million would have to be spent when Phase 3 of the FCOB is constructed which could be 5 to 10 years from now. The balance would be spent when the individual pumping systems are installed as needed or as new development along the FCOB occurs. In addition, we will have to front the cost of a Horizontal Well Project within Phase 1 of the FCOB that FDOT wants us to complete to give them some experience and comfort with this type of project within their right of ways. This project will cost approximately $1.2 million and could commence immediately after the contractor completes Phase I of the FCOB.

6 Storm Water Harvesting December 1, 2014 Page Three We estimate the total cost of this Storm Water Harvesting project, including the two phases mentioned above to be approximately $26.8 million including a 2% inflation factor compounded annually for the next 30 years. Since this project will benefit existing as well as future customers, we suggest spreading the cost pro rata between the existing and future customers. We would propose to do this by including a Capital Reserve provision in our annual budget each year for the next 30 years in the amount of approximately $531,000 per year (approximately 1.45% one time rate impact). Then for the new development portion, we would propose an increase in the connection charges for new developments in the amount of $325 per ERC. This would allow the new growth to pay for its impact on our water resources. We recommend the proposed rate changes take effect on October 1, SJRWMD and FDEP are both very interested in the creation of this alternative water supply and we anticipate that much of the cost will be grant eligible. If you will recall, this is also a potential part of a much larger regional project that is linked to the Keystone Lakes augmentation. Our effort herein, has been aimed at determining the benefits of this project to the Clay County Utility Authority ( CCUA ) and determining its financial impact to the CCUA if none of the regional aspect of this project ever materializes. Consequently, we believe this project is of major benefit to the CCUA and that this is the most responsible option when we look at the delicate status of our existing groundwater supply. If our Board agrees, we feel that we must take the lead in order to make this happen and not miss the boat on this opportunity. The opportunity to develop this alternative water supply, after the new development occurs, will likely be cost prohibitive. This creates several opportunities for the CCUA. As mentioned above, the SJRWMD has already indicated that their models show that cumulative pumping will exceed the capacity of the Floridan Aquifer by By creating this alternative water supply this effort and expense will be recognized as meeting part of our responsibility in addressing this deficit. Next, we have confirmed with both FDEP and SJRWMD that, with additional treatment, this water supply could be incorporated into our potable water system in the future if that need ever occurs. In addition, after several high level meetings with the SJRWMD and the FDEP we have determined that storm water harvesting may be used, if needed, to help the developers meet their nutrient reduction requirement for their development. In addition, we determined that if the nutrient reduction for each project is properly documented with the agencies, these nutrient reductions will be recognized by the agencies to offset surface water nutrient reductions that may be required by the agencies in the future. Since this nutrient reduction is from a nonpoint source, it would primarily benefit Clay County since they are the MS4 Permit holder with responsibility for storm water discharges in Clay County. This could provide Clay County with some incentive to partner with us on these projects. Should Clay County become a partner and/or should SJRWMD and FDEP come up with grant assistance to help with this project, then the financial burden on CCUA and its customers will be reduced from the impacts noted above. We would like to note that this study does not include the water that is currently available to us from the Town of Orange Park. We are aware that the Town of Orange Park is developing some reclaimed water projects within the Town so we do not know how dependable that supply will be in the future.

7 Storm Water Harvesting December 1, 2014 Page Four In conclusion, we are once again faced with the decision of whether to take the most economical option to meet our immediate needs or to take the most environmentally beneficial option that will have the potential of having the most significant environmental benefits for the future of the residents and businesses of Clay County. This is very similar to the bold decision made in 1995 to go to Residential Reuse and Advanced Waste Treatment of our wastewater. Those decisions have paid off significantly for all of Clay County and we believe the same will hold true of this one. We request Board consideration and approval of the design and construction of the storm water harvesting sites along the third phase of the FCOB. The estimated cost of this portion of the project is approximately $550,000 for design and permitting, $2.9 million when phase 3 of the FCOB is constructed, and $1.7 million when the pumping systems are needed or when new development in the area occurs. The design and permitting are the only dollars to be spent in this fiscal year as we must get our design incorporated into FDOT s construction plans which are currently under design. As noted above, the actual construction expenditures could be 5-10 years and depends on the schedule for the start of construction of Phase 3 of the FCOB. In addition, we also request approval to proceed with the design and construction of the horizontal well site in Phase 1 of the FCOB. The estimated cost of this portion of the project is $1.2 million. We propose the increase in connection charges to the developers be advertised and presented to the Board for approval with our annual rate and budget advertisement which will occur in September of 2015 with an October 1, 2015, effective date for all new developer agreements dated after October 1, Due to the time lag between now and October 1, 2015, a modification to the proposed connection fees and Capital Reserve impact to the budget may be needed to give effect to any developments in the geographical areas of our study that enters into a developer agreement and pays their associated connection fees and other routine charges prior to October 1, Such developments would have to commence construction of their development within 90 days after in order to avoid assessment of the proposed modification to the connection fees. It is staff s intention to hold meetings with the affected stakeholders prior to in order to fully disclose the purpose and impact of the proposed connection charge modification.

8 Reclaimed Water Demand Analysis 2)a. Analysis of Reclaimed Water Supply & Demand to 2035

9 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Supply: Population Growth each year 2,712 2,712 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 MGD for Growth Cum. Average MGD Supply MGD 5Yr. % of Supply Demand Surplus Deficit Month Day Ave. MGD Average Jan % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Feb % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A - Supply

10 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Supply: Population Growth each year 2,712 2,712 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 MGD for Growth Cum. Average MGD Supply % % % % % % % % % % % % Mar % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Apr % A - Supply

11 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Supply: Population Growth each year 2,712 2,712 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 MGD for Growth Cum. Average MGD Supply % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % May % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A - Supply

12 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Supply: Population Growth each year 2,712 2,712 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 MGD for Growth Cum. Average MGD Supply June % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % July % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A - Supply

13 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Supply: Population Growth each year 2,712 2,712 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 MGD for Growth Cum. Average MGD Supply % % % % % % % % % August % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Sept % % % % % % % % % % % % A - Supply

14 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Supply: Population Growth each year 2,712 2,712 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 MGD for Growth Cum. Average MGD Supply % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Sept % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A - Supply

15 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Supply: Population Growth each year 2,712 2,712 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 MGD for Growth Cum. Average MGD Supply % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Dec % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A - Supply

16 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Supply: Population Growth each year 2,712 2,712 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,846 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,732 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 2,267 MGD for Growth Cum. Average MGD Supply % % % % % % Total Gal. (000,000) 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Ave. GPD (000,000) A - Supply

17 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options - wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options - Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Demand: Population Growth each year 2,170 2,170 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 MGD for Growth Cumulative Average MGD Demand Yr. % of Ave. MGD Month Day MGD Average 5 Yr. Demand Jan % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Feb % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A Demand

18 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options - wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options - Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Demand: Population Growth each year 2,170 2,170 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 MGD for Growth Cumulative Average MGD Demand Yr. % of Ave. MGD Month Day MGD Average 5 Yr. Demand % % % % % % % % % % % % % Mar % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Apr % % A Demand

19 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options - wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options - Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Demand: Population Growth each year 2,170 2,170 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 MGD for Growth Cumulative Average MGD Demand Yr. % of Ave. MGD Month Day MGD Average 5 Yr. Demand % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % May % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A Demand

20 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options - wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options - Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Demand: Population Growth each year 2,170 2,170 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 MGD for Growth Cumulative Average MGD Demand Yr. % of Ave. MGD Month Day MGD Average 5 Yr. Demand % % % % % % % % % % % % % June % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % July % % % A Demand

21 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options - wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options - Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Demand: Population Growth each year 2,170 2,170 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 MGD for Growth Cumulative Average MGD Demand Yr. % of Ave. MGD Month Day MGD Average 5 Yr. Demand % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % August % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A Demand

22 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options - wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options - Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Demand: Population Growth each year 2,170 2,170 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 MGD for Growth Cumulative Average MGD Demand Yr. % of Ave. MGD Month Day MGD Average 5 Yr. Demand % % % % % % % % % % % % % Sept % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Oct % % % A Demand

23 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options - wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options - Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Demand: Population Growth each year 2,170 2,170 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 MGD for Growth Cumulative Average MGD Demand Yr. % of Ave. MGD Month Day MGD Average 5 Yr. Demand % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Nov % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % A Demand

24 Analysis of Reclaimed Water Demand to 2035 Average 80% of Pop. Pop. Growth Growth will Assumptions: Total per Yr. Have Reclaimed Wastewater Gross per Capita Per Day 77 Recap of Results Reclaimed Water Gross per Capita Per Day 131 Total 2035 deficit MG Average Population Growth per BEBR ,712 2,170 Peak day deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,966 2,373 Average daily deficit MGD Average Population Growth per BEBR ,846 2,277 Number of days with deficit 92 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,732 2,186 Average Population Growth per BEBR ,267 1,814 Starting Point Options - wastewater: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Starting Point Options - Reclaimed Water: Use 5 yr. Average Ending MGD Use this Use 2013 Average as a starting point MGD Note: It is estimated that 80% of growth will have reclaimed water and 20% will not. Demand: Population Growth each year 2,170 2,170 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,373 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,277 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 2,186 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 1,814 MGD for Growth Cumulative Average MGD Demand Yr. % of Ave. MGD Month Day MGD Average 5 Yr. Demand % % % % % % % % % % % % Dec % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total Gal. (000,000) 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Ave. GPD (000,000) A Demand

25 Reclaimed Water Demand Analysis 2)b. Reclaimed Water Usage Analysis of 12 Months ended May 31, 2014, to Determine Gross Per Capita Per Day for Demand

26 Reclaimed Water Usage Analysis for 12 Months Ended May 31, 2014 to Determine Gross Per Capita Per Day for Demand 2,013 2,014 Description June July August September October November December January February March April May Total Average GPDPC Reclaimed Usage and Number of Bills Type Residential Bills ,226 9, Residential Gallons Per Month (000) ,366 Residential Gallons Per Day 3,332,873 2,632,216 1,977,581 3,133,859 2,757,232 2,728,107 1,975,937 1,574,227 1,059,106 1,143,031 1,736,358 2,555,851 2,217,441 Residential Per Capita Gallons Per Day Residential per capita Commercial Bills (including wholesale billings) ,809 Commercial Gallons Per Month (including wholesale billings) (000) ,766 Commercial Gallons Per Day 1,236, , ,642 1,105, ,584 1,071, , , , , , , ,126 Commercial Per Capita Gallons Per Day 1,931 1,395 1,007 1,720 1,542 1, ,226 1,127 Total Reclaimed Bills Per Month ,035 Total Reclaimed Gallons Per Month (000) ,075,132 Gross Per Total Reclaimed Gallons Per Day 4,569,527 3,529,487 2,622,222 4,239,842 3,748,817 3,799,310 2,579,389 2,038,823 1,343,228 1,398,652 2,119,231 3,354,405 2,945,567 Residential Capita Total Reclaimed Per Capita Gallons Per Day Based on Total Bills Bills Per Day Total Reclaimed Water Pumped - Average GPD Gross Per Capita Based on WW treated minus 3,535,658 9, Surface water, MC Ponds, PC, and KH Total Gallons Billed to Residential, Commercial and 2 Wholesale Customers through ,075,132,000 Gallons used on Eagle Harbor Golf Course (see below) 231,275,000 People per household 2.76 Total water accounted for and billed 1,306,407,000 Ave. GPD Reclaimed water used through per data base 1,290,515,000 3,535,658 Gallons billed in excess of reclaimed water available 15,892,000 Eagle Harbor Analysis to see how much went to golf course: Residential Bills Residential Gallons Commercial Bills Commercial Gallons Wholesale Bill Wholesale Gallons Total Billed Total Gallons Golf Course usage: Total Gallons Less Residential Gallons Less Commercial Gallons Net Golf Course Usage B

27 Reclaimed Water Demand Analysis 2)c. Wastewater usage analysis of 12 months ended May 31, 2014 to Determine Gross Per Capita Per Day for Supply

28 Wastewater Usage Analysis for 12 Months Ended May 31, 2014 to Determine Gross Per Capita Per Day for Supply 2,013 2,014 Description June July August September October November December January February March April May Total Average GPDPC Sewer Usage and Number of Bills Type Residential Bills 33,224 33,245 33,423 33,389 33,418 33,500 33,603 33,619 33,678 33,695 33,828 33, ,489 33, Residential Gallons Per Month (000) 211, , , , , , , , , , , ,832 2,079,000 Residential Gallons Per Day 6,964,892 5,571,522 4,887,258 7,098,820 5,364,629 5,992,150 5,482,239 5,032,314 5,490,763 5,135,437 5,345,789 5,977,390 5,695,891 Residential Per Capita Gallons Per Day Residential Per Capita Commercial Bills 2,054 2,049 2,049 2,046 2,046 2,049 2,049 2,056 2,055 2,039 2,044 2,053 24,589 Commercial Gallons Per Month (000) 50,841 42,278 39,669 55,564 42,439 46,175 40,665 37,836 45,071 42,730 43,249 44, ,099 Commercial Gallons Per Day 1,671,302 1,389,809 1,304,043 1,826,561 1,395,102 1,517,916 1,336,785 1,243,787 1,481,624 1,404,668 1,421,729 1,465,549 1,455,066 Commercial Per Capita Gallons Per Day Total Wastewater Bills Per Month 35,278 35,294 35,472 35,435 35,464 35,549 35,652 35,675 35,733 35,734 35,872 35, ,078 Residential Total Wastewater Gallons Per Month (000) 262, , , , , , , , , , , ,414 2,610,099 Bills Total Wastewater Gallons Per Day 8,636,193 6,961,331 6,191,302 8,925,381 6,759,730 7,510,066 6,819,024 6,276,101 6,972,387 6,540,105 6,767,518 7,442,939 7,150,957 33, Gross Per Capita Total Wastewater Per Capita Gallons Per Day Based on Total Bills Total Wastewater Treated Average GPD 2C

29 Storm Water Harvesting Potential 3)a. Storm Water Harvesting Recap of Yields & Cost

30 Estimated Footage of Capital Cost Total Cost With Existing Necessary Storm Water Harvesting Recap of Yields and Costs: Annual Average 10 Hour Pumping Horizontal Estimated # Per Gallon Estimated ERCs Total Total 2% Average Prorata Share Ratepayer's Prorata Share Increase in Average Daily Over Window GPM Well Required of Pumping Based on Available to Pay Existing Existing and Estimated Compounded of Cost to Budget per of Cost to Developer Estimated Withdrawal 6 Months Annual 6 Month Annual 6 Month Systems Average Daily Connection Water ERC's Potential Construction Inflation Existing Year if Spread Existing Connection Acres GPD GPD Ave. Rate Rate Ave. Rate Rate Required Yield Charge 8/31/2014 ERC's Cost Over 29 Years Ratepayers over 29 years Developers Charge Per ERC Storm Water Harvesting Yields and Cost, based on all drainage areas studied 40,567 9,049,738 18,099,477 15,083 30,166 30,166 60, ,284 47,715 82,999 24,441,239 33,496,718 19,256, ,028 14,239, Storm Water Harvesting Yields and Cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 50,000 GPD 38,260 8,535,090 17,070,180 14,225 28,450 28,450 56, ,284 47,715 82,999 21,640,647 29,658,506 17,050, ,940 12,608, Storm Water Harvesting Yields and Cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 70,000 GPD 35,933 8,015,980 16,031,959 13,360 26,720 26,720 53, ,284 47,715 82,999 19,532,767 26,769,657 15,389, ,673 11,380, Note: The annual growth of ERC's to 2035 is estimated by the SJRWMD to be approximately 24,500 ERCs. The total development land estimated herein would yield approximately 35,284 ERCs, therefore, this would be equivalent to approximately 29 years of growth if the growth trends remain the same. 3A

31 Storm Water Harvesting Potential 3)b. Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, Footage of Pipe Required to Generate Yield over six Month Pumping Cycle and Cost based on all Drainage Areas Studied

32 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas studied Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal We 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Total Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage GPD Estimated % Estimated Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Per of Area Remaining Estimated ERC's Available Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to Pumping Not Yet Acres to Density Per to Pay Connection ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Station Developed Develop Acre Charge FCOB Phase Large pond south of Clay Electric Sub station east of FCOB 1, , , , ,057 2,113 3,170 1 Yes 316,998 5% Large pond in Ken Smallwood's pasture away from and east of FCOB RW , , , ,327 1 Yes 132,733 5% Intersection of Blanding and FCOB 1, , ,231 1,171, ,302 2,604 3,906 1 Yes 390,615 5% West of FCOB behind St. Vincents 1, , ,709 1,315, ,461 2,922 4,384 1 Yes 438,355 10% West of FCOB Between 1001 and 1003 = West of Whisper Crk 1, , ,845 1,064, ,183 2,366 3,549 1 Yes 354,922 7,323 1,633,624 3,267,248 4,900,873 2,723 5,445 8,168 5,445 10,891 16,336 5 FCOB Phase Pond West of Henley , , , ,074 1,611 1 Yes 161,065 2% First pond east of Henley , , , ,044 1 Yes 104,402 60% Second pond east of Henley , , , ,350 1 Yes 134,964 60% Third pond east of Henley , , , ,361 2,041 1 Yes 204,119 70% * Second pond north of Sandridge Rd , , , Yes 68,709 70% * First pond north of Sandridge Rd ,609 85, , Yes 42,609 40% First pond south of Sandridge Rd , , , Yes 51, % Second pond south of Sandridge Rd ,739 95, , Yes 47,739 80% Third and fourth pond south of Sandridge Rd , , , ,298 1 Yes 129,833 85% Fifth and Sixth pond south of Sandridge Rd. 1, , , , ,578 2,367 1 Yes 236,689 90% Seventh and eighth pond south of Sandridge Rd. 1, , , , ,035 2,070 3,105 1 Yes 310,529 50% First pond north of SR , , , Yes 99,048 50% First pond south of SR 16 west of FCOB , , , Yes 61,794 50% First pond south of SR 16 east of FCOB , , , ,029 1,544 1 Yes 154,372 50% Second pond south of SR 16 west of FCOB , , , Yes 89,456 90% Second pond south of SR16 east of FCOB , , , Yes 92,133 80% Third pond south of SR16 west of FCOB ,170 88, , Yes 44,170 80% Fourth pond south of SR16 west of FCOB , , , Yes 96,148 70% Third and fourth pond south of SR16 east/north on FCOB , , , ,452 2,177 1 Yes 217,727 80% Fifth pond south of SR 16 north of FCOB ,816 77, , Yes 38,816 35% Sixth pond south of SR16 North of FCOB , , , Yes 55,993 65% * First pond east of CR 15A , , , No 51,309 0% 11,176 2,493,156 4,986,313 7,479, ,311 16,621 24, * Access will be difficult so we may want to avoid these locations. Spencers Development Area , , , , ,637 2,456 1 Yes 245,612 50% , , , ,151 1 Yes 115,110 50% , , , , ,071 2,142 3,212 1 Yes 321,237 50% ,708 79, , Yes 39,708 20% , , , ,381 1 Yes 138,087 60% 371 3, ,755 1,719,511 2,579,266 1,433 2,866 4,299 2,866 5,732 8,598 5 Smallwood Development Area , , , Yes 93,471 60% 251 3B

33 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas studied Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal We 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Total Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage GPD Estimated % Estimated Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Per of Area Remaining Estimated ERC's Available Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to Pumping Not Yet Acres to Density Per to Pay Connection ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Station Developed Develop Acre Charge , , , ,089 1 Yes 108,864 50% , , , , ,349 2,023 2 Phil Yonge and Skinner Development Area ,932 79, , Yes 39,932 70% 125 Joe Collins Development Area , , , ,144 1 Yes 114,441 60% , , , ,450 1 Yes 145,003 85% 553 1, , , , , ,730 2,594 2 Yes Coventry Development Area , , , ,089 1 Yes 108,864 0% Sammy Wright Development Area ,516 95, , Yes 47,516 90% 192 Saratoga Springs Development Area , , , Yes 83,655 90% , , , Yes 97,487 95% ,616 89, , Yes 44,616 90% , , , Yes 64,470 90% ,608 27,216 40, Yes 13,608 90% , , , ,344 2,017 1 Yes 201,665 85% , , , ,334 1 Yes 133,403 85% , , , Yes 84,771 90% 342 3, ,676 1,447,351 2,171,027 1,206 2,412 3,618 2,412 4,825 7,237 8 Reinhold Development Area , , , ,073 1 Yes 107,302 95% , , , Yes 93,917 80% , , , Yes 87,894 85% , , , Yes 80,086 90% , , , Yes 50,863 80% , , , ,265 1 Yes 126,487 85% , , ,324 1,251, ,391 2,781 4,172 1 Yes 417,162 85% 1, , , ,306 1,027, ,142 2,284 3,427 1 Yes 342,653 90% 1, deleted 5,856 1,306,364 2,612,728 3,919,092 2,177 4,355 6,532 4,355 8,709 13, B

34 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas studied Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal We 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Total Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage GPD Estimated % Estimated Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Per of Area Remaining Estimated ERC's Available Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to Pumping Not Yet Acres to Density Per to Pay Connection ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Station Developed Develop Acre Charge Gustafson's Development Area , , , ,323 1 Yes 132,287 80% ,847 93, , Yes 46,847 95% ,101 52,201 78, Yes 26,101 85% , , , Yes 61,570 80% , , , Yes 71,386 85% 272 1, , ,382 1,014, ,127 1,691 1,127 2,255 3,382 5 Governor's Park Development Area ,701 75, , Yes 37,701 90% ,085 44,170 66, Yes 22,085 90% ,200 46,401 69, Yes 23,200 90% , , , Yes 81,202 85% , , , Yes 52,870 85% , , ,691 1,048, ,164 2,329 3,493 1 Yes 349,345 90% 1, , , , , ,957 2,936 1 Yes 293,575 80% 1,053 3, ,978 1,719,957 2,579,935 1,433 2,867 4,300 2,867 5,733 8,600 7 Rolling Hills , , , ,004 1 Yes 100,387 0% , , , Yes 76,517 0% , , , ,179 1,769 2 Grand Total 40,567 9,049,738 18,099,477 27,149,215 15,083 30,166 45,249 30,166 60,332 90, Total Cost 23, ,284 $ 175 $ 100,000 10,558,028 $ 6,900,000 17,458,028 Incidental onsite piping, pump upgrades, and other unforeseen 10% $ 1,745,803 Engineering 15% $ 2,618,704 Contingency 15% $ 2,618,704 Total Cost 24,441,239 Capital Cost per gallon based on average daily yield 2.70 Capital Cost per gallon based on pumping average daily yield over 6 months B

35 Storm Water Harvesting Potential 3)c. Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, Footage of Pipe Required to Generate Yield over six Month Pumping Cycle and Cost based on Areas Yielding over 50,000 GPD

36 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 50,000 GPD Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal Well 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage GPD Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Per Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to Pumping ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Station FCOB Phase Large pond south of Clay Electric Sub station east of FCOB 1, , , , ,057 2,113 3,170 1 Yes 316, Large pond in Ken Smallwood's pasture away from and east of FCOB RW , , , ,327 1 Yes 132, Intersection of Blanding and FCOB 1, , ,231 1,171, ,302 2,604 3,906 1 Yes 390, West of FCOB behind St. Vincents 1, , ,709 1,315, ,461 2,922 4,384 1 Yes 438, West of FCOB Between 1001 and 1003 = West of Whisper Crk 1, , ,845 1,064, ,183 2,366 3,549 1 Yes 354,922 7,323 1,633,624 3,267,248 4,900,873 2,723 5,445 8,168 5,445 10,891 16,336 5 FCOB Phase Pond West of Henley , , , ,074 1,611 1 Yes 161, First pond east of Henley , , , ,044 1 Yes 104, Second pond east of Henley , , , ,350 1 Yes 134, Third pond east of Henley , , , ,361 2,041 1 Yes 204, * Second pond north of Sandridge Rd , , , Yes 68, First pond south of Sandridge Rd , , , Yes 51, Third and fourth pond south of Sandridge Rd , , , ,298 1 Yes 129, Fifth and Sixth pond south of Sandridge Rd. 1, , , , ,578 2,367 1 Yes 236, Seventh and eighth pond south of Sandridge Rd. 1, , , , ,035 2,070 3,105 1 Yes 310, First pond north of SR , , , Yes 99, First pond south of SR 16 west of FCOB , , , Yes 61, First pond south of SR 16 east of FCOB , , , ,029 1,544 1 Yes 154, Second pond south of SR 16 west of FCOB , , , Yes 89, Second pond south of SR16 east of FCOB , , , Yes 92, Fourth pond south of SR16 west pf FCOB , , , Yes 96, Third and fourth pond south of SR16 east/north on FCOB , , , ,452 2,177 1 Yes 217, Sixth pond south of SR16 North of FCOB , , , Yes 55, * First pond east of CR 15A , , , No 51,309 10,399 2,319,822 4,639,644 6,959, ,733 15,465 23, * Access will be difficult so we may want to avoid these locations. Spencers Development Area , , , , ,637 2,456 1 Yes 245, , , , ,151 1 Yes 115, , , , , ,071 2,142 3,212 1 Yes 321, , , , ,381 1 Yes 138,087 3, ,047 1,640,094 2,460,140 1,367 2,733 4,100 2,733 5,467 8, C

37 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 50,000 GPD Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal Well 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage GPD Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Per Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to Pumping ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Station Smallwood Development Area , , , Yes 93, , , , ,089 1 Yes 108, , , , , ,349 2,023 2 Phil Yonge and Skinner Development Area Joe Collins Development Area , , , ,144 1 Yes 114, , , , ,450 1 Yes 145,003 1, , , , , ,730 2,594 2 Yes Coventry Development Area , , , ,089 1 Yes 108,864 Sammy Wright Development Area Saratoga Springs Development Area , , , Yes 83, , , , Yes 97, , , , Yes 64, , , , ,344 2,017 1 Yes 201, , , , ,334 1 Yes 133, , , , Yes 84,771 2, ,451 1,330,903 1,996,354 1,109 2,218 3,327 2,218 4,436 6,655 6 Reinhold Development Area , , , ,073 1 Yes 107, , , , Yes 93, , , , Yes 87, , , , Yes 80, , , , Yes 50,863 3C

38 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 50,000 GPD Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal Well 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage GPD Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Per Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to Pumping ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Station , , , ,265 1 Yes 126, , , ,324 1,251, ,391 2,781 4,172 1 Yes 417, , , ,306 1,027, ,142 2,284 3,427 1 Yes 342, deleted 5,856 1,306,364 2,612,728 3,919,092 2,177 4,355 6,532 4,355 8,709 13,064 8 Gustafson's Development Area , , , ,323 1 Yes 132, , , , Yes 61, , , , Yes 71,386 1, , , , , ,768 2,652 3 Governor's Park Development Area , , , Yes 81, , , , Yes 52, , , ,691 1,048, ,164 2,329 3,493 1 Yes 349, , , , , ,957 2,936 1 Yes 293,575 3, ,992 1,553,984 2,330,976 1,295 2,590 3,885 2,590 5,180 7,770 4 Rolling Hills , , , ,004 1 Yes 100, , , , Yes 76, , , , ,179 1,769 2 Grand Total 38,260 8,535,090 17,070,180 25,605,269 14,225 28,450 42,675 28,450 56,901 85, Total Cost $ 175 $ 100,000 9,957,605 $ 5,500,000 15,457,605 Incidental onsite piping, pump upgrades, and other unforeseen 10% $ 1,545,760 Engineering 15% $ 2,318,641 Contingency 15% $ 2,318,641 Total Cost 21,640,647 Capital Cost per gallon based on average daily yield 2.54 Capital Cost per gallon based on pumping average daily yield over 6 months C

39 Storm Water Harvesting Potential 3)d. Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, Footage of Pipe Required to Generate Yield over six Month Pumping Cycle and Cost based on Areas Yielding over 70,000 GPD

40 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 70,000 GPD Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal Well 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop FCOB Phase Large pond south of Clay Electric Sub station east of FCOB 1, , , , ,057 2,113 3,170 1 Yes 1001 Large pond in Ken Smallwood's pasture away from and east of FCOB RW , , , ,327 1 Yes 1002 Intersection of Blanding and FCOB 1, , ,231 1,171, ,302 2,604 3,906 1 Yes 1003 West of FCOB behind St. Vincents 1, , ,709 1,315, ,461 2,922 4,384 1 Yes 1004 West of FCOB Between 1001 and 1003 = West of Whisper Crk 1, , ,845 1,064, ,183 2,366 3,549 1 Yes 7,323 1,633,624 3,267,248 4,900,873 2,723 5,445 8,168 5,445 10,891 16,336 5 FCOB Phase Pond West of Henley , , , ,074 1,611 1 Yes 3001 First pond east of Henley , , , ,044 1 Yes 3002 Second pond east of Henley , , , ,350 1 Yes 3003 Third pond east of Henley , , , ,361 2,041 1 Yes 3008 Third and fourth pond south of Sandridge Rd , , , ,298 1 Yes 3009 Fifth and Sixth pond south of Sandridge Rd. 1, , , , ,578 2,367 1 Yes 3010 Seventh and eighth pond south of Sandridge Rd. 1, , , , ,035 2,070 3,105 1 Yes 3011 First pond north of SR , , , Yes 3013 First pond south of SR 16 east of FCOB , , , ,029 1,544 1 Yes 3014 Second pond south of SR 16 west of FCOB , , , Yes 3015 Second pond south of SR16 east of FCOB , , , Yes 3017 Fourth pond south of SR16 west pf FCOB , , , Yes 3018 Third and fourth pond south of SR16 east/north on FCOB , , , ,452 2,177 1 Yes 9,102 2,030,486 4,060,972 6,091, ,768 13,537 20, Spencers Development Area , , , , ,637 2,456 1 Yes , , , ,151 1 Yes , , , , ,071 2,142 3,212 1 Yes , , , ,381 1 Yes 3, ,047 1,640,094 2,460,140 1,367 2,733 4,100 2,733 5,467 8, D

41 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 70,000 GPD Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal Well 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Smallwood Development Area , , , Yes , , , ,089 1 Yes , , , , ,349 2,023 2 Phil Yonge and Skinner Development Area Joe Collins Development Area , , , ,144 1 Yes , , , ,450 1 Yes 1, , , , , ,730 2,594 2 Yes Coventry Development Area , , , ,089 1 Yes Sammy Wright Development Area Saratoga Springs Development Area , , , Yes , , , Yes , , , ,344 2,017 1 Yes , , , ,334 1 Yes , , , Yes 2, ,981 1,201,962 1,802,943 1,002 2,003 3,005 2,003 4,007 6, D

42 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 70,000 GPD Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal Well 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Reinhold Development Area , , , ,073 1 Yes , , , Yes , , , Yes , , , Yes , , , ,265 1 Yes , , ,324 1,251, ,391 2,781 4,172 1 Yes , , ,306 1,027, ,142 2,284 3,427 1 Yes deleted 5,628 1,255,501 2,511,003 3,766,504 2,093 4,185 6,278 4,185 8,370 12,555 7 Gustafson's Development Area , , , ,323 1 Yes , , , Yes , , , , ,358 2,037 2 Governor's Park Development Area , , , Yes , , ,691 1,048, ,164 2,329 3,493 1 Yes , , , , ,957 2,936 1 Yes 3, ,122 1,448,244 2,172,366 1,207 2,414 3,621 2,414 4,827 7,241 3 Rolling Hills , , , ,004 1 Yes , , , Yes , , , ,179 1,769 2 Grand Total 35,933 8,015,980 16,031,959 24,047,939 13,360 26,720 40,080 26,720 53,440 80, Total Cost $ 175 $ 100,000 9,351,976 $ 4,600,000 13,951,976 Incidental onsite piping, pump upgrades, and other unforeseen 10% $ 1,395,198 Engineering 15% $ 2,092,796 Contingency 15% $ 2,092,796 Total Cost 19,532,767 Capital Cost per gallon based on average daily yield 2.44 Capital Cost per gallon based on pumping average daily yield over 6 months D

43 Storm Water Harvesting Estimate of Annual Average Yield, footage of pipe required to generate yield over 6 month pumping cycle and cost, based on all drainage areas yielding over 70,000 GPD Assumptions: Scale 1" 2,333 Gallons per acre ft. 325,829 Rain runoff per year inches Amount that can be recovered 30% Square Feet per Acre 43,560 Day per year 365 Minutes in 10 Hours 600 GPM per foot of Horizontal Well 0.5 Growth will occur evenly over next 20 years Annual Inflation 2% Estimated density per acre 1.50 Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop Estimated Cost of Portion on Phase 3 of FCOB: Estimated Annual Average Average 10 Hour Pumping Window Estimated Drainage Acres Average Daily Over Daily Over Gallons Per Minute Footage of Horizontal Well Required Pumping Area Developed Calculated by Withdrawal 6 Months 4 Months Daily 6 Month 4 Month Daily 6 Month 4 Month Systems or Likely to ID Location Description Computer GPD GPD GPD Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Required Develop 3000 Pond West of Henley , , , ,074 1,611 1 Yes 3001 First pond east of Henley , , , ,044 1 Yes 3002 Second pond east of Henley , , , ,350 1 Yes 3003 Third pond east of Henley , , , ,361 2,041 1 Yes 3008 Third and fourth pond south of Sandridge Rd , , , ,298 1 Yes 3009 Fifth and Sixth pond south of Sandridge Rd. 1, , , , ,578 2,367 1 Yes 3010 Seventh and eighth pond south of Sandridge Rd. 1, , , , ,035 2,070 3,105 1 Yes 3011 First pond north of SR , , , Yes 3013 First pond south of SR 16 east of FCOB , , , ,029 1,544 1 Yes 3014 Second pond south of SR 16 west of FCOB , , , Yes 3015 Second pond south of SR16 east of FCOB , , , Yes 3017 Fourth pond south of SR16 west pf FCOB , , , Yes 3018 Third and fourth pond south of SR16 east/north on FCOB , , , ,452 2,177 1 Yes 9,102 2,030,486 4,060,972 6,091, ,768 13,537 20, $ 175 $ 100,000 2,368,900 $ 1,300,000 3,668,900 Incidental onsite piping, pump upgrades, and other unforeseen 10% $ 366,890 Engineering 15% $ 550,335 Contingency 15% $ 550,335 Total Cost 5,136,460 3D

44 Storm Water Harvesting Potential 3)e. Storm Water Harvesting Conceptual Master Plan

45 µ Spencer's Crossing WTP 17(053: 513/"%5(3$"+,5($ 160'%3:$ #$! 17(30(34 %3- %3%51*% 23,0*4,'. %: (4(371,3 U T U T U T 3 7 Spencer's RWTP 0 Acres: Acres: 1101 Spencer's WWTP Meadowbrook WTP 31214(' (4(371,3 (&. %,/(' "%5(3 3(%5/(05. % (' 17(3013< 4 %3- "" "%45(8 %5(3 3(%5/(05. %05 6/2 5%5,10 FDOT Pond Type 4003 Acres: (),0(' 4001 Acres: Oakleaf Acres: 1421 RWTP Oakleak Plantation WTP 3: "(5 (. 58 %: 4002 Acres: Acres: 619 9,45,0* 3%04/,44,10 %,04 13,;105%. "(.. 513/ "%5(3 3%04/,44, Acres: Acres: 1591 Contours 0 Acres: 390 Ridgecrest WTP 0 Acres: 544 Lucy Branch WTP ID: 5000 Acres: 419 Description, erence ID +%4( +%4( 2(0&(34 (7(. 12/(05 3(% ID: 5001 Acres: Acres: 1965 /% ' (7(. 12/(05 3(% Tanglewood WTP +,. #10*( -,00(3 (7(. 12/(05 3(% 1( 1..,04 (7(. 12/(05 3(% 17(053: (7(. 12/(05 3(% %//: "3,*+5 (7(. 12/(05 3(% Old Jennings Rd. RWTP Old Jennings WTP %3%51*% 23,0*4 (7(. 12/(05 3(% (,0+1. ' (7(. 12/(05 3(% 0 Acres: %) 4104 (7(. 12/(05 3(% Greenwood WTP 17(30134 %3- (7(. 12/(05 3(% 1..,0*,.. 4 (7(. 12/(05 3(% 1002 Acres: Acres: 267 Ridaught WTP 0 Acres: 789 Middleburg High School WTP 0 Acres: 563 Orange Park South WTP Ridaught Landing WWTP 0 Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: 59 0 Acres: Acres: 220 MATCH LINE 6000 Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: 1026 ID: 3002 Acres: Acres: 198 Ravines WTP 3001 Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: 229 Branscomb WTP 0 Acres: Acres: 513 ID: 3004 Acres: 308 ID: 7001 Acres: 650 Mid-Clay Mid-Clay RWTP WWTP ID: 3003 Acres: 915 ID: 3000 Acres: 722 ID: 3005 Acres: 191 Meadowlakes WTP ID: 9000 Acres: Acres: 450 ID: 3006 Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: 582 Project: Storm Water Harvesting Conceptual Master Plan Clay Info: Department: GIS Prepared by Mike Sawdo Date 11/13/2014 Vicinity Map Scale: 1 inch = 3,000 feet 8000 Acres: Acres: Acres: Acres: 289 ID: Acres: 598 Sheet No. North Section 3E