 |
|---|
|
Loretta Ingraham Recreation Center
April 16, 2007 - Tampa
The meeting began with an open house, with displays around the room of Tampa Bay Water information regarding the planning process, screening criteria, project list, and source water protection. After signing in, attendees were provided with an information packet containing the meeting agenda, comment sheet, copies of the presentation materials, and the comprehensive project list. Attendees had the opportunity to review the information and ask questions of available Tampa Bay Water, TBRPC, and Black & Veatch staff.
Paula Dye of Tampa Bay Water began the presentation at 6:00 p.m. She made introductions and covered the agenda, background information, and the planning process. Steve Simpson of Black & Veatch continued the presentation with the goals and screening criteria. Avera Wynne of TBRPC led an audience response segment to gather input on the relative importance of the screening criteria. Environmental and Source Water Protection was ranked most important by 57% of the attendees. Implementation/feasibility ranked least important by 43%. Project Cost was equally split between important and least important. Regulatory requirements ranked important to 57%. 57% of attendees ranked Yield as neutral.
There was a suggestion that this input mechanism would be very helpful for elected officials in the region. Paula Dye noted that this presentation will likely be delivered to a number of stakeholder groups. There was also some discussion that some of the screening criteria overlapped, particularly regulatory requirements and environmental protection.
Paula Dye continued the presentation by discussing source water protection. Avera Wynne led an audience response segment to gather input on the importance of the region doing source water protection. Attendees ranked Public Information and Education as important (43%), Protective Policies and Regulations as important (75%), Land Acquisition as important (43%), Best Management Practices as important (57%), and Local Watershed Protection Actions as important (38%). Avera also led a voting segment on the importance of Tampa Bay Water performing source water protection actions. 100% of attendees ranked continuing to advocate for source water protection as high priority for Tampa Bay Water. Supporting the development of ordinances was rated high priority by 88%, implementing stormwater projects was rated medium priority by 63%, and minimizing industrial discharges was rated high by 63%. Supporting Low Impact Development was rated high by 71% of attendees. The priority for Tampa Bay Water to Research and perform outreach on Low Impact Development was evenly split, with 38% of attendees ranking this a high priority and 38% ranking this a low priority. The priority for Tampa Bay Water to produce educational materials was split, with 38% of attendees ranking this high priority and 38% ranking this a medium priority.
Paula Dye thanked the attendees for participating, and invited them to take advantage of the remaining open-house format meeting to add project ideas to the comprehensive list, to provide additional comments via the comment sheet, and to ask additional questions of staff at the meeting. Paula also noted that the website www.futurewater.org contained the same survey questions and much of the same information as the presentation, so additional comments and input could be provided at future public meetings, on the website, or by addressing questions through the website.
Some of the attendees were concerned about minimum flows in the lower Hillsborough River and the quality of the water in this reach of the river. One attendee suggested that idea of homeowners using shallow wells to offset potable water irrigation demands as a water supply project.