1. Sole Source Contracts for Administrative Hearing Southeast Water Supply Augmentation Project Presented to: Orange County Board of County Commissioners March 18, 2008

2. Contents  Background  SEWSAP Water Use Permit  Reasons For Administrative Hearing  Requested Action

3. Contents  Background  SEWSAP Water Use Permit  Reasons For Administrative Hearing  Requested Action

4. Background OCU Groundwater Permits  SJRWMD CUP in 2006 and SFWMD WUP in 2007 – Allocation to meet projected demands through 2013 – Additional demands after 2013 to be met by other sources 10 mgd from SJR/TCR Project by 2013 Additional 10 mgd from UKRB by 2014 – Maximize use of all available reclaimed water and conservation measures

5. Background OCU Groundwater Permits  To maximize the use of reclaimed water and meet our demands OCU must develop a water source by 2010 – To supplement reclaimed water – To meet permit conditions – To meet future demands

6. Background Alternative Water Supplies  Surface water from the SJR and the UKRB – Identified by the Districts’ in their Water Supply Plans – Required in our CUP/WUP – Currently being pursued through different projects by Utilities in the region

7. Background Alternative Water Supplies  Desalination – Can not be implemented in time to meet demands at 2010 and after 2013 – Requires approximately 50 miles of pipeline – Challenges Concentrate disposal Energy intensive Costly

8. Background Alternative Water Supplies  Treatment Cost Comparison – Groundwater Approx. $1.00 per 1000 gallons – Surface Water Approx. $3.00 per 1000 gallons – Desalination Approx. $6.00 per 1000 gallons  Costs do not include transmission and land acquisition

9. Background Alternative Water Supplies  Surface water projects from SJR and UKRB being pursued by OCU – SJR/TCR Water Supply Project Partnership with 5 Utilities and 2 WMDs Agreement approved by BCC in 2005 – SEWSAP Pursued by OCU in 2006 to meet reclaimed water needs in 2010

10. Background Alternative Water Supplies  AWS Project Near SR46 – Seminole County – Partnership with 6 Utilities and SJRWMD  UKRB Water Supply Project – Partnership with 5 Utilities and 2 WMDs

11. Background Why SEWSAP  Identified under IWRP as a feasible alternative water supply (AWS) project – Environmentally, technically and financially feasible  Located within the County and near where shortfalls will first occur  Can be implemented by 2010  Part of the UKRB – Required in the WUP  4 mgd permitted by SFWMD for Toho Water Authority in 2005

12. Background Why SEWSAP  SJR/TCR Project can not be implemented by 2010 – Currently behind schedule to meet demands after 2013  AWS Project Near SR 46 and the UKRB Water Supply Project are in partnering phase  Other potential sources in Orange County will not allow OCU to meet demands at 2010 and current permit conditions

13. Background SEWSAP Project  7.14 mgd  Two points of withdrawal – C-29 and C-29A Canals Lake Hart Lake Mary Jane C-29 C-29A

14. Background SEWSAP Project  Intakes in the vicinity of Lake Hart and Lake Mary Jane  SFWMD determines lake elevations and operates control structures  OCU is not requesting modifications to the operation schedules  Water to be pumped from the canals only when available

15. Contents  Background  SEWSAP Water Use Permit  Reasons For Administrative Hearing  Requested Action

16. SEWSAP Water Use Permit  Applied in June 2006  Addressed all SFWMD written comments  SFWMD written comments stated, “the evaluation provided predicts minimal impacts to the local water bodies”

17. SEWSAP Water Use Permit  City of St. Cloud also applied for WUP in May 2006 – 5 mgd – East Lake Toho – Part of the UKRB – Reclaimed Water Augmentation  Most recent SFWMD models indicate enough water in the UKRB to meet OCU and St. Cloud requests

18. SEWSAP Water Use Permit  December 2007 SFWMD denied OCU and St. Cloud permit requests  SFWMD decision contradicts their position when they issued WUPs in 2007 requiring OCU and St. Cloud to develop UKRB  OCU and St. Cloud filed petitions for administrative hearing in December 2007

19. Contents  Background  SEWSAP Water Use Permit  Reasons For Administrative Hearing  Requested Action

20. Reasons For Administrative Hearing  Need source of water to meet demand in 2010  Project is environmentally, technically and financially feasible  Project is within the SFWMD rules  Denial limits our options for timely development of new water sources

21. Contents  Background  SEWSAP Water Use Permit  Reasons For Administrative Hearing  Requested Action

22. Requested Action Sole Source Contracts  Hearing scheduled in July  Immediate need to contract with legal representation and expert witnesses  Team familiar with OCU and specific legal and technical needs of the case

23. Requested Action Approval to award five (5) sole source contracts to assist the County in the formal administrative hearing Orange County v. South Florida Water Management District. The five (5) contracts are:  Y8-1055 to Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. - $375,000  Y8-816 to PB Americas, Inc. (PB) - $250,000  Y8-817 to SDI Environmental Services, Inc. (SDI) - $250,000  Y8-818 to Liquid Solutions Group, LLC (LSG) - $90,000  Y8-819 to Thomas E. Lodge Ecological Advisors (TELEA) - $75,000