|
Economics Report 82
Water Use in Southwest Florida --
An Economic Perspective
Food and Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
Gary D. Lynne
Clyde F. Kiker
(V'
November 1976
ABSTRACT
Water has become a scarce resource in Florida, especially in the
Southwest Florida (SWF) area. An economic framework was used to discuss
the water demand-supply balance in SWF, Agriculture and the mineral in-
dustries were found to be major water users accounting for 56 to 67 per-
cent of total use in SWF during 1969-70. About 85 percent of the total
water used in SWF in 1970 was for production related activities. The
remaining 15 percent was domestic use. It was argued economic criteria
should play a role in the allocation of water. Economic efficiency and
distributive impacts of alternative water allocations should be evaluated.
Key words; water demand, water supply, water allocation, water use.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to recognize, the contribution of Ms, Judy Dorman
who collected much of the basic data presented in this report and also of
Ms, Debbie Bucci who typed several drafts of the manuscript.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ... ..... .. ........... ..................... ......... ii
LIST OF FIGI~- ES ... .... ....... .. .... .......... ........... .. ....... iii
I NTROD UCTI ON. ... .. . . .i .... .. 1
Geographic Definition, Data Sources, and Time Period of Analysis.,. 2
Plan of the Report...... .... ..... ..... ............ ... 4
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES AND WATER USE....................... 4
Agricultural Enterprises Affecting Water Use, 1969-1970............ 4
Trends in Agricultural Enterprise Affecting Water Use, 1949-50 to
1969-70.................. ........... ........ ... ................... 17
COIPTERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES AND WATER USE. ............. 22
Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Affecting Water Use, 1970.... 22
Trends in Commercial-Industrial Enterprise Affecting Water Use,
1950 to 1970. ... ................................... .......... 33
DIRECT CONSLP PTION ACTIVITIES ............................... .......... 36
Characteristics of the Population and Household Technology Affecting
Water Use, 1970 ....................................................... 36
Trends in Activities Affecting Direct Consumption of Water, 1950 to
1970 ................ ................. ........... ............. ........ 41
WATER SUPPLY--SOME GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS............................. 44
ECOnFO'H1T ACTIVITY AND UATER USE--A SUMMARY ANALYSIS ..................... 49
Water Use in 1970 ......................................................... 49
Trends in Total Water Use, 1950 to 1970.......................... 59
Economic Considerations in Water Management and Allocation......... 59
SLWRARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................. ............... ............... 61
APPENDIX TABLES ................ .. ....... ..... ................ ....... 64
REFERENCES .......... .... .. ..... .... ..... ... ..... .................. 68
LIST OF TABLES
Number Pae
1 General characertistics of agriculture in SWF, 1969......... 5
2 Total dollar output and resources used in agricultural pro-
duction in SWF, 1969................. ................ ...... 7
3 Labor estimates in farming, forestry, and fisheries, 1970.. 8
4 Average dollar output and resources used per acre of land
for agricultural production in SWF, 1969.............. .... 10
5 Acreage of major crops grown in SWF, 1969.................. 12,
6 Sales of agricultural crops in SWF, 1969................... 13
7 Sales of livestock in SWF, 1969........................... 14
8 Total crop and livestock sales and proportion in each cate-
gory in SWF, 1969................... ... .. ........ ........... 15
9 Acreage of major crops irrigated and water use in SWF, 1970 16
10 Change in land area in farms in 5-year intervals, and the
20-year interval, from 1949 to 1969, by county in SWF...... 18
11 Change in land area in farms. as a percentage of total land
area during 5-year intervals, and the 20-year interval, from
1949 to 1969, by county in SWF............................. 19
12 Change in irrigated land in farms in 5-year intervals, and
the 20-year interval, from 1949 to 1969, by county in SWF.. 21
13 Number of employed persons in various industrial, commercial
groups in the county, SWF, and State........................ 23
14 Proportion of employees in various industrial, commercial
groups in the county, SWF, 1970.............................. 24
15 Value of output and input usage for manufacturing, 1972.... 26
16 Value of output and inputs from retail-wholesale trade, SWF
1972 ...................................................... 27
17 Value of output and inputs for selected service businesses,
SWF, 1972. ..... .. ...... ........ ... ................ 28
18 Value of outputs from mining, SWF, 1970.................... 30
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Pa e
19 Value of outputs from thermoelectric power generation
for those firms using fresh water forSWF .................... 31
20 Total water withdrawn from all sources for commercial
and industrial production activities, SWF, 1970.,......... .32
21 Dollar outputs and water use, industrial-commercial
activity in SWF, 1970 72................................... 34
22 Change in number of employees in industrial, commercial
groups between 1950 and 1970 in SWF......... ......... 35
23 Population levels, urban and rural, SWF, 1970.............. 37
24 Number of housing units, households, and type of household
technology, SWF, 1970,..,,, ,.... ............. ..... ........ 39
25 Direct consumption use and factors affecting use, SWF, 1970 40
26 Population changes in ten-year intervals, and the 20-year
interval, from 1950 to 1970, by county in SW. ,......;..... 42
27 Percentage change in number of housing units and various
measures of household technology, SlU, 1950-1970........... 43
28 Sources and quantities of withdrawals in SWF, 1970......... 46
29 Total water withdrawn from all sources by use classification
and county in SWF, 1970. ............................... 50
30 Proportion of water withdrawn for various uses by counties
in SW 1970 ....... ...... ........................... .. 51
31 Summary of production activities in terms of outputs and
water use estimates for SWF, 1969-1972,,.................... 52
32 Correlation coefficients, water in production and water in
consumption versus various measures of economic activity,
SWF, 1969-1972 ......,. ..... .... ............. ... 53
33 Total water withdrawn from all sources in production and
consumption activities, with proportions in each use, by
county in SWF, 1970. ,.,............... ... ...... ... ..... 58
APPENDIX TABLES
Number Page
1 Acres of harvested cropland on farms in SWF, 1969........... 64
2 Irrigation of harvested croplands on farms in SWF, 1969.... 65
3 Percent of harvested cropland irrigated on farms in SWF,
1969. .. . .. .. ... ...... .,...... .. .. .. ............ 66
4 Number of livestock and water use in SWF, 1969.............. 67
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Southwest Florida area and boundaries of the Southwest
Florida Water Management District.,................. 3
2 Decline in the potentiometric surface in SWF between
1949 and 1969,,,., ,,.,.. ..5.... ,... ........ 45
3 Water use by industry, irrigation and municipalities
in Hillsborough and Polk Counties....,, ,..,..,..,... 55
vi
WATER USE IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDAAN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
Gary D, Lynne and Clyde Kiker
INTRODUCTION
Florida is considered to be a humid state as relatively large amounts
of rainfall are received and drought conditions are infrequent. Large
quantities of water are stored on and under the surface of the state with
fresh groundwater reserves alone having been estimated at over 800 cubic
miles [2, p.9]. Most Floridians have always enjoyed sufficient quantities
of water of acceptable quality when and where needed. In fact, the situ-
ation often has been one of too much water, Temporary excess water has
been a major problem [6, p. 87], and large areas of the state have been
drained to alleviate the flooding, Flood control activity is an important
element of water management in much of Florida,1
In relatively recent years, however, water has become a scarce re-
source [6, p.97] in some parts of the state. Problems caused by low rain-
fall, population growth, economic growth, shifts to high water using tech-
nologies, and other occurrences have surfaced. One of these areas is in
the southwest part of the state where both surface and groundwater supplies
have been affected. Parker has estimated that the water demand will equal
the natural recharge of ground and surface supplies by 1984 [8, p. 13].
There is an especially serious availability problem in the Upper Peace
and Alafia River basins area [8, p. 12], which is in the Polk-Hillsborough
County area,
1For a discussion of drainage-flood control activities in Florida,
see the state water plans published by the State in 1966, 1970, and 1974
[3, 4, 5].
Gary D, Lynne and Clyde Kiker are assistant professors of food and
resource economics, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univer-
sity of Florida,
The purpose of this report is to illustrate and define the nature
of the water uses and users in the southwest area of Florida. The nature
of the "water problem" is developed and discussed iit1.ji the context of
an economic framework, The major (withdrawal) uses have been divided into
three groups, namely agricultural (crop and livestock) production, commer-
cial and industrial production, and direct consumption (,.,opultionn-people
related) uses. Each use is discussed in turn. Major characteristics af-
fecting water use are highlighted. Tr-crri. in water use are identified
where possible and major use catcgorie, are compared. It is expected the
summaries and analyses provided here will .ive the reader a better picture
of the "water problem" and the issues related to this problem in the South-
west Florida area,
Geographic Definit ion, D-ta Sour c a.., and Tim"'e Per od o!' Analy is
The area considered in this report coincides roughly with the hvydru
logic boundaries of one of the major river basin groups in FIotiia, n.airel:
the Wesc Coast Tributaries area [5, p,3], It also closely parallels the
boundaries of the Southwest Florida Water ',-iMin nmenL District (SWFW D).
The 13 county area included in this analy.si3 is referred to as Southwest
Florida or "SWF" (Figure 1).
Several sources of data were utilized, including Buc-'.u of the Census
data, U. S. Geological Survey report-s, and the SLate water plans. Some
discrepancies were found; these are highlig.hl:.ed in the discussion at the
appropriate intervals. In general l data on water use and the relatioishi.ip
of water use to economic activity is not well documented. In fact, some
of the reported water use f.gurr_-: appear distorted. Agricultural use es-
timates, for example, were extremely high, The possible reasons for these
discrepancies are discussed in the report,
The period for most data utilized was 1969-72, but trends from as
early as 1949-50 are prese-n.ter in some cases, Data for 1969-72 must be
viewed as a "snapshot-in-time" and only give some indication of relative
magnitudes. Trend data relate primarily to the direction of change and
the interpretation of rmagniit-i.es should again be viewed only in a relative
sense.
Daca for periods since 1972 were not available in a consistent and
comparable form. Thus, rather than reporting the most recent data points
Southwest Florida area
Southwest Florida water
management district----- --
Figure 1.--Soiuthwest Florida dren and boundaries of the Southwest Florida
water management district, 1976,
for some types of information (while being unable to report a consistent,
complete set of data), it was decided to deal with only the period prior
to 1972. This summnar; analysis, then, is an attermpL at identifying the
major problems and trends (from an ecori.nmiit perspective) prior to the
Florida Water Resources Act of 1972,2 This "wherewewewre" and "how-we-
got-there" analysis will be useful to those concerned with current and
future water managcriment and allocation decisions under the 1972 Act.
Plan of the Re6rt
The alternative demands for the water are highlighted in the first
three sections of the report, The availability of water is then discussed.
The report is culminated with a brief analysis of the demand-supply balance.
AGRKTCULTUJA\L PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES AND WATER USE
Agricultural activities in SWF are important to the area's economy
3
and have a significant impact on water use. It is the purpose of this
section of the report to highlight the impact by indicatilig the nature of
the production activity and the economics of basic agricultural production
in the area.
Aiz.ricl tii lul Eniteci.~~es Afectirg, UIter Use 1969-1970
Sales of all crop and livet-ock products in 1969 were nearly $300
million from a total ,~creiage in farms of about 3,5 million (Table 1).
This compares to Florida's total of $S..1 billion, or about 27 percent of
total revenues from basic ;agiicultural production in the state and total
acreage of about 12,7 million acres, Operating expenses totaled nearly
$258 million (Table 1). Such items as fertilizers, hired labor, feed,
This Act imposed a system of administrative regulation over the pre-
vious riperian system of water rights, See Uadley 1321 for a discussion of
the Act.
Wate-r use in this study Lrefers to water withdrawals, "Use" and "with-
drawal" are utilized interichangeably throughout the report.
Table 1.--General characteristics of agriculture in SWF, 1969
Farmsa Acresa Dollar measuresa
County r Proportion Average Sa c Operating
ir rigatedb per farm expenses
Percent -Thousands of dollars-
Charlotte 80 35.0 212,668 2,658 3,342 4,071
Citrus 101 16.8 98,401 974 1,767 1,794
Desoto 327 32.1 257,011 786 10,053 9,264
Hardee 733 39.2 386,143 527 19,565 15,735
Hernando 202 9.4 67,189 333 12,205 11,467
Hillsborough 1,384 33.2 327,523 237 57,612 50,038
Manatee 416 44.0 305,692 735 24,315 21,275
Marion 633 19.1 424,899 671 23,421 23,936
Pasco 645 17.0 313,543 486 34,221 30,698
Pinellas 164 31.7 17,997 110 6,270 5,197
Polk 1748 46.2 799,333 457 94,334 72,747
Sarasota 97 36.1 143,926 1,484 6,087 5,086
Sumter 304 36.5 172,953 569 6,431 6,467
Total, SWF 6,834 34,2 3,527,280 516 299,622 257,775
Total, State 20,096 31,2 12,718,344 633 1,116,892 957,258
Pere entagee 34.0 -- 27.7 -- 26.8 26.4
Farms with sales of $2500
or more, considered "commercial farms".
bFarms on which any portion of the land was irrigated.
CMarket value from sales of all agricultural products, including livestock, crops, hay, forest products,
and miscellaneous products,
Includes all variable costs of production, including expenditures for hired labor.
SWF as a percentage of the state.
Source: Adapted from [16].
seed, sprays, and fuel account for the largest portion of these expenses.
The 3.5 million acres in farms (Table 1) represented about 53 percent of
of the land area in SWF and about 28 percent of land in farms for the
4
state. Average farm size was about 516 acres in 1969, The range among
counties was large, however, from a low of 110 acres in Pinellas County
to over 2600 acres in Charlotte County (Table 1),
Irrigation plays a significant role in the vitality of agriculture in
the area. About onethird (34 percent) of the farms had at least some land
irrigated in 1969 (Table 1), County estimates on number of irrigated farms
ranged from about 9 percent in Hernando to about 46 percent in Polk County.
The state-wide proportion was 31 percent.
A different view of agricultural activities can be obtained with ref-
erence to particular inputs (and quantity of inputs) used to generate out-
put from agricultural production. Various resources (in the broad cate-
gories of land, labor, capital, and management) were used to produce the
nearly $300 million in sales in 1969, Water use amounted to 58 billion
gallons on 274,000 acres of irrigated land (Table 2). This represents
about eight inches of water per irrigated acre, Total water use in agri-
culture was estimated at about 64 billion gallons, There were about 519,000
head of cattle and calves in inventory at the end of 1969 and over seven
million chickens.
The expenditure on employees was over $71 million in 1969 (Table 2).
Unfortunately, the number employed was not available. However, it is ex-
pected there were between 20,000 and 30,000, based on 1970 estimates (Table
3).5
Average dollar sales were $85 per acre for the entire area, with average
A "farm" in this study refers to commercial farms, A commercial farm
is defined (as in the 1969 Census) as one with at least $2,500 in sales of
agricultural products in 1969.
The measures of sales, operating expenses, etc. in Table 2 are for
all farm enterprises including forestry activities on farms, during 1969.
The data reported in Table 3 represents employment on farms (farmers, man~
agers, laborers, and foremen) and in the group farms, fisheries and forestry;
thus;: it was impossible to discover how many were employed only in farm and
forestry related activities on farms Also, the $71 million wage bill
does not represent payments to farmers, Overall, only relative magnitudes
can be gleaned from such inconsistent data sources.
Table 2.-Total dollar output and resources used in agricultural production in SWF, 1969
Output Inputs of production (resources used)
County Total Acres Acres not Livestock inventor Machinery, equipment Ex enditures on No. of farm Water used
sales irrigated irrigated Cattle & calves1 poultry investment labor f other operators irrigaion livestock total
Char;
Cttr
Desot
Ha rd
Herna
Hills
Manat
Mar i
Pasce
Pinel
Polk
Saras
Sunte
Tot
Thousands of
dollars
lotte 3,342
us 1,767
to 10,053
ee 19,565
indo 12,205
thorough 57,619
:ee 24,315
on 23,421
0 34,221
llas 6,270
94,334
sota 6,087
er 6,431
al 299,622
9,730
987
24,199
28,845
1,673
29,011
24,827
8,832
18,586
3,311
109,616
8,886
5,822
274,325
202,938
97,414
232,812
357,298
65,516
298,514
280,865
416,067
294,957
14,686
689,717
135,040
167,131
3,252,955
Thousands of
animals
16.8 3.4
8.4 20.4
33.0 269.2
57.8 <1.0
16.7 1,042.9
71.7 2,076.6
52.9 127.7
64.7 141.1
46.9 2,168.4
5.6 124.8
82.4 952.1
29.0 55.5
32.9 111.8
519.0 7,094.1
- --Thousands of dollars----
1,070
770
2,305
5,997
1,904
10,451
4,707
6,793
7,409
1,102
17,240
1,194
2,488
63,429
1,422
374
2,010
4,107
1,235
11,088
6,693
4,816
6.648
1,458
29,595
1,034
1,114
71,596
2,648
1,420
7,254
11,628
10,232
38,950
14,582
19,120
24,051
3,739
43,151
4,052
5,352
186,178
80
101
327
733
202
1,384
416
633
645
164
1,748
97
304
6,834
---Million gallons---
2,663.5
108.8
4,221.7
6,489.6
496.3
5,810.6
8,369.2
1,961.6
3,393.4
679.7
20,217.4
2,322.7
1,487.5
58,222.0
92.3
52.0
199.8
416.0
156.8
1,577.4
585.3
444.5
552.2
150.6
757.5
196.8
S221.6
5,383.5
a"Resources used" refers to the services of the various resources listed that were used in production.
"Other" includes all other variable costs of operation, such as for repairs, fuel, feed, seed, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.
CThis is actually the number of farm-firms; thus, there is an assumption of one farm operator per farm-firm.
dLivestock water use was calculated (See Appendix Table 4 for more detail and sources of data),
Source: Adapted from [161.
2,755.8
160.8
4,421.5
6,905.7
653.1
7,367.9
8,954.4
2,406.1
3,945.6
830.3
20,974.9
2,519.5
1,709.1
63,605.6
Table 3.--Labor estimates in farming, forestry and fisheries, 1970
Farm enterprises
Cout Farm, forestry and
County Farmers and Laborers and fishery enterprises
farm managers foreman
----------------Number of individuals---------------
Charlotte 56 108 367
Citrus 54 68 248
Desoto 119 601 893
Hardee 285 1,538 1,960
Hernando 176 286 581
Hillsborough 1,219 3,030 6,014
Manatee 293 1,153 2,094
Marion 587 1,466 2,518
Pasco 279 1,266 1,935
Pinellas 341 823 3,294
Polk 725 6,784 9,039
Sarasota 111 319 957
Sumter 237 449 809
Total, SWF 4,482 17,891 30,709
Total, State 16,566 60,747 110,994
Percent 27.1 29.4 27.7
Source: Adapted from (23].
input requirements of $18 per acre in machinerymequipment investment,
$20.30 per acre for labor, $52,78 per acre for other operating expenses,
18,000 gallons of water, and a number of livestock (Table 4), The "per
acre" livestock figure gives some indication of the extent of livestock
enterprises in the area. The estimate of 0.15 for cattle, for example,
says there are 15 animals per 100 acres in farmland (and there are 200
chickens). The number of operators per acre variable gives some indica-
tion of the intensity of operations. Generally speaking, the larger the
number reported, the greater the management requirements (or, more "oper-
ators per acre"),
Considerable variability existed among counties with respect to in-
tensity of input use, For example, Hardee County had an average of 92
animals on every 100 acres as compared to only eight animals per-100 acres
of farmland in Charlotte and Citrus Counties, Hernando was most intense
in poultry at 1500 birds per acre. Charlotte County had a low of two birds
per 100 acres, Use of all other inputs excepting water tend to be corre-
lated. High intensity of input usage with regard to machinery and equip-
ment was associated with large expenditures on labor and operating needs
as well as a large operator intensity coefficient, -Pinellas County had
the highest intensity values for all these measures (Table 4). The lowest
intensity use figures are in Charlotte and Citrus Counties for three of
these four measures, the exception being operator or "management" intensity
in Citrus County,
Water use was also quite variable, with a range of 1,600 to 46,000
gallons per acre of farmland. There was a general tendency for this vari-
able to be correlated with the proportion of total land irrigated. The
latter suggests a considerable variation among counties on water use per
acre. Variation is due mainly to differences in crops, but livestock in-
tensities also affect the estimates, as livestock water use is included.
Another measure of the nature of agricultural activity is the type
of crops grown in the area, The number of different types of crops is
large, but acreage of many of these is small. Acreages of major types
6There are over 30 different minor crops, each of which encompass
less than oneehalf of one percent (0,5%) of the farmland, See Appendix
Tables 1, 2, and 3,
Table 4.--Average dollar output and resources used per acre of landa for agricultural production in SWF, 1969
Output Inputs of production (resources used) per acre of farmland
Aonerage Livestock inventory i Expenditures on No. of Total Irrigated
County sales Machinery, equipment farm water acres per
sales Cattle & calves poultry investment labor other farm b water acrsper
operi r; u:d irozal acres
Dollars -----Number----------- ------------- Dollar ------------------ --.o.. 1 -Gals.
Charlotte 15.72 0.08 0.02 5.03 6.69 12.45 3.76 12,958 0.05
Citrus 17296 0,09 0.21 7.82 3.80 14.43 10.26 1,635 0.01
DeSoto 39.11 0.13 1.05 8.97 7.82 28.22 12.72 17,204 0.09
Hardee 50.67 0.92 0,15 15.53 10.64 30.11 18.98 17,884 0.08 H
Hernando 181.65 0.25 15.52 28.34 18.38 152.28 30.06 9,720 0.02 0
Hillsborough 175.90 0.22 6,34 31.91 33.86 118.92 42.26 22,496 0.09
Manatee 79.54 0.17 0.42 15.40 21.90 47.70 13.61 29,292 0.08
Marion 55.12 0.15 0.33 15.99 11.34 45.00 14.90 5,663 0.02
Pasco 109.14 0.15 6.92 23.63 21.20 76.71 20.57 12,584 0.06
Pinellas 348.38 0,31 6.93 61.22 81.02 207.77 91.13 46,137 0.18
Polk 118.02 0.10 1.19 21,57 32.02 53.98 21.87 26,240 0.14
Sarasota 42.29 0.20 .0.39 8.29 7.19 28.15 6.74 17,506 0.06
Sumter 37.18 0.19 0.65 14.38 6.44 30.95 17.58 9,882 0.03
Total 84,94 0.15 2.01 17.98 20.30- 52.78 19.37 18,032 0.08
All land in farms. Averages calculated from data in Table 2.
bNumber of operators per acre of farmland 'il;ipli1 by 104 to allow for comparison of significant digits.
Proportion of farmland irrigated.
Source: Adapted from [16].
of crops grown are presented in Table 5, Citrus is the largest crop (that
is harvested directly for sale) in terms of acreage, representing about 10
percent of the farmland. Vegetable and nursery crops encompass less than
1 percent (0,8%) and only one-tenth of 1 percent (0,1%) of farmland, re-
spectively, The largest share of land in farms is in pasture, representing
73 percent in 1969 (Table 5), Polk County had the largest citrus -ie;:1i.
and Manatee and Hillsborough Counties had the largest acreage in vegetables.
Polk County also had the largest absolute quantity of pasture land. How-
ever, several counties (such as Hardee) have larger proportions of farmland
in pasture,
Another measure of agricultural activity is the relative quantities
of sales from each major crop, Nearly 80 percent of sales value from
crops was generated by citrus in 1969 (Table 6), Vegetables ranked second
at 11 percent, Of course, some crops are marketed through livestock. Live-
stock products generated over $124 million in sales (Table 7) with equal
shares occurring among the major classes of livestock (dairy, other cattle,
and poultry), At least part of these returns should be attributed to the
crops (and, ultimately, the land used to produce these crops) devoted Ito;
livestock production, Sales from crops and livestock accounted for 59 per-
cent and 41 percent, respectively in 1969 (Table 8),
Irrigated acreage estimates for 1970 were found to be higher than
the estimates for 1969, a difference of about 100,000 acres (374,870 com-
pared to 274,325, Tables 2 and 9). Estimated water withdrawals were con-
siderably higher, at 186 billion gallons as compared to 58 billion gallons
in 1969, Estimated use per irrigated acre was also considerably higher.
The average amount of irrigation water reported per irrigated acre in 1969
was eight acre inches as compared to 18 acre inches in 1970. These differ-
ences hi,,hliight the problem of using different sources of information.
7Asumiinn, that "land in orchards," by Census definition, is primarily
citrus in this area., Pasture has a larger share; however, this crop is
harvested and sold indirectly through livestock,
This difference is most probably due to data collection and estimating
procedures and differences in definition regarding "use", rather than any
significant change in water use per acre froir 1969 to 1970, Water .ise, as
specified in Table 9, refers to withdrawals for irrigation of the crop and
was calculated using several assumptions, The water use estimate for 1969
was the figure reported in the 1969 Census by the farmers [16], "water use"
Table 5.--Acreage of major crops grown in SWF, 1969
----------------------------------- ------Acres---------------------------------------------
Charlotte
Citrus
Desoto
Hardee
Hernando
Billsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
6,222
1,667
21,851
43,L00
7,714
47,564
16,331
11,392
49,258
4,903
153,806
1,707
2,163
367,978
76
3
17
84
33
1,352
1,271
247
37
198
468
106
206
4,098
1,893
237
1,973
2,315
519
5,415
6,174
3,242
262
0
1,566
1,180
3,465
28,243
200,518
73,876
197,221
304,623
37,448
214,813
237,853
328,027
185,022
7,973
521,343
128,209
129,139
2,566,065
3,957
22,618
35,949
35,721
21,475
58,381
44,063
81,991
78,964
4,923
122,150
12,724
37,980
560,896
212,668
98,401
257,011
386,143
67,189
327,525
305,592
424,899
313,543
17,997
799,333
143,926
172,953
3,527,280
Percentage 10.4 0.1 0.8 72.8 15.9 100.0
aMainly citrus of various types.
b
All types of pasture, inlcuding cropland and woodland pasture,
CThere were 483,819 acres of harvested cropD!:. in the area in 1969. The sum of the harvested orchard,
nursery, and vegetable acreage shown in this table is 400,313. Therefore, this "other" category includes about
80,000 acres of c-.-olTad (of which the largest share is used for livestock feed .::~c i...>). The remainder of
this "ocher" category includes house and farm lots, woodlands not pastured, ponds, wasteland, etc.
Source: Adapted from [16].
Table 6.--Sales of agricultural crops in SlFF, 1969
Charlotte
Citrus
Desoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
------------------------------Thousands of dollars------------------------------
365 1,162 33 20 2,541
ZOL
646
4,533
13,194
1,709
16,067
4,588
4,386
14,105
1,793
76,180
537
493
139,196
_b
36
50
65
3,100
4,030
372
164
1,390
1,964
539
231
12,305"
34
571
990
84
5,319
7,202
908
70
0
515
1,586
1,495
19,935
79
8
18
36
50
29
183
82
2
211
19
61
778
219
24
85
176
388
107
1,625
278
14
268
12
94
3,311
979
5,172
14,337
2,060
24,924
15,956
7,474
14,698
3,200
79,138
2,693
2,373
175,524
Percentage 79.3 7.0 11.4 0.4 1.9 100.0
primarily citrus.
bWithheld information due to disclosure problems.
CIncludes nursery and greenhouse sales.
Source; Adapted from [16].
Table 7.--Sales of livestock in SWF, 1969
-------------------Thousands of dollars------------------
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
0
-.-a
1,830
567
16,878
4,473
1,176
4,077
2,053
4,047
698
653
36,457
751
544
2,373
3,336
4,284
3,001
2,942
7,907
2,584
155
4,370
2,300
2,740
37,288
95
2,320
<1
5,210
12,392
890
88L
12,722
718
6,417
320
638
42,647
150
187b
62
74
416
52
5,983
140
143
362
75
27
7,675
788
4,880
5,228
10,135
32,687
8,358
15,947
19,523
3,070
15,196
3,394
4,058
124,065
Percent 29.4 30.1 34.4 6.2 100.0
aJithheld due to lack of disclosure.
includes income from dairy.
Includes income from dairy.
Source: Adapted from [16].
Table 8.--Total crop and livestock sales and proportion in each category in SWF, 1969
TotaTotal total Proportion
County crops livestock Tcrops livestock
---------Thousands of dollars--------------Percentage-------
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernand o
Hillsborough
Manatee
Mar i n
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
2,541
979
5,172
14,337
2,070
24,924
15,956
7,474
14,698
3,200
79,138
2,693
2,373
175,524
801
788
4,880
5,228
10,135
32,.687
8,358
15,947
19,523
3,070
15,196
3,394
4,058
124,065
3,342
1,767
10,053
19,565
12,205
57,612
24,315
23,421
34,220
6,270
94,334
6,087
6,431
299,589
76.0
55.4
51.4
73.3
17.0
43.3
65.6
31.9
43.0
51.0
83.9
44.2
36.9
58.6
24.0
44.6
48.6
26.7
83.0
56.7
34.4
68.1
57.0
49.0
16.1
55.8
63.1
41.4
Source: Adapted from [16].
--
Table 9.--Acreage of major crops irrigated and water use in SWF, 1970
-------------------Acres----------------------
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Mar ion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
6,000
3,000
16,000
25,500
1,050
37,500
10,000
8,400
10,800
3,000
128,000
1,800
0
251,050
3,000
900
3,200
4,500
270
7,700
5,000
4,000
1,000
0
1,000
2,100
4,650
37,320
7,000
0
30,000
14,000
0
1,000
13,000
600
2,600
0
500
12,000
1,000
81,700
1,200
0
0
0
0
800
900
700
0
0
0
1,200
0
4,800
17,200
3,900
49,200
44,000
1,320
47,000
28,900
13,700
14,400
3,000
129,500
17,100
5,650
374,870
10,557.57
1,792.18
23,591.61
22,809.57
609.34
25,286.04
18,052.15
2,499.28
3,486.61
1,466.33
63,283.52
10,818.25
1,681.39
185,933.04
Percentage 67,0 10.0 21.8 1.3 100.0 --
aWithdrawals for irrigation.
Source: Adapted from [291.
_ ___
Citrus irrigation accounted for tworthirds of the acreage irrigated
in 1970 followed by 22 percent for pasture (Table 9), Truck crops (vege-
tables) accounted for nearly all of the remainder. This suggests some
direction for policy makers and water managers. It would seem that efforts
could be directed at the most significant uses first, if priorities on such
things as management and research funds must be set,
Trends in Agricultural Enterprise Affecting Water
Use, 1949-50 to 1969r70
Land in farms in SWF decreased by over a million acres during the 20-
year period from 1949 to 1969 with the largest absolute decline occurring
from 1954 to 1959 (Table 10), There were two five-year intervals when
farmland acreage actually increased (in the early 1950's and the early
1960's). The overall trend has been downward with the latest available
data showing a drop of three-quarters of a million acres from 1964 to 1969
(Table 10), Only two counties, Hardee and Manatee, showed increases in
farmland during the 20-year period. Both of these counties lost farmland
from 1954 to 1959 (at which time all counties except for a negligible gain
in Pinellas, lost farmland), but made gains in the other three 5-year in-
tervals, Of those counties showing a loss in farmland, Pasco showed the
least absolute acreage loss .at 19,000 acres and Polk the greatest reduction
of 290,000 acres (Table 10),
The relative area lost from agriculture demonstrates a different pat-
tern in land use changes, A total of 16.3 percent of the land area in
SWF was converted from farmland to other uses from 1949 to 1969 (Table 11).
For the. counties showing increases in farmland, Manatee had the largest
increase, 18 percent. In a relative sense, DeSoto Colonir converted the
most farmland to non-farm uses (almost two-thirds) and Hillsborough the
least (less than 4 percent, Table 11).
is not defined in the Census, and probably represents several viewpoints
of farmers-producers as to what "use" really means, The Census water use
estimate is probably som,.-what low. The U. S. Geloo.gicdl Survey is probably
high since they used a "consumptive use" (evaporation and tr- ns'piration)
value in the 1970 study [29] which is higher than it is expected most pro-
ducers are applying.
Table 10.--Change in land area in farms in 5 year intervals, and the
20 year interval, from 1949 to 1969, by county in SUFF
Period of time
County
1949-54 1954-59 1959-64 1964-69 1949-69
------------------------- --------------- ---
Charlotte
Citrus
Desoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
-26,341
3,636
-86,859
19,698
6,096
465,072
71,269
62,147
44,954
-3,725
107,245
23,210
-65.501
-145,227 37,979
-80,495
-165,259
-75,859
-12,686
-89,775
-56,313
-144,424
-92,588
97
-187,341
-31,137
-20 878
620,901 -1,101,385
-74
1,404
66,098
-10,073
-4,223
17,333
23,988
50,168
-8,605
10,006
3,657
-13,298
174,360
-55,028
-9,031
-24,194
19,762
-12,148
-394,478
49,519
-82,636
-21,656
-21,100
-220,168
-19,932
14,709
-liB8,617
-89,964
-274,908
29,699
-28,811
-23,404
81,808
-140,925
-19,122
-39,333
-290,258
-24,202
-84 978
-782,381 -1,089,005
Source: Adapted from [10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16].
----~'--
--
a
Table ll.--Change in land area in farms as a percentage of total land
area during 5 year intervals, and the 20 year interval, from
1949-to 1969, by county in SWF
Charlotte
Citrus
Desoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
Period of time
1949-54b 1954-59c 1959-64c 1964-69d 1949-69e
-------------------------Percent-----------------------
-5.8 -32.3 8.4 -12.2 -41.9
1.0 -22.5 0 -2.5 -24.0
-20.9 -39.9 .3 -5.8 -66.3
4.9 -18.8 16.4 4.9 7.4
2.0 -4.1 -3.2 -3.9 -9.2
69.9 -13.5 -0.6 -59.4 -3.6
15.9 -11.9 3.7 10.5 18.2
6.0 -14.1 2.3 -8.1 -14.0
9.4 -19.5 10.6 -4.6 -4.1
-14.1 .1 -5.1 -12.5 -31.6
9.0 -15.7 -.8 -18.5 -26.0
6.2 -8.3 1.0 -5.3 -6.4
-18.2 -5.9 -3.7 4.1 -23.7
9.3 -16.5 2.6 -11.7 -16.3
aEstimated land in farms in census years 1949,
and 1969.
Based on estimated square miles of land area
CBased on estimated square miles of land area
dBased on estimated square miles of land area
eSummation of five year changes.
Source: Adapted from [10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
1954, 1959, 1964,
in 1950.
in 1960.
in 1970.
The timing of the change in relative area was rqiite variable among
counties, About 40 percent of the land in farms in DeSoto County was con-
verted to non-farm enterprises from 1954 to 1959, Oily 6 percent was con-
verted from 1964 to 1969, Hillsborough County, on the other hand, converted
only 14 percent and 60 percent for the same time periods, respectively
(Table 11),
Variability over the years was also quite different among counties.
Hernando County showed a rather consistent change, with a slight increase
of 2 percent for the five year period 1949 to 1954 followed by three 4
percent declines for each 5-year interval starting in 1954. Tlillsborough
County had quite large and variable changes with an increase of nearly 70
percent from 1949 to 1954, Relative farm land area declined in each 5-
year interval thereafter, culminating in a 60 percent decline from 1964
to 1969. On net, however, Hillsborough County had less of its land area
converted to non-farm use than did Hernando (in.a relative sense), even
though there were large positive changes followed by negative changes in
Hillsborough County,
Viewed in isolation, the preceding estimates of changes in land use
might suggest a reduction in agricultural activity and a reduction in
water use by agriculture (at least in most counties, and certainly for the
SWF area), This phenomenon did not occur due to offsetting factors.
Irrigated acreage increased by 143,000 acres (Table 12) over the same
20-year period that land in farms decreased by 1,000,000 acres (Table 10).
Thus, for each acre reduction in farmland over the period, about one-eighth
of an acre of land came under irrigation during 1949 to 1969 (Table 12).
The rate of change was quite variable over the various 5-year intervals.
During the 10-year period from 1959 to 1969, irrigated land increased about
one acre for each three acre decline in farmland, While changes in irri-
gated acreage do not necessarily imply changes in the total,water used in
agriculture, it appears that the change was sufficient to cause an increased
use. Data on water use in agriculture are not sufficient to the task of
defining specific changes over time, but do indicate that more water was
used in agriculture in 1970 than was used in 1950,
This is not intended to suggest a causal relationship, but merely rep-
resents a way of displaying relative changes in land use over time, Stated
somewhat differently, more land was irrigated, but not necessarily because
farmland was being reduced.
Table 12 .--Change in irrigated land in farms in 5 year intervals, and
the 20 year interval, from 1949-1969, by county in SWF
Period of time
County
1949-54 1954-59 1959-64 1964-69 1949-69
-----------------------------Acres-----------------------
Charlotte 1,595 -467 3,589 4,418 9,135
Citrus -101 637 2,036 -290 786
Desoto -2,523 -297 8,976 13,118 19,274
Hardee -1,830 596 19,906 5,114 23,786
Hernando 477 -930 775 1,070 1,392
Hillsborough 7,040 -11,593 32,832 -13,256 15,023
Manatee 632 -1,122 7,142 7,109 13,761
Marion 1,276 2,777 9,374 -9,169 4,258
Pasco -5,571 -3,206 9,185 8,394 8,802
Pinellas -988 -4,764 3,194 -1,012 -3,570
Polk -48,065 8,045 100,923 -17,717 43,186
Sarasota -1,235 -235 6,389 -536 4,383
Sumter 49 1,955 124 1,118 3,246
Total -49,244 -8,604 202,949 -1,639 143,462
Al 5 year -1 -1 +1 -1
AF' intervals +13 -128- +1 -477
Al, 10 year -1 +1
AF intervals -8 -3
aFreezes in the late 1950's and the severe freeze of 1961 caused
a substantial increase in the installation of sprinkler irrigation
systems for frost protection. They were also used for irrigation.
The relationship between the change in irrigated land (AI) and the
change in farmland (AF) can be expressed as a ratio (AI/AF).
Source: Adapted from [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16].
COfl iRCTIALL IjNDUST.IAL .PROilUCI'ION ACTIVITI.S A"!n WI-'\TER USE
Commercial-industrial "pr'oucti .o." is detinrl here as all those non-
agriculturall0 activities that use water as a resource or input into the
provision of gr.,ds and services, This section highli gIL the water use
characteristics for these varied activities,
Coniuercial and i ndustrT-al ntirp i.-es Af'fec:i.l, !,'.c-r i.-' 1970
Employment is an imporl.-an input and, thus, an [inar;s.mi. indicator of
the type of economic activity in the commercial and industrial sectors.1
The number of employees in different groups in the various counties is re-
ported in Table 13, T'1 1sborouigh, Pincllas, and Polk Counties h.-rad the
largest shares of total employment, with 33, 30, and 14 percent respective-
ly. There were 410,000 employees ini those three counties in 1970 out of the
total of 640,000 for the area, Citrus, DeSoto, ar.cJdee, Hernando, and Sumter
Counties (in total) had less than 4 percent of tlhe enmpiyees (each had less
than 1 percent), The wholesale, retail, and service trade sectors dominate
employment cc-.egories with 56 percent: of the total for the area. A similar
proportion exists for the entire state (Table 13), i'If..,-tu in employ-
ment represents a slightly biglher proportionulat 16 percent than the state-
wide estimate of 15 percent. Miinirg activity emploe,-ld about 1.0 percent
as compared to less than 0,5 percent for the state. niaIl l.cir p-rce.ntage
were employed in transportation, communication and provision of sanitary
services in SIF than for the state (Table 13),
Variation amron n c'oun!ties was significant for some activities. Polk
County had over 18 percent of the employees in maniriii ,ct iit.ng as compared
to only 6 percent in Charlotte County (Table 14). Tiere was also consider-
able variation in mining and construction. In contrast, the wholesale, re-
tail, and service trade sectors (ard public administration) h1..d approximately
Water use in agricultural product proctessong is also included in this
category,
The relative importance of various commercial and industrial activi-
ties is best gauged with rcsp:ecL to the expenditures on the various iypes
of inputs and ik.rnoledi'gE. of the quaniti.es of outputs of various types. Un-
fortunately, there is either no dait, or at best inconsistent 'nlon-comrparable)
data, available regarding the iiput costs and outputs for the sectors reported
in Table 13,
Table 13.--umber of employed persons in various industrial, commercial groups in the county, SWF, and State
County I Construc- Manufac- Transportation Wholesale & Finance, real Service Public Ad- Percent of
outy ng tion turning comm., sanitary retail trade estate insurance trade ministration al total
--------------- ---------------------------Number---
Charlotte 7 956 401 421 1,650 817 1,908 307 6,467 1.2
Citrus 105 897 346 325 1,117 368 1,487 223 4,868 0.9
DeSoto -- 379 .315 204 640 239 1,478 233 3,488 0.6
Hardee 205 299 502 304 915 163 1,006 142 3,536 0.7
Hernando 458 551 305 441 1,186 232 1,332 230 4,735 0.9
Hillsborough 1,263 14,865 31,718 15,586 46,888 9,023 47,966 8028 175,337 32.6
Manatee 68 2,569 4,052 1,338 7,574 1,557 8,378 1,116 26,652 5.0
Marion 171 2,111 2,895 1,397 6,037 1,084 6,975 1,240 21,910 4.1
Pasco 131 2,221 3,106 1,176 4,247 787 3,955 651 16,274 3.0
Pinellas 79 14,452 22,678 8,979 43,401 12,102 52,358 7,659 161,708 30.0
Polk 3,427 5,913 13,513 5,163 17,575 3,849 20,798 .2,912 73,150 13.6
Sarasota ,77 4,103 3,453 1,889 9,913 2,714 12,489 1,360 35,998 6.7
Sumter 59 312 589 678 965 159 933 274 3,969 0.7
Total SWF 6,050 49,628 83,873 37,901 142,108 33,094 161,063 24,375 538,092 100.0
Total State 9,155 206,264 341,836 186,715 571,051 145,999 718,786 135,467 2,315,274
Percentage, SWF 1.1 9.3 15.6 7.0 26.4 6.2 29.9 4.5 100.0 --
Percentage, State 0.4 8.9 14.8 8.1 24.7 6.3 31.0 5.8 100.0 --
Source: Adapted from [231.
Table 14,--Proportion of employees in various industrial, commercial groups in the county, SWF, 1970
County Mining Constru Manfa rains. holsale, Finance, Service Public
tion tuning retail real r c trade I administration
Su sanitary trade insurance
-..-------..----------------------------------er,:- L nt..a.------------------------------------------- --..
Charlot e 0.1 14.8 6.2 6.5 25.5 12.6 29.5 4.7
Citrus 2.2 18.4 7.1 6.7 22.9 7.5 30.5 4.6
DeSoto 10.9 9.0 5.8 18.3 6.8 42.4 6.7
Hardee 5.8 8.4 14.2 8.6 25.9 4.6 28.4 4.0
Hernando 9.7 11.6 6.4 9.3 25.0 4.9 28.1 4.8
Hillsborough 0.7 8.5 18.1 8.9 26.7 5.1 27.4 4.6
Manatee 0.2 9.6 15.2 5,0 28.4 5.8 31.4 4.2
Marion 0.8 9.6 13.2 6.4 27.6 4.9 31.8 5.7
Pasco 0.8 13,6 19.1 7.2 26.1 4.8 24.3 4.0
Pinellas <0.1 8.9 14.0 5.6 26.8 7,5 32.4 4.7
Polk 4.7 8.1 18.5 7.0 24.0 5.3 28.4 4.0
Sarasoca 0.2 11.4 9.6 5.2 27.5 7.5 34.7 3.8
Sumter 1.5 7.9 14.8 17.1 24.3 4.0 23.5 6.9
the same proportions, Employment in finance, real estate, and insurance
was mixed, ranging from 13 percent in Charlotte to only 4 percent in Sum-
ter County, In general, 5 to 8 percent of each county's employees were
in this group,
Manufacturing is also significant on the basis of dollar output, with
12
value of shipments at $3,5 billion in 1972. This represents 30 percent
of the total manufacturing output in the state (Table 15), Labor services
and inputs consumed in the production process were valued at $2.7 billion.
The SWF area paid 25 percent of the labor bill for manufacturing in the state,
but utilized over 32 percent of the materials consumed and 31 percent of the
capital expenditures, This suggests that manufacturing in SWF is more capital
13
intensive and natural resource oriented than in other parts of the state.
Retail and wholesale trade accounted for total sales of $10.5 billion
in SWF (Table 16). These activities utilized $830 million of labor, which
represented 24 percent of the labor bill for the retail-wholesale business
in the state. This 24 percent of the labor expenditures was used, in addi-
tion to other inputs, to generate 27 percent of the retail-wholesale sales,
Services trade generated $930 million in receipts from a labor expendi-
ture of $291 million (Table 17), The proportion of "sales" and labor expen-
ditures was about the same, at 18 to 19 percent in 1972 (Table 17),
Value of outputs from the mineralsr-mining sector exceeded $180 million
in SWF during 1970, The major mining operation was for phosphate. Unfor-
tunately, estimates of phosphate are not available for Florida due to dis-
14
closure problems with regard to a North Carolina firm [28, p. 5]. The two
states provided 80 percent of the national production in 1970 [28, p. 5],
Hillsborough and Polk Counties account for the bulk of the phosphate indus-
try in Florida, producing approximately 28 million tons in 1969 [9]. Crushed
limestone mining operations represent the second biggest volume of sales in
the state with a significant amount mined in SWF. More than 60 percent of
12Data were not available for 1970. The year 1972 should be fairly
comparable with the 1970 production year.
13This statement should be viewed as a hypothesis or expectation rather
than a statement of fact.
14The $180 million estimate in Table 18 includes all the phosphate rock
sold from Hillsborough and Polk Counties which are two major production areas
in SWF,
26
Table 15.--Value of output and input usage for manufacturing, 1972
County
Inputs
Outputa Total
Outputs tb ToCapital Tocal
Labor Materials variable ctd
c C expenditures cost
------ --------------------- dollars-----------------cost
-.--.-.---........------_-_. .-__M.lllon dollars.....-------.. ....-----
Charlocte 8.0
Citrus 3.7
DeSoto 12.5
Hardee 12.3
Hernando 9.2
Hillsborough 1,338.5
Manatee 214.1
Marion 176.9
Pasco 109.4
Pinellas 584.2
Polk 926.5
Sarasota 110.5
Sumter 25.7
Total,.SWF 3,531.5
Total, State 11,959'.3
Percentage
29.5
1.8
0.9
1.3
1.7
1.4
256.1
34.4
26.4
17.1
196.1
116.8
33.6
3.3
690.9
2,751.9
25.1
3.8
1.8
6.8
8.2
5.6
766.5
137.3
117.3
69.3
263.0
594.2
48.7
19.3
2,041.8
6,277.2
32.5
5.6
2.7
8.1
9.9
7.0
1,022.6
171.7
143.7
86.4
459.1
711.0
82.3
22.6
2,732.70
6,277.2
30.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
1.4
0.3
45.1
11.8
5.2
4.7
28.5
41.5
4.2
0.4
143.70
9,029.10
31.0
5.8
2.8
8.4
11.3
7.3
1,067.7
183.5
148.9
91.1
487.6
752.5
86.5
23.0
2,876.40
9,493.10
30.3
Total value of shipments.
bInputs "consumed" in production.
CSum of labor and materials costs. Several other variable costs are not inclu.1ed.
dum of total variable costs and capital expenditures. Some costs not included.
SWF as a percentage of the State.
Source: Adapted from [24].
II-----~-
I -- L- `---
Table 16.--Value of output and inputs from retail-wholesale trade, SWF, 1972
Retail trade Wholesale trade Total
County
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total, SWF
Total, State
Inputsb Inputs Inputsb
Outputa Outputa Output
Labor Labor Labor
-------------------Millions of dollars-----------------------
88.0
46.2
1,031.8
25.8
39.2
1,517.3
251.3
223.7
179.2
1,557.6
608,6
469.0
29.8
6,067.6
19,707.3
9.5
4.2
2.5
2.7
3.5
191,3
27.7
24.5
17.7
181.5
67.0
13.5
2.9
548.6
2,339,4
12.0
9.7
13.2
53.8
17.2
2,736.5
83.6
243.7
91.9
549.3
519.7
109.2
12.0
4,452.0
19,983.9
1.0
0.6
0.9
1.5
1.4
150.5
9.3
12.8
2.0
45.0
44.4
11.7
0.6
281.8
1,154.1
100.0
55.9
1,045.0
79.6
56.4
4,253.8
334.9
467.4
271.0
2,107.0
1,128.3
578.2
41.8
10,519.6
39,691.2
10.6
4.8
3.4
4.2
4.9
341.8
37.0
37.3
19.8
226.5
111.4
25.2
3.5
830.4
3,493.6
Percentagec 30.8 23.4 22.3 24.4 26.5 23.8
aTotal dollar sales,
b
Data on input costs available only on labor expenditures. This labor cost esti-
mate includes payments to executives and officers of corporations, but does not include
payments to proprietors or partners.
CSWF as a percentage of state totals.
Source: Adapted from [25, 27].
28
Table 17.--Value of output and inputs for selected service businesses,
SWF, 1972
b
Inputs
County OJtput
Labor
---------------Thousands of dollars-,e--- -------
Charlotte 11,958 3,265
Citrus 8,379 2,629
DeSoto 1,722 449
Hardee 1,631 456
Hernando 6,632 1,981
Hillsborough 328,631 106,554
Manatee 26,892 7,765
Marion 45,927 11,957
Pasco 16,508 4,591
Pinellas 287,870 92,048
Polk 94,486 28,832
Sarasota 96,474 30,115
Sumter 3,466 814
Total, SWF 930,576 291,456
Total, State 5,156,193 1,545,720
Percentage 18.0 18.9
aTotal receipts from service activity.
bData on input costs available only for labor expenditures.
CSWF as a percentage of state totals.
Source: Adapted from [26].
the statewide production of minerals (in dollar measure) occurred in SWF
(Table 18),
Power generation is also a significant activity in SWF, Over 26 per-
cent of state-wide kilowatt hour production occurred in SWF in 1970 (Table
19). The value of inputs used and of power generated are not available
(by county) from secondary sources,
The economic activity in the industrial-commercial sector is signifi-
cant. Labor costs alone (from Tables 15 through 19) approach $2 billion
with only three of the sectors identified in Table 13 represented in this
estimate, Given the importance of commerce and industry to the people of
SWF, it is important to understand the role of water in these various sec-
tors and for the area as a whole,
Water withdrawals for commercial-industrial production were about 204
billion gallons in SWF during 1970 (Table 20), This averages 380 thousand
gallons per employee per year (Table 20), The three largest users of water
are phosphate and limerock mining, electrical power generation and citrus
processing using 59.8 percent, 19,6 percent and 11,4 percent respectively,
Counties with these industries have substantially higher per employee with-
drawal rates than do the other counties, In Polk County the per employee
use rate was over two million gallons in 1970 or nearly six thousand gallons
per day,
The largest proportion of commercial-industrial water withdrawals in
SWF occurred in Polk County, 75 percent, Withdrawals in Polk and Hillsbor-
ough Counties together accounted for over 85 percent. Both counties have
large phosphate mining operations. In addition, Polk County uses large
amounts for citrus processing and for power generation (Table 20). Pinellas
County had the largest withdrawal use for air conditioning. Limerock pro-
cessing was a large user in Sumter County. Pasco County has a large use
in citrus processing, as well.
Industrial use is by far the largest user in the retail, commercial,
and industrial groups. Industrial use accounted for 97 percent while re-
tail-commercial use accounted for 3 percent in 1970.15 Phosphate mining,
15
The exact figure cannot be determined from available data, Retail-
commercial water withdrawals are included in the "OLher-Public Supplied"
classification in Table 20, There is also some industrial water in this
group, Also, some water is used for air conditioning in commercial establish'
ments,
Table 18.--Value of outputs from mining, SWF, 1970
--------------------Thousands of dollars-----------------------
Charlotte W W 0 NA W
Citrus 0 W 0 NA 1,941
DeSoto 0 0 0 0 0
Hardee 0 0 0 0 0
Hernando 0 13,023 0 W 13,023a
Hillsborough W 0 W NA 20,041
Manatee 0 0 0 W W
Marion W 2,121 NA NA 2,562
Pasco 0 0 0 0 0 o
Pinellas W 0 0 NA W
Polk 3,423 0 W NA 140,598
Sarasota 0 0 0 0 0
Sumter 0 2,456 0 W 2,456a
Total for SWF 3,423a 17,600a W NA,W 180,621
Total for State 12,254 55,176 W NA,W 300,042
Percentage 27.9 31.9 -- 60.2
W = Withheld data to avoid disclosing individual firm data
NA = Not available; i.e., data was not available in secondary sources search by
this author,
aNot true total due to withholding and/or non-availability of data.
SWF as a percentage of state.
Source: Adapted from [28].
Table 19.--Value of outputs from thermoelectric power generation for those
firms using fresh water for SWF
S Out ut
County KWHax 106 Value of sales Inputs
Citrus 3,650 NAb NA
Hardee 8 NA NA
Hillsborough 6,770 NA NA
Pinellas 4,020 NA NA
Polk 672 NA NA
Total, SWF 15,120 NA NA
Total, State 57,260 -- --
aKilowatt hours,
Not available.
Source: Adapted from [29].
Table 20.-Total water withdrawn from all sources for commercial and industrial production activities, SW)F, 1970
Chemical Jpesr[ Propor-
County Citrus Limerock Phosphate product Air Theo-electric lf Total tion of Water pe
processing processing mining pro g conditioning power generation supplied supplied t employee ,
-------------------- -------- ----Million gallons per year--------------------------------- -- percent gallonsl/ya
Charlotte 0 0 0 0 0 0 36.5 36.5 73.0 0.1 11,288
Citrus 36.5 0 0 0 0 7.3 18.4 36.4 98.6 0.1 20,255
DeSoto 73.0 0 0 1,825 0 0 0 0 255.5 0.1 73,251
Hardee 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 36.5 36.5 0.1 10,322
Hernando 109.5 36,5 0 0 0 0 36.2 73.2 255.5 0.1 53,:-.
Hillsborough 1,022.0 0 16,753.5 0 73.0 0 1,424.5 1,167.5 20,440.5 10.0 116,578
Manatee 0 0 0 1,095 219.0 0 511.0 0 1,825.0 0.9 68,475
Marion 547.5 0 0 0 0 0 437.5 256.0 1,241.0 0.6 56,641
Pasco 10,950.0 0 0 0 0 0 146.0 0 11.096.0 5.4 681,824
Pinellas 146.0 0 0 0 2, -1. 0 2,190.0 584.0 5,110.0 2.5 31,600
Polk 10,439.0 0 98,915.0 0 0 40,150.0 1,533.0 2,701.0 153,738.0 75.2 3,101,681
Sarasota 36.5 0 0 0 365.0 0 402.0 2,737.0 3,540.5 1.7 98,353
Sumter 0 6,752.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,752.5 3.3 1,701,310
Total 23,360.0 6,789.0 115,668.5 1,277.5 2,847.0 40,157.3 6,735.1 7,628.1 204,462.5 100.0 379,977
Percentage 11.4 3.3 56.5 0.6 1.4 19.6 3.3 3.7 100.0
Source: Adapted from [29].
r'iha "public supplied" includes both industrial and commercial water use. The "self supplied" is only industrial use.
blnber of employees from Table 13.
power generation, and citrus processing account for 90 percent of the commer-
cial-industrial water pumped in SWF, This suggests that research studies
and water management within the commercial and industrial sectors are pro-
bably best directed at consideration of these uses, at least from the basin-
wide perspective.
It is impossible to accurately reflect the relation between dollar out-
puts and water use for industries in the SWF area. Data are simply not
available, Further data collection and research efforts should be directed
to this end. Some general indication of the water input-dollar sales (out-
put) relation can be determined from the data in Table 21. Total dollar
sales (production) estimates from the industries listed in Tables 15 through
18 are summarized in Table 21, along with estimated total water inputs. In
those counties with large mining and manufacturing industries, production
tends to use more water than other areas, Hillsborough and Polk Counties
used the most industrial-commercial water; both had significant mining and
manufacturing activity.
Trends in CommercialIndustrial Enterprises Affecting Water Use, 1950 to 1970
There is no specific information on the change in output levels and
very little on input levels for the various commercial-industrial sectors
in SWF during the period 1950 to 1970, As a result, employment data are
used here to give some indication of economic activity and growth. The
number of employees increased by 320,000 (or 150 percent) in SWF during
this period (Table 22). This compares to a 164 percent increase in the
number of employees for the state, A slightly lower rate of growth in jobs
in SWF occurred as compared to the rest of the state.
The largest growth sector in employment was service trade with 32 per-
cent of the total change from 1950 to 1970 (Table 22). Nearly 72 percent
of the total change is accounted for by three sectors--service, wholesale-
retail trade and manufacturing. Growth in these areas contributed to water
demands. The fastest growing sector was finance, real estate and insurance.
Rates of growth in employment in the various sectors were varied as
compared to statewide averages, Growth rates in manufacturing employment
were over 200 percent for the state as compared to 150 percent in SWF.
Growth in employment in the minerals-mining sector, however, was much greater
in SWF than for the state while growth in the service trade was nearly
identical (Table 22).
Thble 21,-"Dollar ouli:pi: and water ust., industrial-commerc ial activity in
SWF, 1970-72
OuI t put L
County a H'inj;t- Rt :-.-1-whole- Service Wiat et?
l.n n turingb sale t c.-lr-de trade usec
T1-,anc i.'-- ----.g--- Million
Charlotte W 8,000 100,058 11,953 73.0
Citrus 1,941 3,700 55,948 8,379 98.6
DeSoto 0 12,500 1,044,982 1,722 255.5
Hardee 0 12,300 79,595 1,631 36.5
Hernando 1,0 9,20) 0 56,447 6,632 255.4
Pillsboroug 20,041 1,338,500 4,253,818 328,631 20,440.5
Manatee W 214,100 334,933 26,892 1,825.0
Marion 2,562 '176,900 467,421 45,927. 1,241.0
Pasco 0 109,400 27.1,037 16,508 11,096.0
Pinellas W 584,200 2,107,006 287,870 5,110.0
Polk 140,598 926,500 1,128,305 94,486 153,738.0
Sarasota 0 110,500 578,258 96,474 3,540.5
Sumter 2,456d 25,700 41,776 3,466 6,752.5
Tocal 180,621d 3,531,500 10,519,584 930,576 204,452.5
aDatia for 1970.
Data for 1972,
cToial commercial-industrial water; not all of this water was used in
the industries listed in this table. Data for 1970.
dNot true total due to withholdig and/or non-availability of data.
Source: Adapted from (
Table 22.---Change in number of employees in industrial, commercial groups between 1950 and 1970 in SWF
County Mining 'Construe- Manufac- Trans., Comm, Wholesale & Finance Service Public Ad- Change in
tion turning sanitation retail trade real estate trade ministration total number
S insurance
----- ---------------------------------umber----------------------------------- --------- ---------
Charlotte 7 831 302 297 1,321 780 1,556 236 5,330
Citrus 27 716 224 232 726 341 1,018 155 3,439
DeSoto -2 186 -203 51 -8 213 675 135 1,047
Hardee 153 105 302 172 149 114 474 34 1,503
Hernando 253 284 19 353 705 191 863 130 2,798
Hillsborough 675 7,158 14,594 7,618 22,974 6,103 29,348 5,010 93,480
Manatee 60 1,506 2,825 806 4,712 1,163 4,467 813 16,352
Marion -44 1,179 1,232 623 3,062 764 4,062 827 11,705
Pasco 128 1,727 1,840 837 2,464 676 2,858 462 10,992
Pinellas 55 7,936 18,543 5,876 29,019 9,150 36,609 4,950 112,138
Polk 661 3,102 7,078 2,253 6,865 2,619 11,290 1,688 35,556
Sarasota 67 2,780 2,894 1,325 7,185 2,214 8,869 994 26,328
Sumter 45 138 241 30 431 131 329 165 1,510
Total, SWF 2,085 27,648 49,891 20,473 79,605 24,459 102,418 15,599 322,178
Percentage 52.6 125.8 146.8 117.5 127.4 283.2 174.6 177.7 149.2
Percentage 0.6 8.6 15.5 6,4 24.7 7.6 31.8 4.8 100.0
Total, State 3,853 115,737 233,511 108,008 330,740 107,842 455,599 83,508 1,438,798
a
Percentageb 72.7 127.8 215.6 137.2 137.6 292.6 173.1 160.7 164.2
Percentage 0.3 8.0 16.2 7.5 23.0 7.5 31.7 5.8 100.0
FcrcenLPage change for this particular sector from 1950 to 1970.
percentage of the total change in employment for the area contributed by this sector.
Source: Adapted from [19, 23].
Water use estimates which will allow comparisons over time are not
available (in a form comparable to the 1970 data shown previously in Table
20). One can only speculate about changes, If the relation between water
use and number of employees were linear, the percentage change in water use
in various sectors could be approximated from the employment data in Table
22. The largest percentage change in water use (as a share of the total
change) would be in the service-trade sector, at 32 percent (Table 22). In
this same sense, the retail-wholesale trade sector had the next largest per-
centage increase at 25 percent,16
DIRECT CONSUMPTION ACTIVITIES
Direct consumption activities associated with housing units include
water used for personal use, cooking, cleaning, car washing, and lawn irri-
gation. These use categories are classified as "direct consumption" because
the water is not being transformed into a good or service before it reaches
the ultimate consumer (as is the case with agricultural, retailtcommercial,
and industrial water), This overall use category is most frequently re-
ferred to as "domestic use",
Characteristics of the Population and
Household Technology Affecting Water Use, 1970
About 1,7 million residents lived in SWF in 1970, Hillsborough and
Pinellas Counties each had about 30 percent of the total (Table 23). The
1The hypothesis of linearity between employee changes and changes in
the level of water use should be tested. It's possible that water use in-
creases at a geometric rate for increases in population (and associated in-
creases in the work force or number of employees). There has been specula-
tion, for example, that Florida's population will nearly triple by the year
2000 (1970 base), while water use will more than triple f2]. There is also
a possibility that water use is a declining function of the increase in num-
ber of employees. This could result if future technological advances caused
reductions in water use per employee,
Another caveat is also in order. The estimated 32 percent increase in
water use by the service sector could represent a smaller absolute change in
the quantity of water demanded than the 0.6 percent change in use for mining.
In 1970 mining used over 20 million gallons per year per worker whereas the
average for all employees was 380 thousand gallons per year per worker. Data
are not available on the water use associated with the 161 thousand service
employees, but it is likely it is significantly less than in mining. The re-
lationships need further study.
Table 23. Population levels, urban and rural, SWF. 1970.
Population
I
Rural
.canural Farm Total
--Non-farm
--------------------Nmber------------------------
Proportion Population Density
of total per square mile
Percent number
Charlotte
Citrus
Desoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
SuLmter
Total
Percentage
Source: Adapted from [22].
County
16,293
0
5,658
3,027
4,060
398,137
69,365
27,872
25,690
501,880
138,280
90,266
0
1,280,528
74.9
10,874
17,993
6,467
9,550
10,925
78,871
25,507
34,005
43,194
19.002
81,771
28,497
13,517
380,173
392
1,203
935
2,312
2,019
13,257
2,243
7,153
7,071
1,447
7,171
1,650
1,322
48.175
27,559
19,196
13.060
14,889
17,004
490,265
97,115
69,030
75,955
522,329
227.222
120,413
14,839
1,708.976
1.6
1.1
0,8
0.9
1,0
28,7
5,7
4.0
4.4
30.6
13.3
7.0
0.9
100.0
39.2
34.2
20.2
23.7
35.1
472.3
131.4
43.1
102.4
1971.1
122.3
205.1
26.7
164.2
22.2
I------------
i_
I
I
urban versus ruralrfarm population was split 75 and 25 percent, The farm
population was estimated at less than 3 percent, Because of the influence
of Tampa and St. Petersburg, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties had the
greatest density, with Pinellas far ahead of all the rest at nearly 2000
people per square mile, The location of the population and the (usually)
associated high density has had an influence on water use as did the "lhouse-
hold technology" prevailing in the area, The more specific impacts are
highlighted below,
Over 98 percent of the housing units in SWF had piped watery flush toi-
lets, bathtubs (or showers), and kitchen facilities in 1970 (Table 24), In
several counties, nearly all housing units had these facilities. Other fac-
tors hypothesized to affect water use (and to reflect the level of "house-
hold technology") include existence of a clothes washing machine, dish washer,
and hot water heat, Additionally, the number of automobiles affects water
use due to car washing and other maintenance, Most households (84 to 92
percent) had at least one automobile, Over 50 percent of all households
had clothes iashling machines (Table 24), The proportion with dishwashers
was less, but still significant, Hot water heat was present in less than
0,1 percent in several counties to a high of 2.3 percent of the housing units
in Pincllas County, As with the location of people, household technology
will affect water use in particular parts of SWF as well as for the basin
as a whole.
Total water used was 71 billion gallons for direct consumption during
1969 (Table 25), This is a quantity of water sufficient to cover one acre
of land 41 miles deep or enough water to fill about 3.5 million home swim-
ming pools (at 20,000 gallons each), Average water use per resident of the
Sl/F area was estimated at 42,000 gallons per year, or 114,400 gallons per
household. This represents an average of 10,000 gallons per month for each
household.
Factors that are expected to affect water use for direct consumption
are listed in Table 25. Counties showing the highest use rates per person
also usually had the highest urban/rural population ratios, the highest aver-
age income per household, and the highest composite technology index.7
17The "composite technology index" was calculated by multiplying the
proportions of the households (or housing units) having selected water using
technologies (Table 24) together. See footnote e on Table 25.
Table 24. Number of housing units, households, and type of household technology, SWF, 1970.
Proportion of housing units or households having
Counties Number of Number ofd piped waterT flush toilet bathtub clothes dish complete kit- at least hot water
housing units households pie haa owashrb a hb aa b
h shower washerh asher chen facilities one auto heat
Charlotte 13,046 11,535 99.8 99.5 98.9 60.2 11.0 99.4 91.8 0.1
Citrus 9,707 7,374 98,5 97.9 96.8 66.3 11.6 .96.9 90.2 0.1
DeSoto 4,041 3,915 98.8 97.6 94.8 63.7 9,2 .95.8 83.7 0.4
Hardee 4,697 4,518 97.0 94.4 93.5 75.5 10.1 94.0 84.4 0.1c
Hernando 7,578 5,662 97.4 95.3 93.8 63.4 8.4 92.2 87.9 0.1
Hillsborough 168,292 158,759 99.8 99.4 99.2 65.1 15.4 98.7 86.4 0.6
Manatee 41,789 38,488 99.4 99.0 98.6 49.1 11.7 98.4 96.9 0.7
Marion 25,830 22,317 97,1 95.2 93.4 58.9 13.8 93.6 84.3 0.4
Pasco 34,201 30,361 99.4 98.7 98.0 60.9 5.9 98.3 90.0 0.2
Pinellas 225,544 211,301 100.0 99.9 99.6 56.8 15.0 98.9 84.0 2.3
Polk 79,631 73,024 99.7 99.2 97.9 70.2 13.7 98.0 85.6 0.5
Sarasota 54,936 48,632 99.9 99 998 99.6 52.1 18.5 99.1 90.2 1.1
Sumter 5,270 4,804 94.5 92.4 91.2 72.2 5.7 92.0 84.6 0.1
Total 674,562 620,690 99.6 99.2 98.6 60.8 14.2 98.3 86.0 1.1
aAs a percentage of the number of housing units
As a percentage of the number of occupied housing untis (number
CTumber of occupied housing units.
Source; Adapted from [81,
of households),
Table 25.--Direct consumption use and factors affecting use, SWF, 1970.
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
Milliof-, 1E.
899
613
406
580
580
22,209
3,645
2,691
2,369
20,707
11,405
4,500
489
70,993
Proportion Water use
of total iper person
Percent Gallons
1.3
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.8
31.3
5.0
3.8
3.3
29.2
16.7
6.3
0.7
100.0
32,621
31,934
31,087
38,955
3:,; i 1)
45,300
36,503
38,983
31 .1'
50,193
37,371
32,954
41,544
Persons per Water use
household per household
Number
2.39
2.60
3.34
3.30
3.00
3.09
2.52
3.09
2.50
2.47
3.11
2.48
3,09
2.75
Gallons
77,937
83,130
103,704
128,375
102,437
139,891
92,107
120,581
78,028
97,998
156,182
92,532
101,790
114,378
Factors affecting use
Urban/rural Income per Income Composite
population ratios -.:.:- per capital tech, index
Dollars Dollars (x 100)
1.45
0
0.76
0.26
0.31
4.32
2.50
0.68
0.51
24.54
1.56
2.99
0
2.99
7,984
6,948
7,700
7,188
7,025
9,506
8,194
8,062
6,421
9,511
8,731
10,126
6,639
NC*
2,996
2,392
1,987
1,942
2,279
2,793
2,858
2,363
2,342
3,300
2,568
3,640
1,888
NC
5.93
6.38
4.30
5.18
3.76
8.41
5.32
5.54
3,05
7.04
7.81
.8.56
2.55
7.11
*NC not calculated
aCity and urban domestic use from [301.. Also
estimate for rural use at 85 gpcd from [7],
includes rural domestic use estimated at 85 gallons per day per capital (gpcd). Water use
bRural defined as non-farm plus farm population. Adapted from [221.
Income per household wasnot available from the 1970 Census: i,e,, the estimates represented here are the
in 1970 [23].
per capital income of all persons, including those households with unrelated individuals [231,
eCalculated by multiplvin: the respective proportions of the household variables which represent household technology, in Table 23 together.
For example, for Charlotte County: 0,998 x 0.995 x 0.989 x 0.602 x 0.110 x 0.994 x 0.918 = 0.593. The result.was multiplied by 100 to give a
suitable scale for comparison purposes.
Source: Adapted from [
County
Total domestic
water use
Water use characteristics
mean family income in the county
- --------
1___
The three counties with the highest per capital water use (Hillsborough,
Pinellas, and Polk counties) ranked in the top four with respect to income
and index of technology, Sarasota County had the highest income and the
highest technology index. Water use was also significant in this county.
In a very general sense, it appears that urban populations use more
water relative to rural populations. This phenomenon is caused, in part,
by household technology that includes more water using appliances and by
high incomes (which are correlated with household technology). It is also
expected that the cost of water will have significant impact on water use,
as has been shown elsewhere [I], No price data is generally available in
SWF from published sources.
Trends in Activities Affecting Direct Consumption of Water, 1950
'to 1970
The most obvious change in the area that has affected the total direct
consumption is the change in population of about 70 percent from 1950 to
1970 (Table 26), This is an average over the area with a range of 30 per-
cent of the 1950 base for Sumter County to 543 percent in Charlotte County.
Sarasota also had a very high percentage change at 318 percent. Largest
absolute changes (in number of people) occurred in counties which were init-
ially the most populous-!Hillsborough and Pinellas. The four counties with
the lowest rate of growth (DeSoto, Hardee, Hernando, and Sumter) also had the
lowest absolute, growth,
Household technology affecting water use has also changed considerably
over time (Table 27). Over 12 percent more housing units had piped water
in 1970 than in 1950, while 20 percent more had flush toilets and bathtubs
(or showers). These data suggest the change in water use over time is a
non-linear function of the change in population, The household technology
18
variable will make the relation non-linear18
The change in the household technology index coJ.d not be determined
over the period due to lack of data for 1950. The index, most likely, in-
creased. The probability is high there were proportionately more homes with
18The finding is in direct contrast to the assumption (implicit) under-
lying projections of water "requirements'" as a proportional function of popm
ulation.
Table 26.--Population changes in ten-year intervals, and the 20-year interval,
from 1950-1970, by county in SWF
County 1950-1960 1960-1970 1950-1970
number percentage number percentage number percent
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
8,308
3,157
2,441
2,297
4,512
147,894
34,464
13,429
16,256
215,416
71,142
48,068
539
567,923
193.8
51.7
26.4
22.8
67.4
59.2
99.3
35.2
79.2
135.3
57.4
166.8
4.8
80.8
14,965
9,928
1,377
2,519
5,799
92,477
27,947
17,414
29,170
147,664
32,083
43,518
2,970
437,%3i
118.8
107.1
11.8
20.4
51.8
23.2
40.4
33.7
106.5
39.4
16.4
56.6
25.0
34,4
23,273
13,085
3,818
4,816
10,311
240,371
62,411
30,843
55,426
363,080
103,225
91,586
3,509
1,005,764
543.0
214.1
41.3
47.8
64.9
96.2
179.8
80.8
270.0
228.0
83.2
317.7
31.0
69.9
Source: Adapted from [20, 21,
~P---~-----L-C----C __----Dll~-----L-C--
22].
Table 27.--Percentage change in number of housing units and various measures of household technology, SWF, 1950-1970
Change in Change in Change in proportion of housing units or households having:
Counties number of number of Pip Flush toilet Bathtub Clothes Dish Complete kit- At least Hot water
housingunts households or shower washer asher A chen facilities one auto heat
---------------------------------------------------------- --Percentages ------------------------------
Charlotte 499.0 670.0 21.5 35.4 36.4 NA NA NA NA -0.3
Citrus 329.3 295.8 37.4 44.2 43.1 NA NA NA NA -5.3
DeSoto 49.9 59.4 33.0 42.6 41.2 NA NA NA NA -0.1
Hardee 45.4 55.0 36.6 .45.8 44.0 NA NA NA NA -0.6
Hernando 231.8 177.5 31.3 41.1 35.0 NA NA NA NA -0.1
Hllsborough 106.8 112.2 10.1 17.6 20.1 NA NA NA NA -1.0
Manatee 186.2 244.7 17.1 29.0 27.1 NA NA NA NA -0.4
Marion 116.3 101.2 30.5 36.9 38.7 NA NA NA NA -0.9
Pasco 345.8 375.4 24.1 33.9 33.6 NA NA NA NA -0.1 i-
Pinellas 216.6 271.6 2.2 8.0 9.2 NA NA NA NA -2.9
Polk 101.8 103.3 16.3 24.4 27.4 NA NA NA NA -0.3
Sarasota 301.0 395.5 11.3 20.0 20.3 NA NA NA NA -0.1
Sumter 51.8 51.5 35.7 44.5 25.2 NA NA NA NA -0.1
Total 2581.7 2913.1 12.2 19.9 21.3 NA NA NA NA 1.2
aThe reported.percentages represent the difference between the 1950 and the 1970 proportions. For example, 78.3 percent of the homes in
Charlotte County had piped water in 1950 as compared to 99.8 percent in 1970; the difference, or 21.5 percent, is reported in this table.
bAssuming the proportion reported in 1950 for occupied houses can be compared directly with the proportion reported in 1970 for all
housing units,
CChange in the percentage of all housing units.
dishwashers, clothes washing machines complete kitchen facilities, and
at least one automobile in 1970. As a result, the effect on water use
would be positive,
WATER SUPPLY--SOME GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
Although the physical water supply in SWF is large, it is not suffi-
cient to meet projected demands based on current use rates without augmen-
tation. Parker [8, p. 12-13] has estimated that the water demand will equal
the annual, natural recharge of ground and surface water supplies (about
670 billion gallons per year) by 1984 in the Southwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District,19 Precipitation was less than "normal" during eleven of the
thirteen years from 1961-1974, This phenomenon, in addition to growth in
demands, led to water shortages in some parts of SWF by the early 1970's.
The reduction in the groundwater potentiometric surface under much of SWF
is illustrated in Figure 2.
Groundwater is the major source of fresh water in SWF. In 1970, 86
percent of withdrawals were from groundwater sources as compared to 14 per-
cent from surface sources (Table 28), Hillsborough County used the largest
proportion of surface water at 30 percent,
Parker notes, ",,,we (in the Southwest Florida Water Management Dis-
trict) are only comparatively water rich.,,compared to a desert, for ex-
ample," [8, p,5]. Large amounts of water from precipitation are available
in normal years (about 9.6 trillion gallons) but there is no way of captur-
ing most of this water for use [8, p. 8], Parker estimated that 15 of the
55 inches of annual rainfall is in the form of runoff and groundwater re-
charge while the remainder is lost to evapotranspiration [8, p.9]. Of this
15 inches, 4 to 5 inches represents the ",,,ultimate available water crop
that can be harvested for consumptive use when..(the) District is fully
developed," [8, p. 9]. Parker's arbitrarily estimated useful physical sup-
ply of 4 to 5 inches would leave the remainder to ",,,maintain the streams
19This statement was made prior to the formulation of the current Dis-
trict boundaries as depicted in Figure 1 of this report. The "old" boundaries
are sufficiently close to the boundaries of the "new" district and to the
boundaries of the SWF area as outlined herein to make the estimate by Parker
representative,
Legend
ED
0-20 feet decline
20-40 feet decline .
40-60 feet decline '* '
figuree 2.--Decline in potentiometric surface in SWF between 1949 and 1969.
Source: Adapted from [31].
Table 28.--Sources and quantities of withdrawals in SWF, 1970
Quantity of water by source
------Hillions of gallons-----
Proportion from each source
Surface
water
---------Percent---------4
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
10,555.43
2,536.00
24,463.06
23,841.52
1,590.67
48,327.08
20,313.73
6,236.26
17,503.49
27,404,58
196,550.76
18,034,86
9,144,65
1,066.58
19.14
10.97
21,165.65
3,693.41
639.62
28.85
32,733.13
1,021.58
11,622.01
2,555.14
24,453,06
23,841.52
1,601.64
69,492.73
24,007.14
6,875.88
17,503.49
27,443.43
229,283.89
19,056.44
9,144.65
County
91
99
100
100
99
70
85
91
100
99.9
86
95
100
9
1
1
30
15
9
.1
14
5
Total 403,083.17 63,788.45 466,871.62 86 14
Source: Adapted from [29],
_ __I_~ __ ~__T*~_
.... ._.... I_._... ---
--"-- --Y
in a reasonably good state,,,,l f8, p, 10], If all 15 inches were used,
he argues, the streams would be dry and there would be no groundwater re-
charge, This is not to say that 5 inches per year over an entire area
could be removed from groundwater supplies for the recharge to the supply
could be far less,
These estimates of water supply in SWF are, of course, physical in
nature. None indicate the nature of the economic supply of water. Parker
does note that supplies could be developed through expenditures to "...im-
port water from such large sources as the Suwannee River or the Appalachi-
cola..,", or desalination, or recycling [8, p. 11], These types of supply
discussions relate to the economic supply, A great deal of research needs
to be accomplished regarding the economics of water supply in SWF. It should
be noted, however, that in the next several years the water supply is not
likely to be dramatically increased and present sources of water will con-
tinue to be used, Water will be a scarce resource as in central SWF and
should be allocated as such.
Supply and demand considerations are intertwined, Parker's estimates
regarding the complete use of the annual, natural recharge by 1984 are
based on demand projections better defined as the "requirements approach"
to projecting water use. The impact of alternative pricing and water allo-
cation policies are not included in such projections. In their place a linear
relation between water use and some growth parameter such as population size
is generally assumed. This was the approach utilized in the assessment by
Parker. A change in the relative price of water could greatly alter the
demand by 1984.
Parker sees the long-term solution ot the water supplyrdemand balance
problem as taking the following form [8, p. 21-23];
Basic to (a) solution will be the development
of a planK-to develop for useful purposes all
the available water crop in the District that
can be taken for consumptive uses without either
harming the environment or the holdings of the
property owners, But this undertaking is a
difficult assignment and already objections are
being raised to the exportation of any water
from inland areas of the District to the coast-
al areas where the fresh water supply need is
the greatest, Already Pinellas County has out"
grown its water supply; so have coastal parts
of Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. To the
south, in the lower Peace River Basin and other
urbanizing coastal areas of Charlotte and
Sarasota Counties, local fresh water s'.ip-
plies are currently inadequate, The Tampa
Bay area cannot .look southward for new
supplies, nor, with the urbanization taking
place along 1-4, U.S. 27 and U.S, 17 corrit
dors to the east, can Tampa Bay and north-
ern coastal strip along U,S, 19 look east
ward to the Green Swamp, The only way is
north, and this means to the landward strip
in Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus and Levy
Counties lying east of the big springs and
the salt-water encroachment zone and genera
ally west of the Wirhlacoochee River; also
a possibility exists of the inclusion in
the State Water Plan of export of excess
flows from such big up-state streams as the
Suwannee and the Appalachicola. In any
event, an aqueduct would need to be built
to transport water from the water excess
areas of the south, somewhat as California
has done,
However, as indicated earlier, going
northward into the Withlacoochee and Wacr
casassa Basins or into the Suwannee or
Appalachicola basins where excess water now
exists, will meet with strong resistance.
It can only be achieved when a regional
water supply system is established which is
incorporated into a workable and acceptable
State Water Plan that will guarantee to
supply and protect the water resources of
this entire rapidly growing region. Several
bills have been introduced in the rlgislature
to establish such a regional water supply
authority and a State WaLer Plan is currently
being prepared, but only time will tell who
and what that authority will be and the new
sources of water that will be tapped. How-
ever, this appears to be the only way out of
our water supply-water demand dilemma.
Parker's recommendation is intriguing. There are, of course, many prob,
lems that would have to be resolved before this plan is developed and cer-
tainly before it is implemented. Also, the role of price should be con-
sidered and established during the planning process, This and other pro-
posals need to be considered,
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND WATER USE--A SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Water is an important element in the economic activity of the SWF
area, Beyond the basic needs to support life, water plays a significant
role as an input to many production activities and to many other direct
consumption activities which contribute to a higher standard of living in
the area. In addition, the economic supply of water is short in some parts
of SWF, A discussion of the overall water use situation is presented below.
Water Use in 1970
About 467 billion gallons of water were used during 1970 (Table 29).
This is equivalent to 750 gallons per day for each SWF resident in 1970.
The largest individual users were two of the productive enterprises, agri-
culture and phosphate mining, accounting for a combined total of 66 per-
cent. Direct consumption activities utilized 15 percent. Some indication
of the location of use is given by the proportion withdrawn (of the total)
in each county. Nearly 50 percent of the total arearwide withdrawal occurred
in Polk County and 15 percent in Hillsborough County, The remaining coun-
ties each consisted of less than 6 percent (Table 29), The high use areas
in Hillsborough and Polk Counties correspond directly with the water short-
age areas illustrated previously in Figure 2.
Major uses varied considerably between and among counties. Over 97
percent of the water used in DeSoto County, for example, was for agricul-
tural purposes as compared to 6 percent in Pinellas County (Table 30).
Phosphate mining was the largest user in Polk County at 40 percent. Direct
consumption ranged from a high of 75 percent in Pinellas County to less
than 2 percent in DeSoto County (Table 30).
Of primary, concern in this survey analysis is the relationship be-
tween the "outputs" in the area and the quantity of water utilized. This
relationship must be understood by those concerned with water management
and allocation, in order to perceive the impacts of different decisions
on the economic vitality of the SWF area, Some indication of the "input
(water)"output function" can be gained with reference to the summary data
in Table 31 and correlation coefficients in Table 32,20
20
2Ideally, the relationship between water used and output should be quan-
tified. Only in this manner can causereffect relationships be identified. The
Table 29.-Total water withdrawn from all sources by use classification and county in SF, 1970a
Agricultural Retail, commercial, and industrial production .
County production I directt
Cunty proution- Citrus Lierock Phosphate u Air con- ectri her .- Total Percent
Irrigation Livestock processing processing mining r ditioning t ion
-rodu- ------ --------- e t Ot--------er----
Charlotte 10,558 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 339 11,622 2.5
Citrus 1,792 52 36 0 0 0 0 7 55 613 2,555 1.0
DeSoto 23,592 200 73 0 0 182 0 0 0 406 24,453 5.2
Hardee 22,810 416 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 580 23,842 5.1
Hernando 609 157 110 36 0 0 0 0 110 580 1,602 0.3
Hillsborough 25,286 1,558 1,022 0 16,754 0 73 0 2,592 22,209 69,494 14.9
Manatee 18,052 585 0 0 0 1,095 219 0 511 3,545 24,007 5.1
Marion 2,499 444 548 0 0 0 0 0 694 2,691 6,876 1.5
Pasco 3,487 552 10,950 0 0 0 0 0 146 2,369 17,504 3.8
Pinellas 1,466 151 146 0 0 0 2,190 0 2,774 20,707 27,434 5.9 0
Polk 63,284 758 10,439 0 98,915 0 0 40,150 4,234 11,405 229,185 49.1
Sarasota 10,818 197 36 0 0 0 365 0 3,139 4,500 19,055 4.1
Sumter 1,681 222 0 6,752 0 0 0 0 0 489 9,144 2.0
Total 185,934 5,384 23,360 6,789 115,668 1,278 2,847 40,157 14,363 70,993 466,773 100.0
Percentage 41,0 5.0 1.4 24.8 0.3 0.6 8.6 3.1 15.2 -- --
aData for 1970 from [29], except livestock water estimates, which based on number of livestock in 1969. See Appendix Table 4.
Table 30.-Proportion of water withdrawn for various uses by counties in SWF, 1970,
Agricultural
production Citrus
rrigatic.r Li o. processing
Retail, commercial, and industrial production
Chemical Air con Thermo-
Limerock Phosphate p uct Aircon- elecric
processing mining processing ditioning power
- ------------------- --r -- -- P on- of ----------- -- ------------- --------- ------------
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Heroando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
90.8
70.1
96.5
95.7
38.0
36.4
75.2
36.3
19.9
5.3
27.6
56,8
18.4
39.8
0
1.4
0.3
0
6.9
1.5
0
8.0
62.6
0.5
4.6
0.2
0
5.0
0
0
0
0
0
24.1
0
0
0
0
43.2
0
0
74.8
0 0
0 1.9
0 0
0 0.6
0.3 2.2
0 0
0 0.2
0 6.9
0 3.7
0 2.1
0 10.1
0 1.8
0 10.1
17.5 1.8
0 16.5
0 0
0.6 8.6 3.1 15.2
Others
Direct
consump-
tion
7.7
24.0
1.7
2.4
36.2
32.0
14.8
39.1
5.0
75.5
5.0
23.6
5.3
I
----
, ,
Table 31.--Summary of production activities in terms of outputs and annual water use estimates for SWF, 1969-1972.
Frod.j ctci.n a, i" it.r Cor .i L.n E icn acE i-.iic
County iAricultj re Mini r.ge P-r en- 'ccr i fl r of ,.3ter in
turingb whl sraeb trade erationc production residents jo.:sption
----------Millions of dollars-------------- -Millions- Million T Fhu s.3nds Million
of KWH gallons gallons
Charlotte 3.3 W 8,0 100.0 12.0 36.50 10,723 27.6 899
Citrus 1.8 1.9 3.7 55.9 8.4 0 1,942 19.2 613
DeSoto 10.0 0 12.5 1,045.0 1.7 0.10 24,047 13.0 406
Rardee 19.6 0 12.3 79.6 1.6 67.70 23,262 14.9 580
Hernando 12.2 13.0d 9.2 56.4 6.6 0 1,022 17.0 580
Hillsborough 57.6 20.0 1,332.5 4,243.8 328.6 0 47,285 490.3 22,209
Manatee 24.3 W 214,1 334.9 26,9 0 20,462 97.1 3,545
Marion 23.4 2.6 176.9 467.4 45.9 0 4,185 69.0 2,691
Pasco 34.2 0 109,4 271.0 16.5 40.20 15,135 76.0 2,369
Pinellas 6.3 W 584.2 2,107.0 287.9 6.72 6,727 522.3 20,707
Polk 94.3 140.6 926.5 1,128.3 94.5 0 217,780 227.2 11,405
Sarasota 6.1 0 110.5 578.2 96.5 0 14,555 120.4 4,500
Sumter 6.4 2.4d 25.7 41.8 3.5 0 8,655 14.8 489
Total 299.6 180.6d 3,531.5 10,519.6 930.6 151.20 395,780 1,709.0 70,993
aData for 1969.
bData for 1972.
CData for 1970.
dNot correct total due to withholding of information and/or data not available,
eExcluding those activities related to transportation, communication, provision of utility (and sanitary) services, finance,
real estate, and insurance, public administration, and some services not included in "service trade". There simply was no com-
plete data available.
Table 32.--Correlation coefficients, water in production and water in consumption versus various measures of economic activity,
SWF, 1969-1972
Water in
production 1.00 0.88 0.98 0.58 0.23 0.16 0.03 0.25 0.32
Agriculture 1.00 0.86 0.76 0.44 0.32 0.20 0.39 0.46
Mining 1.00 0.56 0.18 0.14 0.03 0.22 0.30
Manufacturing 1.00 0.89 0.84 0.71 0.85 0.90
Retail, wholesale
trade
Service trade
Power
Number of
residents
Water in
consumption
aDa ta
bata
CData
1.00
0.92 0.82
1.00 0.82
1.00
for 1970.
for 1969.
for 1972.
0.88
0.98
0.78
1.00
0.90
0.98
0.79
0.99
1.00
V.Jur. of sales in agriculture were $300 million as compared to at
least $180 million in mining and $3,532 million in manufacturing, Whole-
sale and retail sales in conjunction with the service trades had total
sales (receipts) of $11,450 million in 1972,21 Over 151 million kilowatt
hours of electricity were generated. All of these production ty-pe acti-
vities utilized 396 billion gallons of water, Direct consumpi.. ;orr active
ties, in turn, utilized 71 billion gallons (Table 31), For the latter case,
the "output" would be represented by the total dollar ben.f i s gained by
the domestic users from the direct consumption of the water,
The amount of sales from agricultural enterprises and mining were
found to be highly correlated with the total amount of water used in pro-
duction activities, Correlation coefficients were estimated at 0.88 and
22
0.98 for agriculture and mining, respectively, as shown in Table 32.22
These estimates lead to the general conclusion that high levels of water
use (for production purposes) in the SWF counties are associated with
large values for agricultural and mining sales. Sales from mininig were
estimated to be nearly perfectly correlated (r = 0.98) with total water
used for production purposes. There is also a tendency in SWI' for both
agricultural and mining operations to be in the same county, as indicated
by the correlation coefficient of r = 0,86, This situation is illustrated
in Fi u;e 3.
i'nuf,--:cturing activity also tended to be positively correlated with
water in production with r level of r = 0.58 (Table 32). An unexpected
result was the high correlation coefficient between manufacturing activity
data available was not suitable to this task, The correlation coefficients
of Table 32 do give some insight into the manner in which water use and
the outputs are related, however,
21These comparisons must be viewed with some caution as the agricul-
tural sales were for 1969 as compared to 1970 data for mining and 1972
data for m:,,-ulfacturing. Also, there is likely some double counting in
these values. For example, local agricultural products may be used in man-
Lfat:.ur: ing and locally manufactured goods may be sold through local whole-
s..le and retail outlets,
22A correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of the d-.-cee of associ-
ation between two variables. A value of + 1,00 indicates perfect corre-
lation; i,e. the variables tend to move together (both incre.,<-e if +1;
one decreases while the other increases in case of -1.), If the value is
r = 0, there is no correlation. The r values were estimated from the data
in Table 31,
15-25 Industrial use
SIrrigation
10-15 0 Municipal use
6-10 County lines
3-6
20 Potentiometric contours
1-3 feet above MSL (May 1971)
0.3-1
0.3 Source: Adapted from [9].
Annual groundwater withdrawals,
billions of gallons
Figure 3,-Water use by industry, irrigation and municipalities in Hills-
borough and Polk Counties, 1971
and water use in consumption, The r value was estimated at 0,90. The
apparent reasons for the r = 0,58, r 0,90 divergence seem to be twofold.
First, manufacturing activity in SWF does not use 1 :-;:., amounts of water,
thus the relatively low level of correlation with water in production.
Secondly, manufacturing activity generally requires a 'I.i,: labor force
and this same force uses more water in coinumr I i.,r Note that manufac-
turing activity and the number uf residents variable have a correlation
coefficient of 0,85, which lenJs credence to the second reason.
Activity in the retail'wholesale and service trade sectors was posi-
tively correlated with total water used in prud'lc.ii, -.o, but r levels (at
'r = 0,23 and r = 0,16, respectively) were very low, This supports a con-
23
tention that these uses are not significant. water users in SWF,23 As with
manufacturing, activity in these two sectors was also highly correlated
with water use in consumption, Again this is due to the high correlation
between activity (sales) in these sectors and the number of residents.
The basis is slightly different than the situation for icaaniufacturing,
in that the high correlation is due to more purchases (more residents,
so more purchases). In the case of manufactut' ing, gieacer sales were
correlated with large numbers of iesideiits due ri-im-arily to the needed
(and utilized) work force,
The correlation coefficlent of power production with water used in
production was very low at r = 0,03 (Table 32), This suggests that fresh
water used for this activity is relatively j.:-:.:'i:llL .t:-_.:3nt in the total pro-
24
duction-water use situation. Power production was positively correlated
with the number of resirenrts.
Water use in consumption was found to be highly correlated with the
number of residents at r 0,99. This iigh (nearly perfect) correlation
appears to be inconsistent with the earlier fiiJditns in this study where
23
Care must be taken in interpreting "criniiclnt ". The correlation
coefficients really only say that high levels of water used in production
activities are more highly correlatedi with high levels of agriculture and
mining than with high levels of manufacturing and activities in the trade
sectors. This is not to say that wholesale-retail and service trade is
insignificant in an absolute sense,
24
Presently, significant amounts of 'fresh water are used for power
generation only in Polk County. This is The reason for the low estimated
r,
it was argued that income and household technology (among other variables,
including price) affected direct water consumption. The results of pre-
vious research studies lend credence to the significant impact of (espe,
cially) price and income variables Il], Another reason exists for the high
correlation, The income and household technology variables were very simi-
lar in the three counties (Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Polk). This domi-
nates the direct consumption water use estimates for SWF (the three account
for about 70 percent of this use), Also, it is expected that water prices
are very similar in the three counties. Therefore, all the economic vari-
ables that affect water consumption have the same influence on water con-
sumption resulting in the perfect correlation,
The observed high correlation explains the "constantr-usecper-resident"
or "requirements approach" as used in most water projections by water plan-
ning agencies, Casual empiricism (like using the r level of r = 0.99 as
support for a linear projection'line) in this case could lead to drastic
errors in projections if any of the variables such as income, household
technology and/or prices change over time, The water manager must be aware
of the underlying factors affecting direct consumption and not rely on
conditions affecting demand to persist, In fact, the very important price
25
variable can usually be affected by the water manager
The relative amounts of water used per production worker are also of
interest (Table 33), Some indication of the "intensity" of water use can
be gained from these estimates, Counties with the highest proportions
of water use in agriculture and/or mining (Table 30) generally tend to have
the greatest water use per production worker (Table 33). DeSoto and Hardee
Counties used 5,5 and 4.2 million gallons, respectively, per production
worker, In both cases over 97 percent of the water was withdrawn for agri-
cultural use, Polk and Sumter Counties used 2.6 and 1.8 million gallons
per worker, Both of these counties utilized large percentages of the water
in mining operations (phosphate and limerock, Tables 30 and 33),
Water use per resident in direct consumption was much less variable,
with a range from 31,000 to 50,000 gallons per year (Table 33). Polk had
the largest use per resident which suggests a greater "intensity" of direct
25Households in the Miami area were found to be price responsive. Also,
households with higher incomes used more water,
Table 33.--Total water withdrawn from all sources in production and consumption activities, with
proportions in each use, by county in SWF, 1970
Total water
in production
activities
Million e1i o-s
Wjacer u -:
per production
wor ker
GC llaon1
S'...'a -er in
Total wacer
|irec con-
in c.-isun-'pt: ion i
sumpt ion per
activities resident
ill ,n allon reslldent
Hin livi.: i j li.cn G.n o -JlI E;
I roJo'rrcion In
Torcl Prc.dL.: tion ConsLnpcion
used activities activities
Hil. a] -------Prccnt-----
Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter
Total
County
10,723
1,942
24,047
23,2621
1,022
47,285
20,462
4,185
15,135
6,727
217,780
14,555
8,655
395,780
1,569,066
379,593
5,488,929
4,232,533
192,250
260,737
711,821
171,320
831,182
40,769
2,649,746
393,857
1,611,427
695,814
899
613
406
580
580
22,209
3,545
2,691
2,369
20,707
11 ,405
4,500
489
70,993
32,621
31,934
31,087
38,955
34,110
45,300-
36,503
38,983
31,190
39,644
50,193
37,371
32,954
41,544
11,622
2,555
24,453
23,642
1,602
69,494
24,007
6,876
17,504
27,434
229,185
19,055
9,144
466,773
92.3
76.0
98.3
97.6
63.8
68.0
85.2
60.9
86.5
24.5
95.0
76.4
94,7
84.8
7.7
24.0
1.7
2.4
36.2
32.0
14,8
39.1
13.5
75.5
5.0
23.6
5.3
15.2
S"production corler" is herein defined as any person employed (includir.g owners, managers, etc), in any
retail, commercial, industrial, and/or agricultural activity (inciJuing basic production).
Resident" or population of the area.
L
use than elsewhere in SWF,
The proportion of water used in production versus that used in direct
.consumption is highly variable throughout the area. Over 98 percent of
the water used in production activities in DeSoto County as compared to
2 percent in consumption. These findings have significance in that on
a basin-wide, area-wide basis, the productive use of water far exceeds
the direct, consumptive use,
Trends in Total Water Use, 1950 to 1970
Many of the trends in particular sectors, in terms of changes in eco-
nomic activity, have already been highlighted in previous sections of this
report and need not be repeated here, Unfortunately, there are simply no
data available from secondary sources on water use at the localized (at
least, county) level that is directly comparable with the 1970 data published
by the U.S. Geological Survey f29].26
Obviously, there has been a considerable change in economic activity
(and the associated population levels) during the 20-year period from 1950
to 1970, Withdrawals of water have definitely increased significantly
over that time period, The increases have been due not only to changes in
the level (or quantity) of activity, but also due to changes in quality of
the activity. In direct consumption, residents have adopted a household
technology which utilizes more water. On the production side, agriculture
has moved more toward a higher water using technology through more irri-
gatIon, Increases in water withdrawals resulted in a significant level
of use by 1970. It is expected the trends have been upward since 1970.
Some areas of water shortage have already developed. More problems can
be expected for the future.
ELooonic Cono r.o:;ie _t ,jl i in W.atec lNangemnen and Allocation
Scarce resources are generally allocated among competing uses through
26This is a slight overstatement, The-ric were, for example, quite der
tailed water use sr iUic.., for :Wi accomplished in the S.--;tt Water Planning
effort in the early 1960Ts 13, 4, 5], Unfortunately, those data are not
directly comparable with the USGS report [29], Also, changes in irrigated
acreage over time are available through the agricultural census, E.tiimates
of the changes in water use by agriculture could be developed based on these
changes.
market based s.;r-cTims. This is true for the human resource which is allo-
cated through labor markets, Manufactured inputs used in production such
as fertilizer, steel, and building materials are bought and sold, Some of
the natural resources, such as land, are exchanged in markets, Similarly,
consumers buy foods such as food and durable goods for direct consumption
purposes on a daily basis, It is interesting to note that water is not
allocated throjuh a market. Stated somewhat differently, the water allo-
cation depicted in Table 31 was the direct result of some non-market based
allocation rule. Water has been treated differently from most other Ltypes
of scarce resources and consumer goods.
The 1072 Water Act requires that each water use be reasonable-bene-
ficial, which means ",.,the use of water in such quantity as is necessary
for economic and efficient utilization, for a purpose and in a manner which
is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest" [32, p. 16].
It appears the law makers provided that economic efficiency criterion were
to play some role in the management and allocation 6f water in Florida.
It is important that those concerned with water management and allocation
have some knowledge of the nature of economic allocation rules.
An economically efficient allocation of water among competing uses,
such as those represented in Table 31, occurs at the point where the mar-
ginal benefit (or marginal value in use) to society from each use is equal
across all uses of the water, Consider the following example. Assume, the
last million gallons aillocatcd to agriculture, commercial, industrial, and
domeisric uses re:.niilted in a $200,00, $180.00, and $160.00 marginal return
or benelilI;, respectively, This would be an inefficient solution as one
million gallons could be shifted away from domestic use toward agricultural
or commercial-indu'~ri-al use for a net gain of about $40.00 or $20.00,
respectively, In fact, the economically efficient allocation would result
at some point where the marginal value in use was somewhat less than $200.00
but more than $160.0027 There are, of course, distributive impacts of
such changes in allocation. The "equity" of one allocation as compared
to another distribution of the water resource should also be considered
by decision makers dealing with water allocation,
27Assumiiin declining marginal returns, which generally prevails as
more water is utilized. See Il1 for the case of domestic water use,
The economic concept of equating at the margin operates automatically
within smoothly functioning markets, The market clearing price in such a
market is the marginal benefit to society, as revealed by the participants
in the market. No such market exists in Florida (or anywhere else in the
eastern United States) for water, A market could be established. Or, al-
ternatively, the current water management districts (or some other water
management authority) could allocate the water among competing uses and/or
ue.s such as to meet the requirements of efficiency rules.
The marginal benefit (or marginal value in use) functions were not
developed for the various uses presented in Tables 31 and 32. A great
deal of research effort would be required to quantify these water-output
relations. It is doubtful the allocation of water shown in Table 31 is
the most efficient. If it is, the most efficient level was achieved only
by chance, Improved efficiency can be achieved in two ways: 1) water
management authorities can discover the marginal benefit functions and
use them in allocation decisions and/or 2) characteristics of a market sys-
tem can be used to allocate the water, Tentative results of this study
lend credence to an approach of doing both, It appears to these authors
that both the development of market features and estimates of marginal
value in use would eventually aid in improved use of the water resource.
Research needs to be started into the distributive impacts of various
allocation alternatives, as well,
SUMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Water has become a scarce resource in many areas of Florida. Water
related problems have developed. This report highlights some aspects of
water use within the context of an economic framework for the Southwest
Florida (SWIF) area, Three major classes of use were identified. These
were agricultural production, commercial-industrial production, and direct
consumption or "people oriented" use,
Irrigation was found to play a significant role in the diverse agri-
cultural sector of SWF, About one-third of all farms had irrigated land,
using 58 billion gallons of water on 274,000 acres in 1969, Total agri"
cultural water use was 64 billion gallons for the same year (total use
was estimated at over 190 billion in 1970), Total sales at the farm level
in 1969 were $300 million and between 20,000 and 30,000 people were em-
ployed in (primary) agricultural production activity, A large number of
different crops are irrigated, Citrus was the major irrigated crop followed
by vegetables of various types. Farmland acreage declined over the 20-
year period such that for every eight acres removed from agt cultural pro-
duction, one more acre was irrigated,
Commercial and industrial t-nterprises employed over 0.5 million people
in 1970, The wholesale-retail and service trade sectors employed 56 per-
cent of the total, Manufacturing was second with 16 percent of the total.
Manufacturing sales were estimated at over $12 billion in 1972. Minerals
production was also large at over $180 million in 1970, due primarily to
phosphate mining. Water withdrawals exceeded 204 billion gallons for the
commercial-industrial sector in 1970, Primary uses within this'group were
the mineral industries, citrus processing, and power production.
Direct consumption activities include personal use, cooking, cleaning,
car washing, and lawn irrigation. About 1,7 million residents used 71
billion gallons in 1970, This amounts to 10,000 gallons per month per
household (or about 114 gallons per resident per day), A household tech-
nology index was developed to show the impact of various water using appli-
ances on water use, More intensive water using technology has resulted
since 1950,
Agriculture and the minerals industries are major users of water.
Inconsistencies in data did not allow a conclusion on the exact quantities
of water used by those industries, but together they account for between
56 and 67 percent of the total use in SWT for 1.969-70. A large percentage
of this use is concentrated in Hillsborough and Polk Counties, This is
presently an area of severe supply problems, The overall average water use
for SWF was 85 percent for productive activities and 15 percent for con-
sumptive activities with considerable variation among the counties. Over-
all water use was estimated at 750 gallons per resident per day in 1970.
A survey study of this nature does not lend itself to specific, nu-
merical conclusions. There are some general conclusions that can be com?
bined with other knowledge to aid in water related decisions. It was dem-
onstrated that production (of goods and services in demand by society)
uses most of the water in SF, In addition, a significant portion of the
water used directly by consumers appears to be used to satisfy non-essential
(in the sense of nonessential for life) activities, Water is a resource
(input) used in production and consumption much as many other resources
(inputs) are used by society in the provision of goods and services. It
follows that water could be allocated in much the same way as any other
resource. Stated somewhat differently, it seems appropriate to consider
alternative pricing policies for the water resource as well as policies
that lead to "free" water for all,
The foregoing analysis has revealed the major uses to be mining and
agricultural irrigation (and to some extent citrus processing and thermo"
electric power generation). Emphasis should be placed on allocation to
these activities and an attempt should be made by decision makers at
various levels to consider economic criteria in allocation decisions and
policy. Direct consumer use should not be totally ignored either, espe-
cially in counties having heavy concentrations of people. Results of a
study of direct, consumer use of water in Dade County show that water use
is influenced by both water price and income,
Economics also should play a more predominant role in the decision,
making process regarding the long run planning horizon, The estimated
demand of 470 billion gallons in 1970 has been projected to change to
about 670 billion gallons by 1984. If these projections are realized,
some large expenditures would have to be made in supply augmentation if
more water is "needed" than the 670 billion gallons, This augmentation
process could be exceedingly expensive. Therefore, the economic supply
must be considered as well as the economic benefits on the demand side.
The major point illustrated in this survey is that water is important
to economic activity in SWF, A second point is that economic principles
should be considered in the allocation of water among these activities
to enhance the well being of the area.
Appendix A, Table l.--Acres of harvested cropland on farms in SWF, 1969
Total
Item
Count y
I -.. .. .... .r .- ..I F .. ,- r : ... .
h~ri)t'--[ trJ .:= --. ,..
ladin
Percent of total
land in
farms
Corn for grain,........
Corn for silage........
Corn cut for green or
dried fodder hogged
or gra-- !...... ....
Sorjh~., irain cr -:,
Sor4*'- j for il1 ...
Sorghums cut for dry
hay or forage.;.....
Sorghums hogged or
gr3-ze. ............
A Ia 1 -J LEI c
for hay or
dehir 3r ti. .......
Clo.r. c Lrt hyj, and
mixtures for hay....
Small grain bay........
Other hay.............
Grass silage...........
Bay crops, cut and fed
S green..............
S Red clover seed ......
Strawberries ..........
......... ... ... .
-3t for Orlin.........
Barley for grain.......
Rtye for grain..........
Soybeans for beans.....
S Peanuts for nuts......
Irish potatoes ........
Tobacco ...............
3 0
0 0
1 10
c 0
0 0
0
0 606
17 0
-- ----- Acres ---------
262 0 5283 168 25 717 0
70 180 58 486 19 0 0
140 7204
0 830
0 965 30 0 0 0
0 216 0 0 300 0
0 270 720 0 145 0
0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
a 0
0 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 40 0
0 140 0 307 46
100 150 95 674 1097
5 196 153 188 377
110 768 587 1817 1169
25 0 0 0 97
45 49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0 20 84 350 0 72 0 27
790 222 1266 576 220 741 0 688
4
209
1046
6619
812 45 881 28 90 209 0 177 3161
4183 3311 8195 3478 125 2072 351 3146 29,312
170 561 0 290 150 120 10 9 1432
55 0 60 271 190 0 0
0 0 a
0 0 59
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 I 3
0 0o
Land in orchards ..... 6222 1667 21,851 43,400 7714
Nrrsery or greenhouse 6 3 17 4 33
S.......e 76 3 17 84 33
T..: .............. c d 73 359 8
S:eet corn............ e 3 d 15 1
Cucur-ber and pickles... c d 125 812 1
WV r '^ l ...... ... c 225 1605 976 260
-1a bn, ,,.:Ir 0o d 0 d 0
Oher an.ll a ...... SA 9 170 153 249
Total all above crops.. 6583 3214 24,687 48,927 11,958
Other crops............ 2255 6091 2241 1364 1003
Total, all crops...... 8838 9305 24,911 50,291 12,961
Other land in farms 203,830 89096 232,100 334,852 54,228
Total acreage in farms 212,668 9E401 257,011 386,143 67,189
Source: Adapted from [161.
38 0
0 28 0 0 0 0
09 0 d 0 19 0
0 240 0 0 0 0
0 204 237 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1280 680 0 100 0
0 535 697 0 e 0
0 3636 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
0 6 0 1 0 0
80 788
0 2060
0 1232
12 3648
d 6
19 26
47,564 16,331 11,392 49,258 4903 153,806 1707 2163 367,978
1352 1271 247 37 198 468 106
1862 4803 387 2 0 1 60
43 3 13 0 0 29 0
47
61
378
2391
60,599
1355
61,954
265,571
327,525
4098
7831e
107
18 34 20 0 118 101 304 1580
6 1992 179 0 671 190 2053 8218
65 66 0 0 3 0 43 558
1279 750 61 0 744 820 789 9949
29,555 38,327 57,297 5731 160,415 3354 10,384 460,031
1057 2728 766 0 .5301 224 1420 23,788
28,612 41,055 58,063 5731 165,716 3578 11,804 433,819
276,080 383,844 225,480 12,266 633,617 140,348 161,149 3,043,461
305,692 424,899 313,543 17.997 799.333 143,926 172,953 3,527,230
<.5
C.5
<,5
< 1.0
<.5
<5
..5
<.5
<.5
5
<5
<.5
<.5
<.5
'.5
t10.0
13.7
86.3
100.0
|
;-----~--
----------
Appendix A, Table 2.--Irrigation of harvested croplands on farmsa in SWF, 1969
County
ro trl Pe:rcent of total
harlott. Citrus DeSoto Hardee Hernando Hllsboough Manatee Mar ion Pasco Pinela Pl Sarst Sutr rigated Land
Corn for grain ........
Corn for silage.......
Corn cut for green or
dried fodder hogged
or grazed.........
Sorghums grain or seed
Sorghums for silage...
Sorghuns cut for dry
hay or forage.....
Sorghums hogged or
grazed...........,.
Alfalfa and mixtures
for hay or
dehvdrating.....,.
Clover, timothy, and
mixtures for hay...
Small grain hay.......
Other hay.............
Grass silage..........
Bay crops, cut and fed
green..............
Red clover seed......
Strawberries..........
Wheat..................
Oats for grain........
Barley for grain......
Rye for grain.........
Soybeans for bears....
Peanuts for nuts......
Irish potatoes........
Tobacco...............
Land in orchards......
Nursery or greenhouse
products...........
Tomatoes.............
Sweet corn............
Cucumber and picVles..
WAter~elfons.........
Snap beans, bush, pole
Other vegetables......
Total all above crops.
2 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
O 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 200
------- Acres ----------
0 0 0 576 0 0 23 0
0 0 100 0 380 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 300 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0
0 0 300 0 200 30 10 103 0 30 0
0 0 0
0 200 336
0 0 0
0
Other crops........... 1895
Total, all crops...... 7177
Other irrigated acre-
age 2553
Total irrigated acreage 9730
0 3 0 0 0
76 0 0 110 92
0 0 0 0 0
0 30 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
893 11,686 19,972
2 5 62
t 70 345
1 t 3
t 125 622
90 1605 683
t 0 t
1 163 111
989u 13,855' 22,664u
-2 -46 -25
987 13,809 22,639
0 10,390 6206
987 24,199 28,845
0 0
0 t
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
83 0
0 0
6 0
49 650
0 480
5 5
8 8
60 360
0 0
0 0
27 252
40 713
0 186
73 2323
0 511
40 261
0 0
19 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
1440 18,919 10,232 4689 15,911 3199 100,788 859
2 1002 .1205 245 13 109 390 59
8 1851 4768 354 0 0 t 60
0 9 0 2 0 0 1 0
0
80
0
187
1717u
11
15
269
1970
24,937
-298 246
1419 25,183
254 3,828
1673 29,011
18 1 20 0 60 100
6 1142 0 0 436 190
12 40 0 0 1 0
1210 489 33 0 101 785
19,795u 7713 16,763 3308 101,986" 2145
-1786 -31 18 3 -112 110
18,009 7682 16,781 3311 101,874 2255
6,818 1150 1.805 0 7,742 6631
24,827 8832 18,586 3311 109,616 8886
1119 194,835
205 3373
240 7696
0 16
291
1935
36
736
4881u
-35
4846
1248k
6182
358
5786k
266,035u
-63
225,972
976 48,353
5822 274.325
Source: Adapted from (16].
Item
< .5
0%
*
< .5
2.1
-< .5
2.1
82.4
< .5
82.4
17.6
100.0
-- -- -- --
I
A,ponJiK A, Table 3.-Percent of harvested cropland irrigated on farmsa in SF, 1969
Item
Crii. r.-: grain........
C.rrn ir silage........
Cont cut for green or
dried fodder hogged
or grazed..........
Sorghums grain or seed.
Sorghums for silage....
'..,ri ',,, cut for dry
ha~ or forage.......
- .'.,-- h: a.; *r
S.- .... ... ...
Alfalia and mixtures
for hay or
dehydrating .......
Clover, timothy, and
mixtures for hay....
s, ,1: 1 r hay ........
Other .. ....... ...
Crass ...
Hay cr s. cr a'u [i .:1
green ...............
Red clover seed........
.r .,- -crie ....... ..
I.!., I .
,l,, a .................
*i r :-. r ra .........
Barley for grain.......
Rye for grain..........
Soybeans for beans ....
Peanuts for nuts.......
Irish potatoes.........
:. ... .. .... ...
Land in orchards.......
Nursery or greenhouse
r ,Y'. ...... .. ...
Sweet corn.............
Cucumber and Pickles...
Waterelons.............
Snap beans, bush, pole.
Other vegetables.......
Total-all above crops..
Other crops............
Total, ,ll crer "er-
ceitage '."-r
Percent irrigated,
other land.............
Percent irrigated,
all farmland.........
County Di.rri:t
, j Cr.r rt, c' D f r H r --. Hii r -,r-r,. P IC 'Cr
------- Percent -----n--
v 66.67 v v 0
v v v a V
0 v 10.90 0
0 55.56 0 78.19
0 0 v
0 v v
0 41.67 v
v r v 0 v
v v v v
V V V V
v 0 :v 65.15
0
0
0
':7L
0 0 44.51
0 0 0
0 26.04 18.49
v v V
0 v 54.55
V, V V
V V V
v v 0
V V V
v v 0
V V v
V V V
V V V
V v V
S100.00 Q
V v V
47.32 53.48 46.02 18.67
66,67 29.41 73.81 6.06
S. 95.89 96.10 100.00
33.33 1 20.00 0
100.00
100.00
V
95.38
56.12
76.60
69.98
72.55"
45.06
0
30.77
v
75.10
14.36
1 1
40.00
11.11
30.77
1.25
4.58
0 -20.54 .-1.83 -29.71
10.61 55.43 45.02 10.95
0 4.48 .1.85 .47
0 3.21 v 35.00
0 v v- v
v 100.00
v 16.67
v 60.00
V v V' V V V V V
v v 0 v v 0 v 0
v 0 0 0 v 34.72 v 100.00
0 25.32 13.51 0.79 17.88,
0. 22.54 0 0 10.71
0 0.31 40.56 0.93 0
0 0 91.09 v 0
0 4.05 v 5.81
0 0 v 0
0 5.31 26.21 2.32
0 0 0 0
0 70.48 0 v v 0 v 50.00
v
93.93
0
v
v
100.00
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
0
0
0
2;28
100.00
39.78 62.65 4i 1. 32.38
89.13 94.81 99.19 35.14
99.41 99.27 91.47 0
20.93 0 15.38 v
23.40
24.59
71.16
82.39
41.15
100.00
100.00
18.46
94.61
69.32
2.94 100.00
57.33 0
60.61 v
65.20 54.10
20.12 29.26
V
100.00
V
V
v
v
V
100.00
v
0
100.00
v
V
0
v
NA1
63.16
65.25 65.53 50.32 51.73
55.05 83.33 55.66 99.51
v NA 100.00 86.96
v 3.45 v v
v
v
V.
0
57.72
18.15 -168.97 -1.14 2.35
50.85
64.98
33.33
13.57
63.58
99.01
100.00
v
94.69
63.95
95.72
94.25
83.72
93.28
47.00
0 -2.11 49.12 -2.46
40.65 60.82 18.71 28.90 57.77 61.47 63.02 41.05
1.44 2.47 .30 .71
.0 1.22 4.72
.61
9.02
57.83
0.49
1.25k
28.23
24.09
10.77
5.88
7.92
35.68
33.11
0
95.56k
0
0
0
0
Ok
2.27
50.00
69.23
52.95
82.31
98.28
14. 95k
78.99k
75.23k
58.16k
46.72k
49.13
-0.26
46.70
1. 9
1.00 9.42 7.47 2.49 8.86 8.12 2,08 5.93 18.40 13,71 6.17
- ---
3.37 7.78
Appendix A, Ta.ble 4.-Number of livestock and water uSe In SWl, 1969
----million gallons (MG)----
---MG--
---MG---
Charlotte 0 0 0 0 16,849 92,25 3,440 0.09 92.34
Citrus 131 1.20 5,64 6.84 8,223 45.02 20,398 0.52 52.02
DeSoto 261 2.38 11.24 13.62 32,753 179.32 269,171 6.85 199.79
Hardee 2,137 19.50 92.04 111.54 55,618 304.51 132 0.01 416.05
Hernando 831 7.58 35.79 43.37 15,863 86.85 1,042,877 26.53 156.75
Hillsborough 23,796 217.14 1,024.89 1,242.03 47,946 262.50 2,076,648 52.83 1,557.36
Manatee 6,255 57.08 269.40 326.48 46,674 255.54 127,724 3.25 585.27
Marion 1,860 16.72 80.11 96.83 62,843 344.06 141,123 3.59 444.48
Pasco 5,140 46.90 221.38 268.28 41,784 228.77 2,168,355 55.16 552.21
Pinellas 2,496 22.78 107.50 130.28 3,133 17.15 124,801 3.17 150.60
Polk 6,034 55.06 259.88 314.94 76,406 418.32 952,070 24.22 757.48
Sarasota 784 7.15 33.77 40.92 28,221 154.51 55,500 1.41 196.84
Sumter 825 7.53 35.53 43.06 32,099 175,74 1,118 2.85 221.65
Total 50,550 461.27 2,177.19 2,638.46 468,412 2,564.56 7,094,074 180.48 5,383.50
Based on estimates of 25 gallons per day (gpd), an average of use rates reported in [5] and [7].
bBased on estimated withdrawal of 11P gp' per cow [5].
CBased on estimated use of 15 gpd, from [5] and [7].
dBased on estimate of 0.0697 gpd, or approximately two times the weight of feed consumed daily.
chickens over three months old.
R EFEREIICES
[1] Andrews, Donald R. n Et.ml._ lton I:of Re',2 idntia3 Denman,-I for Water in Dade
County, Florida, Unpublished Master of Sc ienc Thesis, Gainesville: Food
and Resource Economics Department. University of Florida, 1974.
[2] Conover, Clyde. "Florida's Water Resource", Water in Our Future, The DARE
RP.port, 1973. IFAS, publication number 11. ca.inesville, Florida; University
of Florida, April 1973.
[3] Florida Department of Natural Resources. Florida Uater and Related Land
Resourccrs, Kissimmec Ever glades Area. Tallalhassee: 1974.
[4] Department of N-iLural Resources. Florida Land
and Relatcd Land Resources, St. Johns Ri.ver Bsin Ta ilaiha.bsee: 1970.
[5] Division of Water Resources. Florida's Land- and
.jUnte Resinurces: Soutlhwiest Florida. Tallabassee. 1966.
[6] Florida Water Resources Study Commission. Floridn's Water Resources.
Gainesville: 1956.
[7] Tiinstiute of Food and Agricultural Scii-nces, Univer'sitv of Florida. 1969
DARE Rejort. Puhlicaiion no, 7. Gainesville: October 1969.
[8] FP.irker., C-erald C. Water anc Water Pi-rol_.i'in-s inJ the Siothwest Florida UaJer
I.lrnaaemnent District and Some YPot;.ibl_ Soluri. ions Ilimeo. Broolksville:
Southwest Florida Water H1anagement District, Hiay 29, 1974.
[9] l.-ob-rtson, A. F. and L. R. Mills. GtCunildwater itihdauals in the Upper
AJai.a River Basins, Florida. Hap Seie o. 67. Tallahassee; united
States Geological Survey, 1974.
[10] U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Acea Mealuremet Reports, Areas of
Florida. 1960. GE 20, No. 10. Hasyhin'ton: U,.S. Government Printing
Office, 1965.
[11] Census of Agriculture, 1949. Census of Irci:zation, Vol. ii. Irrigation
oi A-,ri.cultural Lands. Washington UI.S. Goverinmrent Princing Office, 1951.
[12]U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census _o A:riculture,_1950, Vol. 1, Counties
.and State Fconomic Areas, Part 18. 1Uashingt on: U.S. Government Printing
'Off :ice, 1952.
[13] .____. Census of A, J ulIure 1.954. Vol. 1, Counties
and SLate Economic Areas, Part 18. Washington: U.S. Covernnient Printing
Office, 1956.
[14] Census of Agriculture 1959, Vol. I, Counties,
Part 29. Florida. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961.
[15] Census of Agriculture, 1964, Vol. I. Part 29,
Florida. Washington; US. Government Printing Office. 1967.
[16] _. Census of Agriculture, 1969. Vol. I. Part 29,
Florida, Section 2. County Data. Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1972,
[17] Census of Housing, 1950. Florida General Char-
acteristics, Bulletin H-A1O. Washington! U.S. Government Printing Office,
1952.
[18] _, Census of Housing, 1970. Detailed Housing
Characteristics, Final Report HC(1)-B11 Florida. Washington: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1972,
[19] __. Census of Population, 1950. Vol. III, Part 10,
Chapter B. Characteristics of the Population, Florida. Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1952.
[20] ________ Census of Population, 1950. Vol. III, Part 10,
Chapter B. Characteristics of the Population, Florida. Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1952.
[21] Census of Population, 1960. General Population
clharacteristicslFlorida, Final Report PC [1] lB, Washington: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1962.
[22] _. Census of Population, 1970. General Population
ChAiracteristics, Florida, PC [(1-B11. Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1972.
[23] Census of Population' 1970. General Social and
Economic Charac teristica. Final Report PC(1)-C11, Florida. Washington:
U. S, Government Printing Office, 1972.
[24] Census of Manufacturers, 1972, Area Series,
Florida HC72(3)-10. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
[25] Census of Retail Trade, 1972. Area Series, Florida
RC72-A-10. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
[26] Census of Selected SeLice Industries. 197?.
Area Series, Florida, SC72-A-0, WashingLronL U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1974.
[27] _. Census of Wholesale Trade, 1972. Area Series,
Florida, WC72-A-10. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
[28] U. S. Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook, 1970. Washington: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
[29] U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in Florida, 1970. Information
Circular No. 83. Tallahassee: 1973.
70
[30] i___blic Water SupD.lie Of Seli'tcd Ilunicipalities
in Florida 1970. Information Circular No. 81, Tallahassee, 1972.
[31] Pocentiometric Surrace. and Areas of.A:tesian Floi
Tla,-, 1969, and Chani.e of Pot-entiometric Surface 1964 to 1968, Floridan Aquif
Atlas HA 440. Tallahassee: 1971.
[32] Wadley, James B. "A Summary Guide to Florida's Water Rights", Circular
412, Gainesville; Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
|
