The purposes and effects of the proposed rule amendments are to: (1) require ERP applicants under Chapter 40C-4 or 40C-40, F.A.C., to concurrently submit CUP applications where their proposed projects will contain irrigated landscape, golf course, or recreation areas that require a CUP; (2) require that such concurrent ERP and CUP applications will be reviewed by the District in a consolidated manner, with the ERP application not being considered complete until the CUP application is also complete and if either application fails to meet the applicable conditions for issuance then both the ERP and CUP applications will be denied; (3) create a new ERP criterion that a proposed system that will contain irrigated landscape, golf course, or recreational areas “not adversely impact the availability of water for reasonable-beneficial uses;” (4) create water conservation requirements, which satisfy the new criterion to not adversely impact the availability of water for reasonable-beneficial uses, including: (i) require an irrigation plan that meets criteria to conserve water, including requirements that no more than 60% of the pervious portion of a lot can be irrigated with high-volume sprinklers, sprinkler spacing and precipitation rate limits, prohibiting irrigation of non-vegetated areas, limiting irrigation of landscaped road medians to certain highly efficient irrigation methods unless the water source is stormwater or reclaimed water, and requiring that all in-ground irrigation systems are separately metered; (ii) require use of lower quality water sources unless the applicant demonstrates that it is not economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible; and (iii) require that the use of Florida-Friendly landscaping not be prohibited; (5) create requirements to ensure that the long-term operation and maintenance entity will enforce the water conservation plan requirements; (6) clarify that at preapplication conferences, the District will also be available to discuss consolidated review of other permits and authorizations; (7) require that when an ERP application requires a concurrent application to be submitted that the applicant must submit all required applications and all appropriate permit processing fees; (8) clarify the 40C-40 standard ERP process; (9) clarify that an ERP application may be submitted electronically via the District’s website; (10) update the nomenclature in 40C-4 that 40C-40 permits are called “standard” ERPs; (11) clarify that an applicant can request that the District begin processing an incomplete ERP application; (12) revise the ERP application form to update the contents and include the concurrent application requirements; and (13) update statutory authority.