Intergovernmental relations and responses to water problems in Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Intergovernmental relations and responses to water problems in Florida
Series Title:
Florida Water Resources Research Center Publication Number 19
Physical Description:
Book
Creator:
Thomas, Robert D.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Notes

Abstract:
This report presents an exploratory analysis of Florida's legislators' and county commissioners' images (perceptions and attitudes) : (1) of eleven selected water problems; (2) of which level or levels of government should have the responsibility for handling and attempting to solve these problems; (3) of the effectiveness of ten selected measures for dealing, with water use problems; and (4) of the related factor of growth and development. The data, derived principally from interviews with the legislators and commissioners, showed a basic difference between the legislators and commissioners in their assessment of the severity of water problems; in their assessment of the severity of water problems relative to other public problems such as education, welfare, roads, and health/hospitals; and, in their evaluation of the need to impose controls on growth and development. On the other hand, the data showed considerable agreement between the legislators and commissioners in their evaluation of what solutions would be most effective in dealing with water use problems. The data also very strongly showed that legislators and commissioners are parochial in their attitude about intergovernmental responsibility on water problems. Commissioners see water problems as the counties' responsibility or as a multiple-local responsibility (local governments -- city, county, special district -- working cooperatively). Legislators see water problems as the state's responsibility or as a local-state responsibility (the state working cooperatively with local governments). Both legislators and commissioners, however, agreed that the federal government should exercise little or no responsibility on water resource problems.
General Note:
Florida Water Resources Research Center publication 19

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID:
AA00001479:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
















INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS
IN FLORIDA



By

Robert D. Thomas


PUBLICATION NO. 19

FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER





RESEARCH PROJECT TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT


OWRR Project Number A-020-FLA


Annual Allotment Agreement Numbers

14-31-0001-3509
14-31-0001-3809

Report Submitted: December 31, 1972


The work upon which this report is based was supported in part
by funds provided by the United States Department of the
Interior, Office of Water Resources Research as
Authorized under the Water Resources
Research Act of 1964.


















Publication No. 19

Intergovernmental Relations and Responses to Water
Problems in Florida

By

Robert D. Thomas

Department of Political Science
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton






ii


ABSTRACT

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND

RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS

IN FLORIDA




This report presents an exploratory analysis of
Florida's legislators' and county commissioners' images (per-
ceptions and attitudes): (1) of eleven selected water pro-
blems; (2) of which level or levels of government should
have the responsibility for handling and attempting to
solve these problems; (3) of the effectiveness of ten
selected measures for dealing with water use problems;
and (4) of the related factor of growth and development.

The data, derived principally from interviews
with the legislators and commissioners, showed a basic
difference between the legislators and commissioners in
their assessment of the severity of water problems; in
their assessment of the severity of water problems rela-
tive to other public problems such as education, welfare,
roads, and health/hospitals; and, in their evaluation of
the need to impose controls on growth and development. On
the other hand, the data showed considerable agreement be-
tween the legislators and commissioners in their evaluation
of what solutions would be most effective in dealing with
water use problems.

The data also very strongly showed that legis-
lators and commissioners are parochial in their attitude
about intergovernmental responsibility on water problems.
Commissioners see water problems as the counties' respon-
sibility or as a multiple-local responsibility (local govern-
ments -- city, county, special district -- working cooper-
atively). Legislators see water problems as the state's
responsibility or as a local-state responsibility (the
state working cooperatively with local governments). Both
legislators and commissioners, however, agreed that the
federal government should exercise little or no responsi-
bility on water resource problems.

Thomas, Robert D.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS
IN FLORIDA
Research Project Technical Completion Report, Office of Water
Resources Research, Department of the Interior, December, 1972
KEY WORDS: intergovernmental relations*/water resource pro-
blems*/state legislators' attitudes*/county commissioners'
attitudes*/Federalism/growth and development.






iii







ACKNOWLEDGE CENTS



I am very grateful for the support the Florida
Water Resources Research Center has given me. Dr. William
Morgan has assisted me at every turn.


My research assistants, Keith Hamm and Scott
Reilly, gave me a great deal of help in collecting and
coding the data.


A special debt of gratitude is expressed to
the many public officials who gave of their time to an-
swer my questions. These officials include not only
the Florida legislators and county commissioners, but
also local, state, and federal officials who provided
useful information at the outset of this study.











TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


TITLE ..........................................
ABSTRACT .......................................
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................
LIST OF TABLES .................................


i
ii
iii
iv
v


1. INTRODUCTION .....................
1.1 Images ...........................
1.2 Selected Water Problems .........
1.3 Intergovernmental Relations and
Responses ......................
1.4 Method of Data Collection ........
1.5 Organization .....................


2. THE PROBLEM CONTEXT ......................
2.1 Importance of Environmental
Problems ...............................
2.2 Problem Severity .........................


3.
3.1
3.2

4.


5.
5.1
5.2

6.
6.1
6.2


INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ......
Parochialism .....................
Responses on Individual Problems .


EFFECTIVENESS OF TEN SELECTED
MEASURES ................................


GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ............
Stimulating Growth and Development
Controlling Growth and Development

CONCLUSIONS .......................
Problem Context ...................
Intergovernmental Responsibility ..


APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B


QUESTIONNAIRE DATA .......................

STATE EXPENDITURES FOR NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAMS: FISCAL YEAR, 1971 ............


CHAPTER


CHAPTER




CHAPTER



CHAPTER


CHAPTER



CHAPTER


.......
.......
.......









LIST OF TABLES
Page

TABLE 1 Legislators' and Commissioners' Identification of
Most Pressing Problem Currently Facing Florida,.. 11

TABLE 2 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected
Water Pollution Problems ......................... 11

TABLE 3 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected
Water Supply Problems ............................ 12

TABLE 4 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected
Related Water Problems ........................... 12

TABLE 5 Legislators' and Commissioners' Images of the
Severity of Eleven Selected Problems ............. 17

TABLE 6 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Single Level
Responses to Water Supply, Water Pollution, and
Related Water Problems ........................... 19

TABLE 7 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Multiple
Level Responses to Water Supply, Water Pollution,
and Related Water Problems ....................... 20

TABLE 8 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Counties' Re-
sponsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems ... 23

TABLE 9 Comparison of Respondents' Images of State's Re-
sponsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems ... 25

TABLE 10 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Federal Govern-
ment's Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water
Problems .......................................... 26

TABLE 11 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Multiple-Local
Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems 28

TABLE 12 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-State
Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems 29

TABLE 13 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-Federal
Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems 31

TABLE 14 Comparison of Respondents' Images of State-Federal
Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems 32

TABLE 15 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-State-
Federal Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water
Problems ........................................ ha











TABLE 16


TABLE 17


TABLE 18


TABLE 19


TABLE 20


Legislators' and Commissioners' Images of Effec-
tiveness of Ten Selected Measures ...............

Population of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach
Counties: 1950, 1960, 1970 .....................

Florida Counties Which Lost Population Between
1950-1960 and 1960-1970 .........................

Legislators' and Commissioners' Attitudes About
Stimulating Growth and Development ..............

Legislators' and Commissioners' Attitudes About
Controlling Growth and Development ..............


Page







- 1 -


1. INTRODUCTION




This report focuses on Florida legislators and
county commissioners and their imagesI of which level or
levels of government should respond to water problems in
the state of Florida. Its specific purpose is to explore
these public officials' assessment of eleven selected wa-
ter problems and their attitudes about which level or le-
vels of government should be principally responsible for
taking action on these problems. Data were derived from
interviews with Florida legislators and county commis-
sioners. These interviews were obtained through mail
questionnaires sent to all Florida legislators and com-
missioners.


No doubt technologies of water resources pro-
ject planning and development exert a strong influence
on public water policies. Yet, in the final analysis, so
long as we adhere to a representative system of govern-
ment in the United States, decisions about such things
as water supply, water pollution, flooding, and drainage
will be made in the political arena by duly authorized
public officials.


In spite of this fact, only very recently have
scholars concerned themselves with decision-making as it
pertains to water resource problems. This is particu-
larly true of studies about public officials' attitudes
toward water problems and toward governmental responsi-
bility in taking action on water problems.2 In Florida,





1. The image concept is explained below.


2. A perusal of government sponsored research in this
area shows few studies which deal with administrative and organi-
zational arrangements of water management relative to the number of
studies which deal with the technical aspects of water management.
Even more striking is that there are almost no attitudinal studies.
For a listing of research in the water management area see: Smith-
sonian Institution, Science Information Exchange (Washington, D.C.).







- 2 -


a systematic survey of public officials' attitudes about
water resources has never been undertaken. Therefore,
by necessity, this study is exploratory.3


Although a study of this type has never been
undertaken in Florida, it is neither an unwarranted nor
an untried approach. It is not unwarranted for several
important reasons. First, as Daniel J. Elazar writes:
"For all its centrality in political science today, com-
prehensive systematic [attitudinal] surveys of the opera-
tions of [intergovernmental relations] simply have not
been extensively undertaken."4 Second, an emphasis on
public officials' perceptions and attitudes of inter-
governmental relations is warranted because "a large
part of the study of political behavior is the study
of political perceptions."5 Often it is more important
in explaining political behavior to assess how things
are perceived rather than how things actually are.
Third, a study of public officials' attitudes about in-
tergovernmental relations has practical implications
about what can and cannot be done (i.e., what public
officials will or will not accept) and about the diffi-
culty in coordinating activities between and among the
levels of government in the American federal system.





3. The major purpose of an exploratory study is to gain
suggestive insights into the different aspects of a phenomenon under
investigation. "...exploratory studies have the purpose of formula-
ting problems for more precise investigation..." They may also have
other functions, which are: "increasing the investigator's familiar-
ity with the phenomenon.. under investigation; clarifying concepts;
establishing priorities; gathering information; and, providing a
census of problems regarded as urgent..." See: Claire Selltiz,
Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods
in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959),
pp. 50-51.


4. Daniel J. Elazar, R. Bruce Carrol, E. Lester Levine,
and Douglas St. Angelo (eds.), Cooperation and Conflict: Readings
in American Federalism (Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers,
Inc., 1969), p. 277.


5. Charles 0. Jones, An Introduction to the Study of
Public Policy (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company,
1970), p. 35.







- 3 -


This is not an untried approach to the study of
intergovernmental relations, for there are at least two
significant works that have been undertaken. The most thor-
ough study of intergovernmental relations was conducted by
William Anderson and a team of his colleagues at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota. Their study, an in depth analysis
of intergovernmental relations in the state of Minnesota
which included a survey of publ c officials' attitudes,
resulted in a 10-volume series.


The second study was conducted by the United
States Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Rela-
tions in 1962. This study resulted in two publications:
(1) The Federal System as Seen by State and Local Of-
ficials which was based on some 6,000 interviews with
state and local officials and academics7; and, The Fed-
eral System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials which was
based on interviews with 109 federal aid officials, all
of whom were middle management personnel.8





6. These 10-volumes, published by the University of
Minnesota Press, include the following titles: (1) Forrest Tal-
bott, Intergovernmental Relations and the Courts; (2) R.A. Gomez,
Intergovernmental Relations in Highways; (3) Robert L. Morlan, In-
tergovernmental Relations in Education; (4) Laurence Wyatt, Inter-
governmental Relations in Public Health; (5) Ruth Raup, Intergovern-
mental Relations in Social Welfare; (6) Francis E. Rourke, Inter-
governmental Relations in Employment Security; (7) Paul N. Ylvisaker,
Intergovernmental Relations at the Grass Roots; (8) William Anderson,
Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations; (9) Edward W. Weidner, Intergovern-
mental Relations as Seen by Public Officials; and, (10) William Ander-
son, Intergovernmental Relations in Review.


7. U. S. Senate. Committee on Government Operations,
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Federal System
as Seen by State and Local Officials (Washington, D.C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1963).


8. U. S. Senate. Committee on Government Operations,
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Federal System
as Seen by Federal Aid Officials (Washington, D.C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1965).







- 4


1.1 Images



In their participation in political events,
public officials usually have an idea as to how they
and others ought to behave in given types of situations.
Each public official has images of his own role, the
role of his organization, and the role of others and their
organizations. Images refer to the cognitive (perceptional)
and evaluative (attitudinal) orientations of public of-
ficials, and they are distinctive from actual behavior.9
For example, a public official has images of what expendi-
tures should be made for certain programs, or what adminis-
trative organization is best suited to deal with a particu-
lar problem. An assessment of an official's orientation
toward a program or problem gives us an indication of the
parameters of action that are acceptable and the types of
actions that are likely to ensue on particular problems.
Of course, an emphasis on images is different from an em-
phasis on behavior; on, for example, what expenditures are
made or what organization performs a certain task.



1.2 Selected Water Problems



Eleven water problems were selected for analysis.
Florida legislators and commissioners were asked to assess
intergovernmental relations and responses on the following
problems, which fall into three general categories:

I. Water Supply Problems

1. Water Supply for Agriculture
2. Water Supply for Domestic Purposes
3. Water Supply for Industry
4. Water Supply for Recreation
5. Water Supply for Fish and Wildlife

II. Water Pollution Problems

6. Pollution from Domestic Sewage
7. Pollution fran Industrial Waste
8. Pollution from Agricultural Waste




9. For a discussion of the image concept and its applica-
tion see: Richard F. Fenno, Jr., The Power of the Purse (Boston: Little,
Brown, 1966).






- 5 -


III. Related Water Problems

9. Flooding
10. Drainage
11. Salt Water Intrusion


In using this selected list of problems, the at-
tempt has been to obtain an overview of legislators' and
commissioners' images on as comprehensive a list of pro-
blems as possible. This list is inclusive enough to pro-
vide for this overview.10


1.3 Intergovernmental Relations and Responses


The American federal system in theory and in
practice is "non-centralized"; that is, "there is no cen-
tral government with absolute authority over the states in
a unitary sense, but, instead a strong national government
coupled with strong state governments in which authority
and power are shared, legally and practically."ll With
the American federal system functioning as it does, this
has come to mean that seldom do public officials from one
level of government work in isolation in making policy
decisions.


Intergovernmental relations exist as a part of
federalism and "designate an important body of activities
of interactions occurring between governmental units of
all types and levels within the American federal system."12





10. A number of sources discuss the nature of water pro-
blems in Florida. One of the most concise, yet comprehensive, treat-
ments of the subject is found in: Frank E. Maloney, Sheldon J. Plager,
and Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr., Water Law and Administration: The Florida
Experiment (Gainesville: The University of Florida Press, 1968).

11. Daniel J. Elazar, "The States and the Nation," in Her-
bert Jacob and Kenneth N. Vines (eds.), Politics in the American States:
A Comparative Analysis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965), p. 450.

12. William Anderson, Intergovernmental Relations in Re-
view (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1960).







- 6 -


The concept of intergovernmental relations, however, al-
lows us operationally to designate more of the activities
that occur between and among units and levels of govern-
ment than is usually conveyed by the traditional concept
of federalism. Intergovernmental relations include all
the combination of relations among governments: federal-
state, state-state, federal-local, state-local, local-
local, and federal-state-local.13


These patterns are revised somewhat for pur-
poses of this study. As used here, intergovernmental re-
lations consist of the following:


I. The images that legislators and commissioners
have of responses needed by single levels of
government

1. County

2. State

3. Federal

II. The images that legislators and commissioners
have of responses needed by multiple levels of
government

1. Multiple Local (city, county, special dis-
trict)

2. Local-State

3. Local-Federal

4. State-Federal

5. Local-State-Federal


Intergovernmental responses simply mean which of
these patterns of intergovernmental relations the legisla-
tors and commissioners feel should take the principal
responsibility for handling and attempting to solve the
selected water problems.





13. Deil S. Wright, Intergovernmental Action on Environ-
mental Policy, (Bloomington, Indiana: Institute of Public Administra-
tion, 1967), pp. 2-3.






- 7


1.4 Method of Data Collection



The interview data were obtained principally
through a mail questionnaire sent to all of Florida's
167 legislators and 357 county commissioners. Fourty-
seven percent of the legislators responded to the ques-
tionnaire. This included 44 percent of the Senate mem-
bers and 50 percent of the House members.


Thirty-five percent of the county commission-
ers responded to the questionnaire. This included com-
missioners in 43 of Florida's 67 counties.14



1.5 Organization



In sorting out the images that legislators and
commissioners have of intergovernmental relations and re-
sponses to the selected water problems, several principal
tasks were accomplished. This report is organized around
these tasks as follows:


1. The problem context of intergovernmental
relations and responses is assessed. In this sec-
tion a comparative analysis is made of the respon-
dents' images of the severity of the selected water
problems and how the water problems are viewed re-
lative to other problems.


2. A comparison is made of the images that
legislators and commissioners have of which le-
vel(s) of government should exercise responsibil-
ity in taking action on water problems.


3. The respondents are compared on the basis
of how effective they believe ten selected measures
might be in dealing with any water use problems
Florida might face.




14. See Appendix A for a summary of the response rates
from the questionnaires and a reproduction of the questionnaire.






8 -



4. Since problems of growth and development
intensify water problems, the images that legis-
lators and commissioners have of growth and devel-
opment are surveyed.


5. Conclusions are drawn.







- 9 -


2. THE PROBLEM CONTEXT




Public officials do not operate in a vacuum. In
addition to the forces of social needs and public demands
influencing the activities of public officials, substantive
public problems are the grist for the policy makers' mill.
As Charles 0. Jones so cogently points out, a study of pu-
blic officials' actions on public problems -- "how they
get to the agenda of government, how they are acted on
there, how solutions are applied, and what happens as a
result of these events" -- is central to the study of
public policy-making.15


A central activity of policy-makers in taking
action on public problems is choosing among alternatives;
that is, establishing which problems should take priority.
The purpose of this section is to establish the importance
of the problem context of water problems (1) by assessing,
generally, how important environmental and environmentally
related problems are for the legislators and commissioners,
(2) by determining the respondents' perception of the
severity of water problems relative to a selected list of
other public problems, and (3) by ascertaining which water
problems are deemed by the respondents to be the most se-
vere. In effect, the objective here is to obtain some
idea of the respondents' images of water problems in terms
of how severe water problems are relative not only to one
another but also to other public problems (e.g. education,
welfare, roads, etc.)



2.1 Importance of Environmental Problems



Legislators and commissioners were asked to
indicate what problem they considered to be the most
pressing one now facing them. In identifying the types
of problems which they considered to be most pressing,
both legislators and commissioners overwhelmingly noted
environmental or environmentally related problems. As
used here environmental problems are defined very broad-
ly and include such diverse problems as pollution control,


15. Jones, p. 1.







- 10 -


population growth, and transportation. Other types of
problems that legislators and commissioners mentioned,
but indicated were less important, were such things as
taxes and finances, health and hospitals, education,
and welfare.


As the data in Table 1 show, 79.0 percent of
the commissioners and 69.8 percent of the legislators
interviewed identified an environmental or environmen-
tally related problem as currently the state's most
pressing problem. These data strongly suggest the
saliency of environmental concerns for both legislators
and commissioners.



2.2 Problem Severity



2.2a Water Problems


The respondents' assessment of the severity of
water problems was determined by asking them to indicate
whether each specific problem was severe, not very severe,
not at all severe, or not applicable. A mean ranking was
obtained on a scale ranging from 4 (severe), 3 (not very
severe), 2 (not at all severe), and 0 (not applicable).


The respondents' images of the severity of the
selected water problems are displayed in Tables 2, 3, and
4. These Tables compare the legislators and commissioners
in terms of their mean rankings of the severity of each
group of water problems -- water supply, water pollution,
and related water problems -- and of each individual pro-
blem. Some interesting and important conclusions are
revealed by these data both about the problems themselves
and about the respondents' assessment of these problems.


Comparing the three groups of problems -- water
supply, water pollution, and related water problems -- the
data show that both legislators and commissioners were
found to be certain that water pollution problems were
more severe than either water supply or related water
problems. As shown in Table 2, the legislators' average
mean severity score for water pollution problems was







- 11 -


TABLE 1

LEGISLATORS' AND COMMISSIONERS' IDENTIFICATION OF

MOST PRESSING PROBLEM CURRENTLY FACING FLORIDA


MOST PRESSING
PROBLEM


Identified Environ-
mental Problem


Did Not Identify
Environmental
Problem


TOTAL


COMMISSIONERS

Percentage Number

79.0 79


21.0


100.0


100


LEGISLATORS

Percentage Number

69.8 44


30.2


100.0


TABLE 2

RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY

OF SELECTED WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS


Problem L


Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste


TOTAL

AVERAGE


Mean Score

legislators Commissioners


3.88

3.80

3.44


11.12

3.70


3.21

2.81

2.73


8.75

2.92







- 12 -


TABLE 3

RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY

OF SELECTED WATER SUPPLY PROBLEMS


Mean Score

Problem Legislators Commissioners


Water Supply for Domestic Uses 3.52 2.76

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 3.33 2.49

Water Supply for Industry 3.32 2.62

Water Supply for Agriculture 3.20 2.70

Water Supply for Recreation 3.12 2.40


TOTAL 16.49 12.97

AVERAGE 3.30 2.60





TABLE 4

RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY

OF SELECTED RELATED WATER PROBLEMS


Mean Score

Problem Legislators Commissioners


Salt Water Intrusion 3.49 3.00

Drainage 3.21 2.99

Flooding 2.97 2.66


TOTAL 9.67 8.65

AVERAGE 3.22 2.55






- 13 -


found to be 3.70. By comparison, the legislators' average
mean severity score for water supply problems was found to
be 3.30 (Table 3), and their average mean severity score
for related water problems 3.22 (Table 4).


Essentially, the same order of priorities (in terms
of the perceived severity of the three groups of problems)
was found for the commissioners. The commissioners' average
mean severity score for water pollution problems was found
to be 2.92; for water supply problems, 2.60; and, for re-
lated problems, 2.55. Thus, as was found to be the case
with the legislators, the commissioners indicated that the
order of importance of water problems was (1) water pollu-
tion problems, (2) water supply problems, and (3) related
water problems.


On individual problems, both legislators and
commissioners indicated that pollution from domestic
sewage was the most severe water problem. As Table 2
shows, the mean severity score for pollution from do-
mestic sewage for legislators was found to be 3.88, for
commissioners, it was found to be 3.21.


Moreover, almost without exception, both legis-
lators and commissioners said that problems more closely
associated with domestic water uses were more severe than
problems associated with agricultural or recreational
uses. For example, both legislators and commissioners
said problems such as pollution from domestic sewage,
pollution from industrial waste, water supply for domes-
tic uses, and salt water intrusion were more severe than
problems such as pollution from agricultural waste, water
supply for agriculture, water supply for fish and wildlife,
and water supply for recreation.


While these similarities were found in the atti-
tudes of legislators and commissioners, some striking dif-
ferences were also found. As the data displayed in Tables
2, 3, and 4 show, legislators, without exception, ranked
all types of water problems (pollution, supply, and related)
as more severe than did county commissioners. This find-
ing is clearly shown by a perusal of the mean scores for
both groups of respondents.


Second, the greatest differences between legis-
lators and commissioners on perceived problem severity was
found on water pollution problems. The average mean







- 14 -


severity score on water pollution problems for legislators
was found to be 3.70. This score was found to be less for
commissioners, 2.92 (see Table 2).


Third, legislators indicated that flooding was
the least severe problem facing the state. The legisla-
tors gave flooding a mean severity score of 2.97 (see
Table 4). Among the various water problems investigated,
this was the lowest mean ranking given by the legislators.
On the other hand, the commissioners perceived flooding
to be one of the more severe water problems they faced.
The commissioners gave flooding a mean severity score of
2.66 (see Table 4).


Fourth, another significant difference between
the legislators and commissioners was found on their at-
titudes about drainage. For the legislators, drainage
was ranked as a relatively non-severe problem with a mean
severity score of 3.21 (see Table 4). Only flooding, wa-
ter supply for agriculture, and water supply for recreation
were perceived by the legislators to be less severe. The
commissioners, however, said that drainage was the second
most severe water problem that faced them. The commission-
ers indicated that only pollution fro domestic sewage was
a more severe water problem for them.


2.2b Other Problems


How do the respondents' assessment of water
problem severity compare to their assessment of the se-
verity of other important problems that they must deal
with? To obtain an answer to this question, legislators
and commissioners were asked to indicate their assess-
ment of the severity of a selected list of problems.
These included: (1) lack of business and industrial
development, (2) planning and zoning, (3) welfare, (4)
housing, (5) roads, (6) health/hospitals, (7) law enforce-
ment, (8) solid waste management, (9) air pollution, (10)
recreational development, and (11) education.




16. A word of caution should be noted in making these
comparisons. Here the comparisons are being made within each group
of respondents. When we compared legislators with commissioners,
the legislators, overall, determined that water problems were more
severe than did commissioners.






- 15 -


There is strong evidence to suggest that this
list of problems are priority items for the state of
Florida and give an adequate range of problems facing
both legislators and commissioners. In examining state
expenditures in 1962, Roscoe C. Martin found that pro-
gram expenditures for the 50 states totaled $36.5 bil-
lion. These expenditures were divided among programs
as follows: education (34.3 percent); highways (25.5
percent); welfare (13.7 percent); health/hospitals (7.5
percent), and others (19.0 percent). Martin tells us
that the others category consisted of a number of pro-
grams such as natural resources, corrections, police
protection, employment, security administration, finan-
cial administration, general control, and miscellaneous
and unallocable.1-


Martin also found that local problems closely
parallel those of the state because


...state aid to local government is...a long-
established and well-understood practice. The
states expect to dedicate somewhat more than
one-third of each year's general expenditures
to the aid of local governments, which in turn
count on state payments for over one-fourth of
their total revenue.18


In program expenditures, Florida very closely
resembles the national pattern. In fiscal year 1971,
87.6 percent of Florida's total state budget went for:
(1) education (50.8 percent); (2) highways (18.5 percent);
(3) welfare (13.2 percent); and (4) health/hospitals (5.1
percent). The remaining 12,4 percent of the 1971 budget
was allocated to: (1) business and agricultural consum-
mer services (3.2 percent); (2) crime prevention (2.5
percent); (3) manpower and employment (2.7 percent); (4)
natural resources and environment (1.1 percent); (5) re-
creation and culture (0.6 percent); and, (6) general di-
rection and support (1.8 percent). Thus, when compared
with other programs, these data show that the state spends
a relatively minuscule amount on natural resources and en-
vironmental programs.19





17. Roscoe C. Martin, The Cities and the Federal System
(New York: Atherton Press, 1965), pp. 72-73.


18. Ibid.







- 16 -


However, it was found that state legislators per-
ceived water problems to be more severe than those problems
for which considerably more state funds are appropriated.
When the legislators' average mean severity scores for wa-
ter pollution, water supply, and related problems are com-
bined, we find an average mean severity score for water
problems of 3.44. By comparison, as the data in Table 5
show, the legislators' average mean severity score for the
selected list of other problems was found to be 3.00. Thus,
the legislators indicated that water problems are slightly
more severe than problems such as education, roads, wel-
fare, and health/hospitals which receive the bulk of state
expenditures.


Commissioners, on the other hand, did not consi-
der water problems to be as severe as the selected list of
other problems. As shown in Table 5, the commissioners'
average mean severity score for these problems was found
to be 2.99. For water problems, this score was 2.80. Thus,
while legislators ranked water problems as currently the
most severe problems facing the state, commissioners did
not. For the commissioners, problems such as education,
welfare, roads and health/hospitals were judged to be
slightly more severe than water problems.





19. Appendix B shows a breakdown of state expenditures
for natural resources and environmental programs for fiscal year '71.






- 17 -


TABLE 5

LEGISLATORS' AND COMMISSIONERS' IMAGES OF THE

SEVERITY OF ELEVEN SELECTED PROBLEMS


Problem


Lack of Business and Industrial
Development

Planning and Zoning

Welfare

Housing

Roads

Health/Hospitals

Law Enforcement

Solid Waste Management

Air Pollution

Recreational Development

Education


TOTAL

AVERAGE


Mean Score

Legislators Commissioners


2.83

3.21

2.96

2.88

3.04

3.00

2.96

3.08

3.04

3.00

3.04


33.04

3.00


2.88

3.20

3.03

3.05

3.41

2.81

2.86

3.40

2.68

2.84

2.76


32.92

(3.44)* 2.99 (2.80)**


* Legislators' average mean severity score for eleven
selected water problems. Included for comparative
purposes.

** Commissioners' average mean severity score for eleven
selected water problems. Included for comparative
purposes.






- 18 -


3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES



This section deals with the level of government
the legislators and commissioners feel should take the
principal responsibility for handling the eleven selected
water problems. Responses are viewed, first, in terms of
single level governmental responsibility; that is, whether
legislators and commissioners believe the water problems
should be handled by the county, the state, or the federal
government independent of one another. Then responses are
viewed in terms of multiple level governmental responsibility;
that is, whether the legislators and commissioners believe
the water problems should be handled by multiple levels of
government (multiple-local, local-state, local-federal,
state-federal, or federal-state-local) in concert with
each other.



3.1 Parochialism



When legislators and commissioners were asked
to indicate which level of government should take the
principal responsibility for handling and solving the
selected water problems, the most pervasive overall
attitude expressed was one of parochialism. County
commissioners very strongly indicated that the county
should be responsible for water problems, and the leg-
islators just as strongly indicated that the state should
be principally responsible. As the data in Table 6 show
almost without exception for each group of problems con-
sidered -- water supply, water pollution, and related
water problems -- more than a majority of commissioners
said it was the responsibilities of the counties to
handle these problems. This pattern was reversed for the
legislators. They were certain that it was the state's
responsibility.


This parochial attitude stands out for multiple
level responses as well as for single level responses. As
the data in Table 7 clearly show, county commissioners be-
lieve that water supply, water pollution and related water
problems should be handled in a local context or with the
local governments) working with either the state govern-
ment or the federal government.














TABLE 6


COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF SINGLE LEVEL RESPONSES

TO WATER SUPPLY, WATER POLLUTION, AND RELATED WATER PROBLEMS


Water Supply

Commissioners Legislators

% N % N


Water Pollution

Commissioners Legislators

% N % N


Water Related Problems

Commissioners Legislators

% N % N


County 66.5 163


State


29.8


33.3


64 68.4


64.1 123


27.9


93 40.0


38 54.7


52.4


41 30.8


75 27.2 37


44 61.8 84


Federal 3.7 9 2.6 5



TOTAL 100.0 245 100.0 192


3.7 5 5.3 4



100.0 13t 100.0 75


16.8 24


11.0 15


100.0 143 100.0 136















TABLE 7

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF MULTIPLE LEVEL

RESPONSES TO WATER SUPPLY, WATER POLLUTION, AND RELATED WATER PROBLEMS


Water Supply

Commissioners Legislators

% N % N


Water Pollution

Commissioners Legislators

% N % N


Water Related Problems

Commissioners Legislators

% N % N


Multiple-Local

Local-State

Local-Federal

State-Federal

Local-State-
Federal


38.0 143

31.9 120

1.1 4

10.6 40

18.4 69


13.5 34

59.4 149

----.-- R --- --

10.4 26

16.7 42


27.5 49

31.5 56

2.2 4

13.5 24

25.3 45


17.4 26

58.4 87

--.- -- "

3.4 5

20.8 31


100.0 251 100.0 178 100.0 149


22.6

25.5

2.1

23.5

26.3


55

62

5

57

64


4.4

46.9

0.6

18.1

30.0


7 "

75 '

1

29

48


TOTAL 100.0 376


100.0 243 100.0 160






- 21 -


On the other hand, the legislators are certain
that other levels of government should work with the state
in taking action on these problems. Table 7 shows that
the legislators are certain that in a multiple governmental
context, other governmental levels (local, federal) should
operate with the state in exercising responsibility on wa-
ter problems. Note, for example, that not one legislator
said that water supply and water pollution problems are a
local-federal responsibility, and only one legislator (0.6
percent of the sample) said that related water problems
are a local-federal responsibility.


Parochialism is not only prevalent on the part
of legislators and commissioners toward state versus local
responsibility, it is also prevalent on the part of both
legislators and commissioners toward the federal govern-
ment. Where the legislators and commissioners disagree
between themselves over whether water problems should be
a state or local responsibility, there is almost no disa-
greement between them that the federal government should
exercise little or no authority on these water problems.


Tables 6 and 7 very clearly substantiate this
conclusion for both single and multiple level responses.
On single level responses both commissioners and legis-
lators indicated that the federal government should have
almost no responsibility on water supply and water pollu-
tion problems. Only on related problems (flooding, drain-
age, and salt water intrusion) did either the legislators
or the commissioners have an image of federal involvement.
For example, 16.8 percent of the commissioners and 11.0
percent of the legislators indicated a federal responsi-
bility on these problems (see Table 6).


The images of legislators and commissioners on
multiple level responses revealed the same pattern. Both
legislators and commissioners indicated that governments
within the state should be responsible for water problems.
That is, local governments either should exercise responsi-
bility on water problems or should work with the state in
exercising this responsibility, but should not work with
the federal government. The only minor exception to this
pattern was found on related water problems. Here, both
legislators and commissioners saw a larger role for the
federal government working in a state-federal or a local-
state-federal context.






- 22 -


Thus, the parochial attitude expressed by legis-
lators and commissioners is twofold. On the one hand, it
is expressed internally. Commissioners see either the
county operating singularly, or other units of local govern-
ment operating singularly, or the state operating with local
governments as principally responsible for water problems.


On the other hand, the parochial attitude is ex-
pressed externally. Both commissioners and legislators
view the responsibility that should be exercised by the
federal government as almost non-existent. In effect,
when we look at the respondents' attitudes about the
federal government's responsibility in the water resources
area (as defined by the eleven selected water problems),
we find an attitude of virtual federal exclusion.



3.2 Responses on Individual Problems



With several minor exceptions, the attitudes of
parochialism and federal exclusion were expressed by legis-
lators and commissioners on each of the individual water
problems without much variation. Tables 8 through 15 sum-
marize single and multiple level responses on individual
water problems by presenting the percentage differences
between the commissioners and legislators on their images
of the responsibility that should be exercised by different
levels of government. The percentage difference is a very
simple, yet a most useful, measure of one-way association
between two variables. 20 As used here, the percentage
difference goes from 0.00 percent when there is complete
agreement between legislators and commissioners on govern-
mental responsibility on water problems to 100.0 percent
when there is complete disagreement between legislators
and commissioners.


3.2a Counties' Responsibilities


The data presented in Table 8 indicate some strong
differences between legislators and commissioners with res-
pect to their attitudes about the counties' responsibility




20. Robert S. Weiss, Statistics in Social Research (New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968) pp. 181-182.










TABLE 8

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF COUNTIES' RESPONSIBILITY

ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS


(1) (2) (3)
Percentage
Problem Commissioners Legislators Difference
(1 minus 2)

Water Supply for Agriculture 71.8 46.9 24.9

Water Supply for Domestic Uses 87.5 62.5 25.0

Water Supply for Industry 78.4 57.1 21.3

Water Supply for Recreation 82.2 14.3 67.9

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 43.5 9.5 34.0


Pollution from Domestic Sewage 72.1 50.0 22.1

Pollution from Industrial Waste 60.0 31.6 28.4

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 71.7 37.0 34.7


Flooding 47.2 30.3 16.9

Drainage 92.0 42.9 49.1

Salt Water Intrusion 41.9 22.9 19.0






- 24 -


on individual water problems. Those problems on which
commissioners and legislators disagreed the most about
the counties' responsibility were drainage and water
supply for recreation. The problem on which commission-
ers and legislators agreed the most about the counties'
responsibility was flooding.



3.2b State's Responsibility



Essentially, the same differences were found on
the respondents' images of the state's responsibility. As
Table 9 shows, on water supply for recreation there was a
-64.4 percentage difference between the commissioners and
legislators on the state's responsibility. This compared
to a 67.9 percentage difference on their images of the
counties' responsibility on the same problems (see Table
8). On drainage, the percentage difference between the
commissioners and legislators was found to be 46.1 for
the state's responsibility and 49.1 for the counties' re-
sponsibility.



3.2c Federal Government's Responsibility



On the eleven selected problems, there were no
significant percentage differences between the respondents'
images of the federal government's responsibility. These
data are displayed in Table 10.



3.2d Multiple-Local Responsibility



On multiple-local responsibility, the greatest
amount of agreement between legislators and commissioners
was found on water pollution problems. The percentage
difference between commissioners and legislators, for
example, was found to be 11.7 percent for pollution from
domestic sewage, 10.3 percent for pollution from industrial
waste, and 7.1 percent for pollution from agricultural
waste. These findings suggest relative agreement between
commissioners and legislators on their images of local
governments (city, county, special district) exercising
joint responsibility on water pollution problems.










TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY

ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS


Problem


Water Supply

Water Supply

Water Supply

Water Supply

Water Supply


Commissioners


for Agriculture

for Domestic Uses

for Industry

for Recreation

for Fish-Wildlife


Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste


Flooding

Drainage

Salt Water Intrusion


25.6

12.5

18.9

15.6

54.3


25.6

32.5

26.4


33.3

5.3

41.9


(2)

Legislators


53.1

33.3

42.9

80.0

83.3


40.9

57.7

63.0


57.6

51.4

65.7


(3)
Percentage *
Difference
(1 minus 2)

-27.5

-20.8

-24.0

-64.4

-29.0


-15.3

-25.2

-36.6


-24.3

-46.1

-23.8


* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators
state responsibility than did commissioners.


perceived a larger










TABLE 10

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS


Problem


Water Supply for Agriculture

Water Supply for Domestic Uses

Water Supply for Industry

Water Supply for Recreation

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife


Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste


Flooding

Drainage

Salt Water Intrusion


(1) (2)

Commissioners Legislators


2.6 -.-


2.7

2.2

2.2


2.3

7.5

1.9


19.4

2.7

16.1


5.7

7.1


9.1

7.7


12.1

5.7

11.4


(3)
Percentage *
Difference
(1 minus 2)

2.6



2.7

3.5

4.9


- 6.8

- 0.2

1.9


7.3

- 3.0

4.7


* A negative percentage difference indicates
federal government responsibility than did


that the legislators perceived a larger
commissioners.






- 27 -


By contrast, the greatest disagreement between
commissioners and legislators on multiple-local responsi-
bility was found on water supply problems. Here, the
greatest disagreement was found on water supply for in-
dustry (34.7 percentage difference), and water supply for
domestic purposes (32.0 percentage difference). Legis-
lators and commissioners also expressed considerable dis-
agreement on drainage. The percentage difference on
drainage was found to be 31.1 percent. Thus, for multiple-
local responsibility the commissioners and legislators
were found to be in relative agreement about water pollu-
tion problems and relative disagreement about water sup-
ply problems (see Table 11).



3.2 e Local-State



Over the entire range of selected water problems,
the commissioners and legislators expressed a relatively
high degree of disagreement about local-state responsibil-
ity. The major exception was found on the problem of salt
water intrusion where the respondents indicated a low de-
gree of disagreement, -13.2 percentage difference between
commissioners and legislators (see Table 12).


There are some patterns that standout, however.
On water supply for industry, the commissioners and legis-
lators indicated a high degree of disagreement between
themselves about local-state responsibility. Also, on
water supply for domestic purposes considerable disagree-
ment was found to exist between the commissioners and
legislators (see Table 12).



3.2f Local-Federal



The most striking characteristic of the data
displayed in Table 13 is the extremely low number of ei-
ther commissioners or legislators who indicated a local-
federal responsibility on the selected water problems.
This is significant in light of the federal government's
historical role in participating in such programs as
flood protection, drainage, and recreation; and its more
recent role in water pollution control. Moreover, in
most of these programs, federal agencies have operated










TABLE 11

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF MULTIPLE-LOCAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2) (3)
Percentage
Problem Commissioners Legislators Difference
(1 minus 2)

Water Supply for Agriculture 38.1 9.5 28.6

Water Supply for Domestic Uses 64.0 32.0 32.0

Water Supply for Industry 54.7 20.0 34.7

Water Supply for Recreation 28.6 5.0 23.6

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 14.8 -.- 14.8


Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste


Flooding

Drainage

Salt Water Intrusion


34.3

24.6

22.0


21.9

38.8

13.8


22.6

14.3

14.9


5.0

7.7

5.0


11.7

10.3

7.1


16.9

31.1

8.8










TABLE 12

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-STATE

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2)


Problem


Water Supply for Agriculture

Water Supply for Domestic Uses

Water Supply for Industry

Water Supply for Recreation

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife


Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste


Flooding

Drainage

Salt Water Intrusion


Commissioners Legislators


38.1

22.7

26.6

34.9

34.4


26.9

31.1

38.0


21.9

34.4

29.3


61.9

56.0

64.4

67.5

55.9


56.6

59.2

59.6


47.5

56.4

42.5


(3)
Percentage *
Difference
(1 minus 2)

-23.8

-33.3

-37.8

-32.6

-21.5


-29.7

-28.1

-21.6


-25.6

-22.1

-13.2


* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a
local-state responsibility than did commissioners.


larger






- 30 -


through or with local governments. State agencies have
only recently become involved in a significant way. For
example, the Army Corps of Engineers has established a
strong relationship with the Central-Southern Florida
Flood Control District. The Flood Control District was
established in the first place by the Florida Legislature
to administer the Corps' flood control project. The same
pattern is discernible in southwest Florida with the South-
west Florida Water Management District. The Water Manage-
ment District was originally created to administer the Corps'
Four River Basin Project. More recently, the Environmental
Protection Agency has established ties with local govern-
ments through grants-in-aid to local governments (counties
and municipalities) for the construction of sewage treat-
ment plants.



3.2g State-Federal



As shown in Table 14, on the respondents' images
of state-federal responsibility, a small number of respon-
dents were found. Among those commissioners and legisla-
tors who did indicate a state-federal responsibility, the
greatest difference was found on the problem of water pol-
lution from industrial waste.



3.2h Local-State-Federal



As Table 15 shows, considerable agreement was
found between commissioners and legislators on local-
state-federal responsibility.










TABLE 13

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-FEDERAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(3) (2)

Problem Commissioners Legislators


Water Supply for Agriculture

Water Supply for Domestic Uses

Water Supply for Industry

Water Supply for Recreation

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife


Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste


Flooding

Drainage

Salt Water Intrusion


1.6

1.3

1.6

- -


1.5

1.6

4.0


3.1



1.7


2.6

- -


* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators
local-federal responsibility than did commissioners.


(3)
Percentage *
Difference
(1 minus 2)

1.6

1.3

1.6


--.


1.5

1.6

4.0


3.1

2.6

1.7



perceived a larger










TABLE 14

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF STATE-FEDERAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2)

Problem Commissioners Legislators


Water Supply for Agriculture

Water Supply for Domestic Uses

Water Supply for Industry

Water Supply for Recreation

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife


Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste


Flooding

Drainage

Salt Water Intrusion


7.9

1.3

6.3

3.2

26.2


7.5

19.7

14.0


26.6

7.5

29.3


9.5



6.7

10.0

20.6




6.1

4.3


27.5

10.3

20.0


* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators
State-federal responsibility than did commissioners.


(3)
Percentage *
Difference
(1 minus 2)

1.6

1.3

0.4

6.8

5.6


7.5

13.6

9.7


- 0.9

- 2.8

9.3


perceived a larger


















Prob


TABLE 15

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-STATE-FEDERAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2)
P4
>lem Commissioners Legislators D


(


Water Supply for Agriculture

Water Supply for Domestic Uses

Water Supply for Industry

Water Supply for Recreation

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife


Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste


Flooding

Drainage

Salt Water Intrusion


14.3

10.7

10.9

33.3

23.0


29.9

23.0

22.0


26.6

19.4

25.9


19.0

12.0

8.9

17.5

23.5


20.8

20.4

21.3


20.0

23.1

32.5


(3)
percentage *
difference
1 minus 2)

4.7

1.3

2.0

15.8

0.5


9.1

- 2.6

- 0.7


6.6

- 3.7

- 6.6


* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators
local-state-federal responsibility than did commissioners.


perceived a larger






- 34 -


4. EFFECTIVENESS OF TEN SELECTED MEASURES



The respondents' images were compared on another
dimension: how effective they thought certain selected
measures might be in dealing with any water use problems
the state might face. Both legislators and commissioners
were asked: "How effective do you think each of the fol-
lowing measures might be in dealing with any water use
problem Florida might face?" The measures included:

(1) water rationing
(2) flood plain zoning
(3) control population growth
(4) desalting
(5) land use planning
(6) river basin planning
(7) regional planning
(8) weather modification
(9) interbasin transfer of water
(10) higher water and sewer rates.

A ranking of the respondents' assessment of the effective-
ness of these measures was obtained on a four-point scale
ranging from 4 (very effective), 3 (fairly effective), 2
(not very effective), 1 (not at all effective). Then, a
mean score of the respondents' rankings was obtained.
These data are presented in Table 16. The most outstand-
ing feature of these data, in terms of the respondents'
rankings of the effectiveness of the selected measures,
is the identical rankings given to the first five mea-
sures: land use planning, regional planning, river basin
planning, flood plain zoning, and control population
growth.


This is a particularly significant finding in
view of the strong parochial attitude found between the
legislators and commissioners about who should be respon-
sible for handling water problems. On the one hand, the
legislators and commissioners, when asked who should have
the responsibility for attending to water problems, were
certain that it should be within their own government's
purview. On the other hand, almost complete agreement was
found between the legislators and commissioners on what
actions should be taken to deal with water use problems.







- 35 -


TABLE 16


LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS'IMAGES OF EFFECTIVENESS

OF TEN SELECTED MEASURES


MEAN SCORES


MEASURES


LEGISLATORS


COMMISSIONERS


Water Rationing

Flood Plain Zoning

Control Population Growth

Desalting

Land Use Planning

River Basin Planning

Regional Planning

Weather Modification

Interbasin Transfer Of Water

Higher Water & Sewage Rates


RANKING


Legislators

Land Use Planning
Regional Planning
River Basin Planning
Flood Plain Zoning
Control Population Growth
Desalting
Interbasin Transfer
Water Rationing
Weather Modification
Higher Water-Sewer Rates


Commissioners

Land Use Planning
Regional Planning
River Basin Planning
Flood Plain Zoning
Control Population Growth
Interbasin Transfer
Water Rationing
Desalting
Higher Water-Sewer Rates
Weather Modification


2.280

3.250

2.842

2.625

3.584

3.455

3.500

2.135

2.580

2.108


2.388

2.794

2.686

2.271

3.437

3.175

3.267

2.051

2.449

2.143







- 36


5. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT



Water problems are directly related to factors of
growth and development. Growth and development include popu-
lation and economic growth and those concomitant aspects of
development which are necessary to sustain public needs and
demands. In Florida, growth and development is anything but
evenly distributed. Although the state has experienced a
56.3 percent increase in its population over the last three
decades, the concentration of this population is diversely
located. It has come in those areas where the balance be-
tween man and nature is most delicate. The greatest concen-
tration of this population has been in coastal areas and
interior wetlands where the weather is the most desirable
but resources the most frail.


The diversity of population growth is vividly il-
lustrated when we consider that while Florida is the eighth
most populated state in the United States, slightly over
one-third of her people live in three counties: Dade, Bro-
ward, and Palm Beach. Between 1950 and 1970, Broward, at
an annual rate of 10.5 percent, was not only the most rapid-
ly growing county in Florida, but in the United States as
well. (See Table 17).


During the same years that Broward and other coun-
ties were experiencing a phenomenal increase in population,
other Florida counties were losing population. Moreover,
the U. S. Census shows that 43 of Florida's 67 counties
(64.1 percent) had less than 50,000 in 1970.


Against this background of diversity, the legis-
lators and commissioners were asked to respond to two
groups of statements about growth and development. On
the one hand, to illicit their attitudes about stimulating
growth and development, they were asked if they agreed, tended
to agree, tended to disagree, or disagreed lifl T-e tollow-
ing statements:


(1) "We should promote state growth and develop-
ment."


(2) "We should allow private landowners to use
their land as they see fit for growth and
development."







- 37


TABLE 17



POPULATION OF DADE, BROWARD, AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES:

1950, 1960, 1970


County


1950


Dade


Broward


Palm Beach


495,084

83,933

114,688


1960


935,047

333,946

228,106


1970


1,267,792

620,100


348,753


TABLE 18


FLORIDA COUNTIES WHICH LOST POPULATION BETWEEN

1950-1960 and 1960-1970


1950-1960


Calhoun


Gilchrist
Hamilton
Holmes

Jefferson
Lafayette
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Suwannee
Union
Wakulla
Washington


1960-1970


Flagler
Gladsden


Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson



Madison







- 38 -


(3) "We should provide more services to our citi-
zens as a means of encouraging more people to
live in Florida."


On the other hand, to assess their attitudes about
controlling growth and development, the legislators and com-
missioners were asked if they agreed, tended to agree, tended
to disagree, or disagreed with the following statements:


(1) "We should encourage statewide control of
growth and development."


(2) "We should stabilize current state growth and
development."


(3) "We should utilize stricter zoning practices
to limit growth and development."


Responses to these two groups of statements about
growth and development offer some interesting insights into
the respondents' attitudes about growth and development.



5.1 Stimulating Growth and Development



Commissioners tended to agree that efforts should
be made to stimulate growth and development in the state,
while legislators tended to disagree that efforts should be
made to stimulate growth and development in the state. In-
sofar as the manner in which growth and development should
be stimulated, the commissioners tended to agree that ef-
forts should be made to promote growth and development, but
in these efforts the commissioners disagreed that private
landowners should be allowed to use their land as they see
fit. They tended to agree, however, that the counties
should provide more services to citizens as a way of stimu-
lating growth and development.


The legislators, on the other hand, tended to
disagree that growth and development should be promoted.
Also, the legislators tended to disagree that either
private landowners should be allowed to use their land






- 39 -


as they see fit (here they were in agreement with the com-
missioners) or that more services should be provided as a
way of stimulating growth and development (here they were
in disagreement with the commissioners). (See Table 19)



5.2 Controlling Growth and Development



Legislators tended to agree that growth and
development should be controlled. They tended to agree
that this control should be carried out through state-
wide control and stricter zoning practices. Commission-
ers, by comparison, tended to disagree that growth and
development should be controlled. Their attitude about
statewide control was in marked contrast to the legis-
lators' attitudes. Also they were somewhat less anx-
ious than legislators to advocate stricter zoning prac-
tices (see Table 20).







- 40


TABLE 19

LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS'ATTITUDES ABOUT

STIMULATING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mean Scores

Legislators Commissioners


"We should promote state growth 2.480 3.143
and development."

"We should allow private land-
owners to use their land as they 1.904 1.966
see fit for growth and develop-
ment."

"We should provide more services 1.667 2.384
to our citizens as a means of en'
couraging more people to live in
Florida."



TOTAL 6.051 7.493


AVERAGE MEAN 2.016


2.731







- 41 -


TABLE 20


LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS'ATTITUDES ABOUT

CONTROLLING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mean Scores

Legislators Commissioners


"We should encourage state- 3.181 1.781
wide control of growth and
development."

"We should stabilize cur- 2.792 2.955
rent state growth and
development."

"We should utilize stricter 3.027 2.619
zoning practices to limit
growth and development."



TOTAL 9.000 7.355


AVERAGE MEAN 3.000


2.452






- 42 -


6. CONCLUSIONS



The preceding analysis has suggested some inter-
esting and important conclusions about the images that
Florida legislators and county commissioners have of the
problem context of water resources in the state of Flori-
da, intergovernmental responsibility that should be exer-
cised in taking action on these problems, and related
factors affecting water resources such as growth and de-
velopment.



6.1 Problem Context



As shown in Chapter 1, both legislators and com-
missioners are concerned with the immediacy of environmen-
tal and environmentally related problems. However, the
immediacy of environmental and environmentally related pro-
blems was found to be difficult for legislators and commis-
sioners in terms of how each group of public officials as-
sesses the severity of water problems. A basic difference,
for example, was found between legislators and commissioners
in their orientation to the severity of water problems rela-
tive to the severity of other public problems. Legislators
indicated that water problems are more severe than other
public problems such as education, welfare, health/hospi-
tals, and roads. Commissioners, on the other hand, indi-
cated that other public problems (education, welfare, etc.)
are more severe than water problems.


Some important differences were also found be-
tween the legislators and commissioners in their assess-
ment of water problems. Overall, on the eleven water pro-
blems investigated, legislators indicated that water pro-
blems were more severe than did county commissioners.


On specific water problems, legislators indicated
that water pollution problems were more severe than water
supply and related water problems. Commissioners, while
noting the severity of specific water pollution problems,
(e.g., domestic sewage) indicated that certain water sup-
ply and related problems were just as severe as pollution
problems.






- 43 -


These findings suggest that both legislators and
commissioners are concerned about water problems but their
concerns (when examined in light of how they perceive the
severity of water problems) run in different directions.
Legislators appear to be oriented to water resources as
they pertain to domestic uses (e.g., pollution from domes-
tic sewage and industrial waste; and water supply for do-
mestic uses and industry). Commissioners, on the other
hand, appear to be oriented to water resources as they
pertain to more "traditional" concerns (e.g., drainage
and flooding).


6.2 Intergovernmental Responsibility



In their images of intergovernmental responsibility
on water problems, both legislators and commissioners defined
intergovernmental responsibility in parochial terms. Commis-
sioners indicated that either the county operating singularly
or other units of local government (city, special district)
operating with the county should be principally responsible
for water problems. Legislators indicated that either the
state operating singularly or the state operating with some
unit(s) of local government should be principally responsi-
ble for water problems.


Although parochialism was apparent in the legis-
lators' and commissioners' images of their responsibility
on water problems, they strongly agreed about what solutions
should be sought in dealing with water use problems. More-
over, both commissioners and legislators strongly agreed
that the federal government should exercise little or no
responsibility on Florida water problems. When the respon-
dents' attitudes about the federal government's responsi-
bility in water resources was investigated, an attitude of
virtual federal exclusion was found.







- 44 -


APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA



The following questionnaire was sent to Flori-
da's 167 legislators and 357 county commissioners. Three
mailings were sent to both groups of respondents. The
first mailing to the county commissioners (sent in May,
1972) produced a 15.5 percent return. The second mail-
ing (sent approximately one month later) raised the re-
turn rate to 24.0 percent. The second mailing was fol-
lowed up by personally contacting selected county commis-
sioners. Also, a third mailing was sent. These efforts
raised the response rate to 35.0 percent.


The first mailing to the state legislators
(sent in June, 1972) produced a 25.6 percent return. The
second mailing (sent approximately one month later) raised
the return rate to 38.6 percent. As with the questionnaire
sent to the commissioners, the second mailing was followed
up by personally contacting selected legislators and a
third mailing. This raised the response rate to 47 percent.


The questionnaire sent to the county commission-
ers included 33 questions -- 19 attitudinal and behavioral
questions and 14 biographical questions. The question-
naire sent to the state legislators included 30 questions --
15 attitudinal and behavioral questions and 15 biographical
questions. This report utilized only those questions which
pertain directly to water resources. (These questions are
reproduced below.)


The county commissioners' questionnaire was also
mailed to Georgia county commissioners. This effort was
undertaken by Professor Vincent L. Marando of the State
University of Georgia. At present, Professor Marando and
I are engaged in a comparative state analysis of these
data.


(1) For Legislators:

In your opinion, what is the most pressing problem now
facing Florida?

For Commissioners:

In your opinion, what is the most pressing problem now
facing your county?







- 45 -


(2) For Legislators:

Here is a list of water problems facing certain sections
of the state. Would you please indicate to what degree
these are now problems for the state? (If you feel one
of these is not a problem for the state, check "not ap-
plicable").

For Commissioners:

Here is a list of water problems your county may now
face. Would you please indicate to what degree these
are now problems for your county? (If one does not ap-
ply to your county, check "not applicable.")


Severe


Not
Not Very At Allj Not Ap-
Severe ISevere plicable


Water Supply for Agriculture ~
Water Supply for Domestic Uses
Water Supply for Industry
Water Supply for Recreation _
Water Supply for Fish and Wildlife
jPollution from Domestic Sewage I
Pollution from Industrial Waste
Pollution from Agricultural Waste
Flooding
Drainage
Salt Water Intrusion


(3) For both Legislators and Commissioners:

Would you please indicate which level of government you
feel would take the principal responsibility for hand-
ling and solving these water problems. (Check one or
more as you see fit.)



e;O e l,(


Water Supply for Agriculture _-_
Water Supply for Domestic Uses _
Water Supply for Industry _
Water Supply for Recreation__ __
Water Supply for Fish and Wildlife
Pollution from Domestic Sewage ___
Pollution from Industrial Waste _______
Pollution from Agricultural Waste ________
Flooding __
Drainage ____________
Salt Water Intrusion ________







- 46 -


(4) For Legislators:

How effective do you think each of the following mea-
sures might be in dealing with any water use problems
Florida might face?

For Commissioners:

How effective do you think each of the following mea-
sures might be in dealing with any water use problems
your county might face?


Very
Effective


Fairly
Effective


Not Very Not at all
Effective Effective


Water Rationing_
Flood Plain Zoning
Control Population Growth
SDesalting
Land Use Planning
River Basin Planning
Weather Modification
(e.g., Cloud Seeding) __
Interbasin Transfer of Water__
Higher Water and Sewer Rates _


For Legislators:


We hear a great deal these days about growth and
Here is a list of statements about activities on
development. Would you tell us if you generally
disagree?


development.
growth and
agree or


Agree


Tend To Tend To
Agree Disagree


Disagree


"We should promote state growth
and development"
"We should encourage statewide
control of growth and develop-
ment"
"We should seek cooperation with
local officials in planning for
growth and development"
"We should allow private land-
owners to use their land as they
see fit for growth and develop-
ment"
"We should stabilize current
state growth and development"
"We should provide more ser-
vices to our citizens as a
means of encouraging more peo-
ple to live in Florida"
"We should utilize stricter
zoning practices to limit
growth and development"







- 47 -


(Cont.) For Commissioners:

We hear a great deal these days about growth and develop-
ment. Here is a list of statements about activities on
growth and development. Would you tell us if you general-
ly agree or disagree?


Agree


Tend To Tend To
Agree Disagree


Disagree


"We should promote county growth -
and development"
"We should encourage statewide
control of county growth and
development"
i"We should seek cooperation with
adjoining counties in planning forl
growth and development"_
"We should allow private land-
owners to use their land as
they see fit for growth and
development"
"We should stabilize current
county growth and development" I_
"We should provide more services
to our citizens as a means of en-
couraging more people to live
here" i
"We should utilize stricter zon-
ing practices to limit county
growth and development"







48 -

APPENDIX B

STATE EXPENDITURES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS: FISCAL YEAR, 1971


Percentage of Natural
Expenditure Resources-Environmental
Programs Budget


Renewable Land Resources $ 6,475,000 24.2


Non-Renewable Land Resources 931,000 3.4


Water Resources 10,099,000 37.8


Air Quality 509,000 1.9


Coastal-Ocean Resources 3,956,000 14.8


Amenities -------- ---


General 1,606,000 6.0


Administrative Activities 3,110,000 11.6


26,686,000


TOTAL


100.0




Full Text

PAGE 1

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS IN FLORIDA By Robert D. Thomas PUBLICATION NO. 19 FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER RESEARCH PROJ ECT TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT OWRR Project Number A-020-FLA Annual Allotment Agreement Numbers 14-31-0001-3509 14-31-0001-3809 Report Submitted: December 31, 1972 The work upon which this report is based was supported in part by funds provided by the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research as Authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964.

PAGE 2

Publication No. 19 Intergovernmental Relations and Responses to Water Problems in Florida By Robert D. Thomas Department of Political Science Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton

PAGE 3

ii ABSTRACT INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS IN FLORIDA This report presents an exploratory analysis of Florida's legislators' and county commissioners' images (perceptions and attitudes) : (1) of eleven selected water problems; (2) of which level or levels of government should have the responsibility for handling and attempting to solve these problems; (3) of the effectiveness of ten selected measures for dealing, with water use problems; and (4) of the related factor of growth and development. The data, derived principally from interviews with the legislators and commissioners, showed a basic difference between the legislators and commissioners in their assessment of the severity of water problems; in their assessment of the severity of water problems relative to other public problems such as education, welfare, roads, and health/hospitals; and, in their evaluation of the need to impose controls on growth and development. On the other hand, the data showed considerable agreement between the legislators and commissioners in their evaluation of what solutions would be most effective in dealing with water use problems. The data also very strongly showed that legislators and commissioners are parochial in their attitude about intergovernmental responsibility on water problems. Commissioners see water problems as the counties' responsibility or as a multiple-local responsibility (local governments --city, county, special district --working cooperatively). Legislators see water problems as the state's responsibility or as a local-state responsibility (the state working cooperatively with local governments). Both legislators and commissioners, however, agreed that the federal government should exercise little or no responsibility on water resource problems. Thomas, Robert D. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS IN FLORIDA Research Project Technical Completion Report, Office of Water Resources Research, Department of the Interior, December, 1972 KEY WORDS: intergovernmental relations*/water resource pro Rlems*/state legislators' attitudes*/county commissioners' attitudes*/Federalism/growth and development.

PAGE 4

iii ACKNOWLE DGMENll'S ,,:: I am very grateful for the support the Florida Water Resources Research Center has given me. Dr. William Morgan has assisted me at every turn. My research assistants, Keith Hamm and Scott Reilly, gave me a great deal of help in collecting and coding the data. A special debt of gratitude is expressed to the many public officials who gave of their time to answer my questions. These officials include not only the Florida legislators and county commissioners, but also local, state, and federal officials who provided useful information at the outset of this study.

PAGE 5

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 0 ...... II e e e 0 Go .... II i ABSTRACT ... e III ............. III Ii) III ......... II! ii ........ eo e. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CD eo ........... .. ... i v LIST OF TABLES II til .................................. G e V CHAPTER 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 CHAPTER 2. 2.1 2.2 CHAPTER 3. 3.1 3.2 CHAPTER 4. CHAPTER 5. 5.1 5.2 CHAPTER 6. 6.1 6.2 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B INTRODUCTION ................ 1 Image s .................. e .. 4 Selected Water Problems ........... 4 Intergovernmental Relations and Responses ......... II e OIl! e 5 lYlethod of Data Collection ........ 7 Organization .............. eo. .. ... 7 THE PROBLEM CONTEXT ............... 9 Importance of Environmental Problems ................................ 9 Problem Severity .................. 10 INTERGOVERNIvlENTAL RELATIONS .......... 18 Parochialis.m ................ 18 Responses on Individual Problems ..... 22 EFFECTIVENESS OF TEN SELECTED MEASURES s ............... l1li .. .. .. .... 34 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ............ 36 Stimulating Growth and Development ... 38 Controlling Growth and Development 39 CONCLUS IONS ..................................... 42 Problem Context ................ 42 Intergovernmental Responsibility ...... 43 QUESTIONNAIRE DATA ............ 44 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS; FISCAL YEAR, 1971 ....... 48

PAGE 6

v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Legislators' and Commissioners' Identification of Most Pressing Problem Currently Facing Florida,.. 11 TABLE 2 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected Water Pollution Problems .............. 11 TABLE 3 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected Water Supply Problems ............ 12 TABLE 4 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected Related Water Problems ........ 12 TABLE 5 Legislators' and Commissioners' Images of the Severity of Eleven Selected Problems ........ 17 TABLE 6 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Single Level Responses to Water Supply, Water Pollution, and Related Water Problems ........ 19 TABLE 7 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Multiple Level Responses to Water Supply, Water Pollution, and Related Water Problems .......... 20 TABLE 8 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Counties' Re-sponsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems 23 TABLE 9 Comparison of Respondents' Images of State's Re-sponsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems 25 TABLE 10 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Federal Government's Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems ............................................ 26 TABLE 11 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Multiple-Local Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems TABLE 12 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-State Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems TABLE 13 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-Federal Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems TABLE 14 Comparison of Respondents' Images of State-Federal Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems TABLE 15 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-StateFederal Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems ......................................... .. 28 29 31 32 33

PAGE 7

vi TABLE 16 Legislators' and Commissioners' Images of Effec. tiveness of Ten Sel.ected Measures 35 TABLE 17 Population of Dade .. Broward, and-'Palm Beach Counties: 1950,1960,1970 ....... 37 TABLE 18 Florida Counties Which Lost Population Between 1950-1960 and 1960-1970 ............ 37 TABLE 19 Legislators' and Commissioners' Attitudes About Stimulating Growth and Development 40 TABLE 20 Legislators' and Commissioners' Attitudes About Controlling Growth and Development 41

PAGE 8

-1 -1. INTRODUCTION This report focuses on Florida legislators and county commissioners and their imagesl of which level or levels of government should respond to water problems in the state of Florida. Its specific purpose is to explore these public officials' assessment of eleven selected water problems and their attitudes about which level or levels of government should be principally responsible for taking action on these problems. Data were derived from interviews with Florida legislators and county commissioners. These interviews were obtained through mail questionnaires sent to all Florida legislators and commissioners. No doubt technologies of water resources project planning and development exert a strong influence on public water policies. Yet, in the final analysis, so long as we adhere to a representative system of government in the United States, decisions about such things as water supply, water pollution, flooding, and drainage will be made in the political arena by duly authorized public officials. In spite of this fact, only very recently have scholars concerned themselves with decision-making as it pertains to water resource problems. This is particularly true of studies about public officials' attitudes toward water problems and toward governmental responsibility in taking action on water problems.2 In Florida, 1. The image concept is explained below. 2. A perusal of government sponsored research in this area shows few studies which deal with administrative and organizational arrangements of water management relative to the number of studies which deal with the technical aspects of water management. Even more striking is that there are almost no attitudinal studies. For a listing of research in the water management area see: Smith sonian Institution, Science Information Exchange (Washington, D.C.).

PAGE 9

-2 -a systematic survey of public officials' attitudes about water resources has never been undertaken. Therefore, by necessity, this study is exploratory.3 Although a study of this type has never been undertaken in Florida, it is neither an unwarranted nor an untried approach. It is not unwarranted for several important reasons. First, as Daniel J. Elazar writes: "For all its centrality in political science today, comprehensive systematic [attitudinal] surveys of the operations of [intergovernmental relations] simply have not been extensively undertaken. ,,4 Second, an emphasis on public officials' perceptions and attitudes of intergovernmental relations is warranted because "a large part of the study of political behavior is the study of political perceptions."S Often it is more important in explaining political behavior to assess how things are perceived rather than how things actually are. Third, a study of public officials' attitudes about intergovernmental relations has practical implications about what can and cannot be done (i.e., what public officials will or will not accept) and about the difficulty in coordinating activities between and among the levels of government in the American federal system. 3. The major purpose of an exploratory study is to gain suggestive insights into the different aspects of a phenomenon under investigation. exploratory studies have the purpose of formulating problems for more precise investigation They may also have other functions, which are: "increasing the investigator's familiarity with the phenomenon under investigation; clarifying concepts; establishing priorities; gathering information; and, providing a census of problems regarded as urgent See: Claire Selltiz, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959), pp. 50-51. 4. Daniel J. Elazar, R. Bruce Carrol, E. Lester Levine, and Douglas St. Angelo (eds.), __ in American Federalism (Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1969), p. 277. 5. Charles O. Jones, An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1970), p. 35.

PAGE 10

-3 -This is not an untried approach to the study of intergovernmental relations, ,for there are at least two significant works that have been undertaken. The most thoroughstudy of intergovernmental relations was conducted by William Anderson and a team of his colleagues', at the Uni versity of Minnesota. TheTr study, an in depth analysis of intergovernmental relations in the state of Minnesota which included a survey of officials' attitudes, resulted in a lO-volume series. The second study was conducted by the United States Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations in 1962. This study resulted in two pUblications: (1) The Federal System as Seen by State and Local Of ficials which was based on some 6,000 interviews with state and local officials and academics?; and, The Federal System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials which was based on interviews with 109 federal aid officials, all of whom were middle management personnel.8 6. These 10-volumes, published by the University of Minnesota Press, include the following titles: (1) Forrest Tal-bott, Intergovernmental Relations and the Courts; (2) R.A. Gomez, Intergovernmental Relations in Highways; (3) Robert L. Morlan, Intergovernmental Relations in Education; (4) Laurence Wyatt, Inter governmental Relations in Public Health; (5) Ruth Raup, Intergovernmental Relations in Social Welfare; (6) Francis E. Rourke, Intergovernmental Relations in Employment Security; (7) Paul N. Ylvisaker, Intergovernmental Relations at the Grass Roots; (8) William Anderson, Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations; (9) Edward W. Weidner, Intergovernmental Relations as Seen by Public Officials; and, (10) William Anderson, Intergovernmental Relations in Review. 7. U. S. Senate. Committee ort Government Operations, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Federal System as Seen by State and Local Officials (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963). 8. U. S. Senate. Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Federal System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965).

PAGE 11

-4 -1.1 Images In their participation in political events, public officials usually have an idea as to how they and others ought to behave in given types of situations. Each public official has images of his own role, the role of his organization, and the role of others and their organizations. Images refer to the cognitive (perceptional) and evaluative (attitudinal) orientations of public officials, and they are distinctive from actual behavior.9 For example, a public official has images of what expenditures should be made for certain programs, or what administrative organization is best suited to deal with a particular problem. An assessment of an official's orientation toward a program or problem gives us an indication of the parameters of action that are acceptable and the types of actions that are likely to ensue on particular problems. Of course, an emphasis on images is different from an emphasis on behavior; on, for example, what expenditures are made or ,",vhat organization performs a certain task. 1.2 Selected Water Problems Eleven water problems were selected for analysis. Florida legislators and commissioners were asked to assess intergovernmental relations and responses on the following problems, which fall into three general categories: I. Water Supply Problems l. Water Supply for Agriculture 2. Water Supply for Domestic Purposes 3. Water Supply for Industry 4. Water Supply for Recreation 5. Water Supply for Fish and Wildlife II. Water Pollution Problems 6. Pollution from Domestic Sewage 7. Pollution fran Industrial Waste 8. Pollution from Agricultural Waste 9. For a discussion of the image concept and its application see: Richard F. Fenno, Jr., The Power of the Purse (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966).

PAGE 12

-5 -III. Related Water Problems 9. Flooding 10. Drainage 11. Salt Water Intrusion In using this selected list of problems, the attempt has been to obtain an overview of legislators' and commissioners' images on as comprehensive a list of problems as possible. This list is inclusive enough to provide for this overview.lO 1.3 Intergovernmental Relations and Responses The American federal system in theory and in practice is "non-centralized"; that is, "there is no central government with absolute authority over the states in a unitary sense, but, instead a strong national government coupled with strong state governments in which authority and power are shared, legally and practically,,,ll With the American federal system functioning as it does, this has come to mean that seldom do public officials from one level of government work in isolation in making policy decisions. Intergovernmental relations exist as a part of federalism and "designate an important body of activities of interactions occurring between governmental units of all types and levels within the American federal system.,,12 10. A number of sources discuss the nature of water problems in Florida. One of the most concise, yet comprehensive, treatments of the subject is found in: Frank E. Maloney, Sheldon J. Plager, and Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr., Water Law and Administration: The Florida Experiment (Gainesville: The University of Florida Press, 1968). 11. Daniel J. Elazar, "The States and the Nation," in Herbert Jacob and Kenneth N. Vines (eds.), Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965), p. 450. 12. William Anderson, Intergovernmental Relations in Review (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1960).

PAGE 13

-6 -The concept of intergovernmental relations, however, allows us operationally to designate more \of the activities that occur between and among units and levels of government than is usually conveyed by the traditional concept of federalism. Intergovernmental relations include all the combination of relations among governments: federalstate, state-state, federal-local, state-local, locallocal, and federal-state-Iocal.13 These patterns are revised somewhat for purposes of this study. As used here, intergovernmental relations consist of the following: I. The images that legislators and commissioners have of responses needed by single levels of government 1. County 2. State 3. Federal II. The images that legislators and commissioners have of responses needed by multiple levels of government 1. Multiple Local (city, county, special district) 2. Local-State 3. Local-Federal 4. State-Federal 5. Local-State-Federal Intergovernmental responses simply mean which of these patterns of intergovernmental relations the legislators and commissioners feel should take the principal responsibility for handling and attempting to solve the selected water problems. 13. Deil S. Wright, Intergovernmental Action on Environmental Policy, (Bloomington, Indiana: Institute of Public Administration, 1967), pp. 2-3.

PAGE 14

-7 -1.4 Method of Data Collection The interview data were obtained principally through a mail questionnaire sent to all of Florida's 167 legislators and 357 county commissioners. Fourtyseven percent of the legislators responded to the questionnaire. This included 44 percent of the Senate members and 50 percent of the House members. Thirty-five percent of the county commissioners responded to the questionnaire. This commissioners in 43 of Florida's 67 counties.l 1.5 Organization In sorting out the' images that legislators and commissioners have of intergovernmental relations and responses to the selected water problems, several principal tasks were accomplished. This report is organized around these tasks as follows: 1. The problem context of intergovernmental relations and responses is assessed. In this section a comparative analysis is made of the respondents' images of the severity of the water problems and how the water problems are viewed relative to other problems. 2. A comparison is made of the images that legislators and commissioners have of which level(s) of government should exercise responsibility in taking action on water problems. 3. The respondents are compared on the basis of how effective they believe ten selected measures might be in dealing with any water use problems Florida might face. 14. See Appendix A for a summary of the response rates from the questionnaires and a reproduction of the questionnaire.

PAGE 15

-8 -4. Since problems of growth and development intensify water problems, .the images that legislators and commissioners have of growth and devel-opment are surveyed.. 5. Conclusions are drawn.

PAGE 16

-9 -2. THE PROBLEM CONTEXT Public officials do not operate in a vacuum. In addition to the forces of social needs and public demands influencing the activities of public officials, substantive public problems are the grist for the policy makers' mill. As Charles O. Jones so cogently points out, a study of public officials' actions on public problems --"how they get to the agenda of government, how they are acted on there, how solutions are applied, and what happens as a result of these events" --is central to the study of public policy-making.15 A central activity of policy-makers in taking action on public problems is choosing among alternatives; that is, establishing which problems should take priority. The purpose of this section is to establish the importance of the problem context of water problems (1) by assessing, generally, how important environmental and environmentally related problems are for the legislators and commissioners, (2) by determining the respondents' perception of the severity of water problems relative to a selected list of other public problems, and (3) by ascertaining which water problems are deemed ,by the respondents to be the most severe. In effect, the objective here is to obtain some idea of the respondents' images of water problems in terms of how severe water problems are relative not only to one another but also to other public problems (e.g. education, welfare, roads, etc.) 2.1 Importance of Environmental Problems Legislators and commissioners were asked to indicate what problem they considered to be the most pressing one now facing them. In identifying the types of problems which they considered to be most pressing, both legislators and commissioners overwhelmingly noted environmental or environmentally related problems. As used here environmental problems are defined very broadly and include such diverse probiliems as pollution control, 15. Jones, p. 1.

PAGE 17

10 -population growth, .and transportation. Other types of problems that legislators and commissioners mentioned, but indicated were less important,weresuchthings as taxes and finances, health and hospitals,education, and welfare. As the data in Table 1 show, 79.0 percent of the commissioners and 69.8 percent of the legislators interviewed identified an environmental or environmentally related problem as currently the state's most pressing problem. These data strongly suggest the saliency of environmental concerns for both legislators and commissioners. 2.2 Problem Severity 2.2a Water Problems .. The respondents' assessment of the severity of water problems was determined by asking them to indicate whether each specific problem was severe, not very severe, not at all severe, or not applicable. A mean ranking was obtained on a scale ranging from 4 (severe), 3 (not very severe), 2 (not at all severe), and 0 (not applicable). The respondents' images of the severity of the selected water problems are displayed in Tables 2, 3, and 4. These Tables compare the legislators and commissioners in terms of their mean rankings of the severity of each group of water problems --water supply, water pollution, and related water problems --and of each individual problem. Some interesting and important conclusions are revealed by these data both about the problems themselves and about the respondents' assessment of these problems. Comparing the three groups of problems --water supply, water pollution, and related water problems --the data show that both legislators and commissioners were found to be certain that water pollution problems were more severe than either water supply or related water problems. As shown in Table 2, the legislators' average mean severity score for water pollution problems was

PAGE 18

-11 -TABLE 1 LEGISLATORS' AND COMMISSIONERS' IDENTIFICATION OF MOST PRESSING PROBLEM CURRENTLY FACING FLORIDA MOST PRESSING COMMISSIONERS LEGISLATORS PROBLEM Percenta9:e Number Percentage Number Identified Environ79.0 79 69.8 44 mental Problem Did Not Identify 21.0 21 30.2 19 Environmental Problem TOTAL 100.0 100 100.0 63 TABLE 2 RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY OF SELECTED WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS Mean Score Problem Legislators Commissioners Pollution from Domestic Sewage 3.88 Pollution from Industrial Waste 3.80 Pollution from Agricultural Waste 3.44 TOTAL 11.12 AVERAGE 3.70 3.21 2.81 2.73 8.75 2.92

PAGE 19

-12 -TABLE 3 RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY OF SELECTED WATER SUPPLY PROBLEMS Mean Score Water Water Water Water Water Problem Legislators Supply for Domestic Uses 3.52 Supply for Fish-Wildlife 3.33 Supply for Industry 3.32 Supply for Agriculture 3.20 Supply for Recreation 3.12 TOTAL 16.49 AVERAGE 3.30 TABLE 4 RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY OF SELECTED RELATED WATER PROBLEMS Commissioners 2.76 2.49 2.62 2.70 2.40 12.97 2.60 Mean Score Problem Legislators Commissioners Salt Water Intrusion 3.49 3.00 Drainage 3.21 2.99 Flooding 2.97 2.66 TOTAL 9.67 8.65 AVERAGE 3.22 2.55

PAGE 20

13 -found to be 3.70. By comparison, .the legislators' average mean severity score for water supply problems was found' to be 3.30 (Table 3), and their average mean severity score for related water problems 3.22 (Table 4). Essentially, the same order of priorities (in terms of the perceived severity of the three groups of problems) was found for the commissioners. The commissioners' average mean severity score for water pollution problems was found to be 2.92; for water supply problems, 2.60; and, for related problems, 2.55. Thus, as was found to be the case with the legislators, the commissioners indicated that the order of importance of water problems was (1) water pollution problems, (2) water supply problems, and (3) related water problems. On individual problems, both legislators and commissioners indicated that pollution from domestic sewage was the most severe water problem. As Table 2 shows, the mean severity score for pollution from domestic sewage for legislators was found to be 3.88, for commissioners, it was found to be 3.21. Moreover, almost without exception, both legis lators and commissioners said that problems more closely associated with domestic water uses were more severe than problems associated with agricultural or recreational uses. For example, both legislators and commissioners said problems such as pollution from domestic sewage, pollution from industrial waste, water supply for domestic uses, and salt water intrusion were more severe than problems such as pollution from agricultural waste, water supply for agriculture, water supply for fish and wildlife, and water supply for recreation. While these similarities were found in the attitudes of legislators and commissioners, some striking aif ferences were also found. As the data displayed in Tables 2, 3, and 4 show, legislators, without exception, ranked all types of water problems (pollution, supply, and related) as more severe than did county commissioners. This finding is clearly shown by a perusal of the mean scores for both groups of respondents. Second, the greatest differences between legislators and commissioners on perceived problem severity was found on water pollution problems. The average mean

PAGE 21

-14 -severity score on water pollution problems for leg.islators was found to be 3.70. This score was found to be less for commissioners, 2.92 (see Table 2). Third, legislators indicated that flooding was the least severe problem facing the state. The legislators gave flooding a mean severity score of 2.97 (see Table 4). Among the various water problems investigated, this was the lowest mean ranking given by the legislators. On the other hand, the commissioners perceived flooding to be one of the more severe water problems they faced. The commissioners gave flooding a mean severity score of 2.66 (see Table 4). Fourth, another significant difference between the legislators and commissioners was found on their attitudes about drainage. For the legislators, was ranked as a relatively non-severe problem with a mean severity score of 3.21 (see Table 4). Only flooding, water supply for agriculture, and water supply for recreation were perceived by the legislators to be less severe. The commissioners, however, said that drainage was the second most severe water problem that faced them. The commissioners indicated that only pollution frof6domestic sewage was a more severe water problem for them. 2.2b Other Problems How do the respondents' assessment of water problem severity compare to their assessment of the severity of other important problems that they must deal with? To obtain an answer to this question, legislators and commissioners were asked to indicate their assessment of the severity of a selected list of problems. These included: (1) lack of business and industrial development, (2) planning and zoning, (3) welfare, (4) housing, (5) roads, (6) health/hospitals, (7) law enforcement, (8) solid waste management, (9) air pollution, (10) recreational development, and (11) education. 16. A word of caution should be noted in making these comparisons. Here the comparisons are being made within each group of respondents. When we compared legislators with commissioners, the legislators, overall, determined that water problems were more severe than did commissioners.

PAGE 22

-15 -There is strong evidence to suggest that this list of problems are priority items for the state of Florida and give an adequate range of problems facing both legislators and commissioners. In examining state expenditures in 1962, Roscoe C. Martin found that program expenditures for the 50 states totaled $36.5 billion. These expenditures were divided among programs as follows: education (34.3 percent); highways (25.5 percent); welfare (13.7 percent); health/hospitals (7.5 percent), and others (19.0 percent). Martin tells us that the others category consisted of a number of programs such as natural resources, corrections, police protection, employment, security administration, financial administration, general control, and miscellaneous and unallocable.II Martin also found that local problems closely parallel those of the state because state aid to local government is a longestablished and well-understood practice. The states expect to dedicate somewhat more than one-third of each year's general expenditures to the aid of local governments, which in turn count on state payments for over one-fourth of their total revenue.18 In program expenditures, Florida very closely resembles the national pattern. In fiscal year 1971, 87.6 percent of Florida's total state budget went for: (1) education (50.8 percent) i (2) highways (18.5 percent); (3) welfare (13.2 percent); and (4) health/hospitals (5.1 percent). The remaining percent of the 1971 budget was allocated to: (1) business and agricultural consummer services (3.2 percent); (2) crime prevention (2.5 percent); (3) manpower and employment (2.7 percent); (4) natural resources and environment (1.1 percent); (5) recreation and culture (0.6 percent)i and, (6) general direction and support (1.8 percent). Thus, when compared with other programs, these data show that the state spends a relatively minuscule amount on natural resources and en vironmental programs.19 17. Roscoe C. Martin, The Cities and the Federal System (New York: Atherton Press, 1965), pp. 72-73. 18. Ibid.

PAGE 23

-16 -However t .it wa.sfound that state legislators perceived wa.ter problems to be more severe than those problems for which considerably more state funds are appropriated. When thelegislators'average mean severity scores for water pollutl.on,water supply, .and related prol1>lems are combined, we find an average mean severity score for water problems of 3.44. By comparison, as the data in TableS show, the legislators' average mean severity score for the selected list of other problems was found to be 3.00. Thus, the legislators indicated that water problems are slightly more severe than problems such as education, roads, wel fare, and health/hospitals which receive the bulk of state expenditures. Commissioners, on the other hand, did not consider water problems to be as severe as the selected list of other problems. As shown in Table 5, the commissioners' average mean severity score for these problems was found to be 2.99. For water problems, this score was 2.80. Thus, while legislators ranked water problems as currently the most severe problems facing the state, commissioners did not. For the commissioners, problems such as education, welfare, roads and health/hospitals were judged to be slightly more severe than water problems. 19. Appendix B shows a breakdown of state expenditures for natural resources and environmental programs for fiscal year '71.

PAGE 24

-17 -TABLE 5 LEGISLATORSI AND COMMISSIONERSIIMAGES OF THE SEVERITY OF ELEVEN SELECTED PROBLEMS Mean Score problem Legislators Com.m.issioners Lack of Business and Industrial Development Planning and Zoming Welfare Housing Roads Health/Hospitals Law Enforcement Solid Waste Management Air Pollution Recreational Development Education TOTAL AVERAGE 2.83 2.88 3.21 3.20 2.96 3.03 2.88 3.05 3.04 3.41 3.00 2.81 2.96 2.86 3.08 3.40 3.04 2.68 3.00 2.84 3.04 2.76 33.04 32.92 3.00 (3.44)* 2.99 Legislators I average mean severity score for eleven selected water problems. Included for comparative purposes. ** Comrnissionersl average mean severity score for eleven selected water problems. Included for comparative purposes. (2.80)**

PAGE 25

-18 3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES This section deals with the level of government the legislators and commissioners feel should take the principal responsibility for handling the eleven selected water problems. Responses are viewed, first, in terms of single level governmental responsibility; that is, whether legislators and commissioners believe the water problems should be handled by the county, the state, or the federal government independent of one another. Then responses are viewed in terms of multiple level governmental responsibility; that is, whether the legislators and commissioners believe the water problems should be handled by multiple levels of government (multiple-local, local-state, local-federal, state-federal, or federal-state-Iocal) in concert with each other. 3.1 Parochialism When legislators and commissioners were asked to indicate which level of government should take the principal responsibility for handling and solving the selected water problems, the most pervasive overall attitude expressed was one of parochialism. County commissioners very strongly indicated that the county should be responsible for water problems, and the islatQrs just as strongly indicated that the state should be principally responsible. As the data in Table 6 show almost without exception for each group of problems con sidered --water supply, water pollution, and related water problems --more than a majority of commissioners said it was the responsibilities of the counties to handle these problems. This pattern was reversed for the legislators. They were certain that it was the state's responsibility. This parochial attitude stands out for multiple level responses as well as for single level responses. As the data in Table 7 clearly show, county commissioners believe that water supply, water pollution and related water problems should be handled in a local context or with the local government(s) working with either the state government Or the federal government.

PAGE 26

TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF SINGLE LEVEL RESPONSES TO WATER SUPPLY, WATER POLLUTION, AND RELATED WATER PROBLEMS Wa-Ger Supply Water Pollution Water Related Problems Commissioners Legislators Commissioners Legislators Commissioners Legislators % N % N % N % N % N % N County 66.5 163 33.3 64 68.4 93 40.0 30 52.4 75 27.2 37 I-' \0 State 29.8 73 64.1 123 27.9 38 54.7 41 30.8 44 61.8 84 Federal 3.7 9 2.6 5 3.7 5 5.3 4 16.8 24 11.0 15 TOTAL 100.0 245 100.0 192 100.0 136 100.0 75 100.0 143 100.0 136

PAGE 27

TABLE 7 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF MULTIPLE LEVEL RESPONSES TO WATER SUPPLY, WATER POLLUTION, AND RELATED WATER PROBLEMS Water Supply Water Pollution Water Related Problems Conunissioners Legislators Commissioners Legislators Conunissioners Legislators % N % N % N % N % N % N Multiple-Local 38.0 143 13.5 34 27.5 49 17.4 26 22.6 55 4.4 7 N 0 Local-State 31. 9 120 59.4 149 31.5 56 58.4 87 25.5 62 46.9 75 Local-Federal 1.1 4 2.2 4 2.1 5 0.6 1 State-Federal 10.6 40 10.4 26 13.5 24 3.4 5 23.5 57 18.1 29 Local-State-18.4 69 16.7 42 25.3 45 20.8 31 26.3 64 30.0 48 Federal TOTAL 100.0 376 100.0 251 100.0 178 100.0 149 100.0 243 100.0 160

PAGE 28

-21 On the other hand, .the legislators are certain that other levels of government should work with the state in taking action on these problems. Table 7 shows that the legislators are certain that in a multiple governmental context, other governmental levels (local, federal) should operate with the state in exercising responsibility on water problems. Note, for example, that not one legislator said that water supply and water pollution problems are a local-federal responsibility, and only one legislator (0.6 percent of the sample) said that related water problems are a local-federal responsibility. Parochialism is not only prevalent on the part of legislators and commissioners toward state versus local responsibility, it is also prevalent on the part of both legislators and commissioners toward the federal government. Where the legislators and commissioners disagree between themselves over whether water problems should be a state or local responsibility, there is almost no disagreement between them that the federal government should exercise little or no authority on these water problems. Tables 6 and 7 very clearly substantiate this conclusion for both single and mUltiple level responses. On single level responses both commissioners and legis lators indicated that the federal government should have almost no responsibility on water supply and water pollution problems. Only on related problems (flooding, drainage, and salt water intrusion) did either the legislators or the commissioners have an image of federal involvement. For example, 16.8 percent of the commissioners and 11.0 percent of the legislators indicated a federal responsibility on these problems (see Table 6). The images of legislators and commissioners on multiple level responses revealed the same pattern. Both legislators and commissioners indicated that governments within the state should be responsible for water problems. That is, local governments either should exercise responsibility on water problems or should work with the state in exercising this responsibility, but should not work with the federal government. The only minor exception to this pattern was found on related water problems. Here, both legislators and commissioners saw a larger role for the federal government working in a state-federal or a localstate-federal context.

PAGE 29

-22 -Thus, .the parochial attitude expressed by legislators and commissioners is twofo1d. On the one hand', it is expressed inter'nally. .commissioners see ,either the county operating singularly, or other units of local government operating singularly, or the state operating with local governments as principally responsible for water problems. On the other hand, ,the parochial attitude is expressed externally. Both commissioners and legislators view the responsibility that should be exercised by the federal government as almost non-existent. In effect, when we look at the respondents' attitudes about the federal government's responsibility in the water resources area (as defined by the eleven selected water problems), we find an attitude of virtual federal exclusion. 3.2 Responses on Individual Problems With several minor exceptions, the attitudes of parochialism and federal exclusion were expressed by legislators and commissioners on each of the individual water problems without much variation. Tables 8 through 15 summarize single and multiple level responses on individual water problems by presenting the percentage differences between the commissioners and legislators on their images of the responsibility that should be exercised by different levels of government. The percentage difference is a very simple, yet a most useful, measure of one-way association between two variables. 20 As used here, the percentage difference goes from 0.00 percent when there is complete agreement between legislators and commissioners on governmental responsibility on water problems to 100.0 percent when there is complete disagreement between legislators and commissioners. 3.2a Counties' Responsibilities The data presented in Table 8 indicate some strong differences between legislators and commissioners with respect to their attitudes about the counties' responsibility 20. Robert S. Weiss, Statistics in Social Research (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968) pp. 181-182.

PAGE 30

TABLE 8 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF COUNTIES' RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS (1) (2) (3) Problem Conunissioners Legislators Percentase Difference (1 minus 2) Water Supply for Agriculture 71.8 46.9 24.9 Water Supply for Domestic Uses 87.5 62.5 25.0 Water Supply for Industry 78.4 57.1 21.3 Water Supply for Recreation 82.2 14.3 67.9 tv W Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 43.5 9.5 34.0 Pollution from Domestic Sewage 72.1 50.0 22.1 Pollution from Industrial Waste 60.0 31.6 28.4 Pollution from Agricultural Waste 71.7 37.0 34.7 Flooding 47.2 30.3 16.9 Drainage 92.0 42.9 49.1 Salt Water Intrusion 41.9 22.9 19.0

PAGE 31

24 -on individual water problems. Those problems on which commissioners and legisl:ators disagreed the: most about the counties' responsibility were drainage and water supply for recreation. The problem on which.commissioners and legislators agreed the most about the. counties' responsibl.lity was flooding. 3.2b state's Responsibility Essentially, the same differences were found on the respondents' images of the state's responsibility. As Table 9 shows, on water supply for recreation there was a -64.4 percentage difference between the commissioners and legislators on the state's responsibility. This compared to a 67.9 percentage difference on their images of the counties' responsibility on the same problems (see Table 8). On drainage, the percentage difference between the commissioners and legislators was found to be -46.1 for the state's responsibility and 49.1 for the counties' responsibility. 3.2c Federal Government's Responsibility On the eleven selected problems, there were no significant percentage differences between the respondents' images of the federal government's responsibility. These data are displayed in Table 10. 3.2d Multiple-Local Responsibility On multiple-local responsibility, the greatest amount of agreement between legislators and commissioners was found on water pollution problems. The percentage difference between commissioners and legislators, for example, was found to be 11.7 percent for pollution from domestic sewage, 10.3 percent for pollution from industrial waste, and 7.1 percent for pollution from agricultural waste. These findings suggest relative agreement between commissioners and legislators on their images of local governments (city, county, special district) exercising joint responsibility on water pollution problems.

PAGE 32

TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS (1) (2) (3) Problem Commissioners Legislators Difference (1 minus 2) Water Supply for Agriculture 25.6 53.1 -27.5 Water Supply for Domestic Uses 12.5 33.3 -20.8 Water Supply for Industry 18.9 42.9 -24.0 Water Supply for Recreation 15.6 80.0 -64.4 Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 54.3 83.3 -29.0 Pollution from Domestic Sewage 25.6 40.9 -15.3 Pollution from Industrial Waste 32.5 rJJ7.7 -25.2 Pollution from Agricultural Waste 26.4 63.0 -36.6 Flooding 33.3 57.6 -24.3 Drainage 5.3 51. 4 -46.1 Salt Water Intrusion 41.9 65.7 -23.8 A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger state responsibility than did commissioners. I\.) U1

PAGE 33

I') TABLE 10 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS (1) (2) (3) Percenta9:e Problem Conunissioners Legislators Difference (1 minus 2) Water Supply for Agriculture 2.6 2.6 Water Supply for Domestic Uses Water Supply for Industry 2.7 2.1 Water Supply for Recreation 2.2 5.7 l.9 Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 2.2 7.1 -4.9 Pollution from Domestic Sewage 2.3 9.1 -6.8 Pollution from Industrial Waste 7.5 7.7 8.2 Pollution from Agricultural Waste 1.9 --.-1.9 Flooding 19.4 12.1 7.3 Drainage 2.7 5.7 3.0 Salt Water Intrusion 16.1 11.4 4.7 A negative percentage difference indicates that the legislators perceived a larger federal government responsibility than did conunissioners. N 0'\

PAGE 34

27 -By contrast, the greatest disagreement between commissioners and legislators on multiple-local responsibility was found on water supply problems. Here, the greatest disag"reement was found on water supply for industry (34.7 percentage difference), and water supply for domestic purposes (32.0 percentage difference). Legislators and commissioners also expressed considerable disagreement on drainage. The percentage difference on drainage was found to be 31.1 percent. Thus, for multiplelocal responsibility the commissioners and legislators were found to be in relative agreement about water pollution problems and relative disagreement about water supply problems (see Table 11) .. 3.2 e Local-State Over the entire range of selected water problems, the commissioners and legislators expressed a relatively high degree of disagreement about local-state responsibility. The major exception was found on the problem of salt water intrusion where the respondents indicated a low degree of disagreement, -13.2 percentage difference between commissioners and legislators (see Table 12). There are some patterns that standout, however. On water supply for industry, the commissioners and legis lators indicated a high degree of disagreement between themselves about local-state responsibility. Also, on water supply for domestic purposes considerable disagreement was found to exist between the commissioners and legislators (see Table 12). 3.2f Local-Federal The most striking characteristic of the data displayed in Table 13 is the extremely low number of either commissioners or legislators who indicated a localfederal responsibility on the selected water problems. This is significant in light of the federal government's historical role in participating in such programs as flood protection, drainage, and recreation; and its more recent role in water pollution control. Moreover, in most of these programs, federal agencies have operated

PAGE 35

TABLE 11 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF MULTIPLE-LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS (1) (2) Problem Conunissioners Legislators Water Supply for Agriculture 38.1 9.5 Water Supply for Domestic Uses 64.0 32.0 Water Supply for Industry 54.7 20.0 Water Supply for Recreation 28.6 5.0 Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 14.8 Pollution from Domestic Sewage 34.3 22.6 Pollution from Industrial Waste 24.6 14.3 Pollution from Agricultural Waste 22.0 14.9 Flooding 21.9 5.0 Drainage 38.8 7.7 Salt Water Intrusion 13.8 5.0 (3) Percentage DifI'erence (1 minus 2) 28.6 32.0 34.7 23.6 14.8 11. 7 10.3 7.1 16.9 31.1 8.8 N 00

PAGE 36

TABLE 12 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-STATE RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS (1) (2 ) (3 ) Percentage Problem Commissioners Legislators Difference (1 minus 2) Water Supply for Agriculture 38.1 61. 9 -23.8 Water Supply for Domestic Uses 22.7 56.0 -33.3 Water Supply for Industry 26.6 64.4 -37.8 Water Supply for Recreation 34.9 67.5 -32.6 Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 34.4 55.9 -21. 5 Pollution from Domestic Sewage 26.9 56.6 -29.7 Pollution from Industrial Waste 31.1 59.2 -28.1 Pollution from Agricultural Waste 38.0 59.6 -21.6 Flooding 21.9 47.5 -25.6 Drainage 34.4 56.4 -22.1 Salt Water Intrusion 29.3 42.5 -13.2 A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger local-state responsibility than did commissioners. N <.0

PAGE 37

30through or with local governments. State agencies have only recently become invo.lved in a significant way. For example, .the Army Corps of Engineers has established a strong relationship with the Central-Southern Florida Flood Control District. Flood Control was established in the first place by the Florida Legislature to administer the Corps I flood control project. The same pattern is discernible in southwest Florida with the South west Florida Water Management District. The Water Management District was originally created to administer the Corps' Four River Basin Project. More recently, the Environmental Protection Agency has established ties with local governments through to local governments (counties and municipalities) for the construction of sewage treatment plants. 3.2g State-Federal As shown in Table 14, on the respondents' images of state-federal responsibility, a small number of respondents were found. Among those commissioners and legislators who did indicate a state-federal responsibility, the greatest difference was found on the problem of water lution from industrial waste. 3.2h Local-State-Federal As Table 15 shows, considerable agreement was found between commissioners and legislators on localstate-federal responsibility.

PAGE 38

TABLE 13 OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS Problem Water Supply for Agriculture Water Supply for Domestic Uses Water Supply for Industry Water Supply for Recreation Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife Pollution from Domestic Sewage Pollution from Industrial Waste Pollution from Agricultural Waste Flooding Drainage Salt Water Intrusion (3) Commissioners le6 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6 4.0 3.1 1.7 (2) Legislators 2.6 (3) Percentage Difference (1 minus 2) 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6 4.0 3.1 -2.6 1.7 A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger local-federal responsibility than did commissioners. tN I-'

PAGE 39

TABLE 14 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF STATE-FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS (1) (2) (3) Percentage Problem Commissioners Legislators Dif'fe'rence (1 minus 2) Water Supply for Agriculture 7.9 9.5 -1.6 Water Supply for Domestic Uses 1.3 1.3 Water Supply for Industry 6.3 6.7 0.4 Water Supply for Recreation 3.2 10.0 -6.8 Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 26.2 20.6 5.6 Pollution from Domestic Sewage 7.5 7.5 Pollution from Industrial Waste 19.7 6.1 13.6 Pollution from Agricultural Waste 14.0 4.3 9.7 Flooding 26.6 27.5 0.9 Drainage 7.5 10.3 -2.8 Salt Water Intrusion 29.3 20.0 9.3 A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger state-federal responsibility than did commissioners. VI N

PAGE 40

TABLE 15 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-STATE-FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS (1) (2) (3) Percentage Problem Commissioners Legislators Difference (1 minus 2) Water Supply for Agriculture 14.3 19.0 -4.7 Water Supply for Domestic Uses 10.7 12.0 "": 1.3 Water Supply for Industry 10.9 8.9 0 Water Supply for Recreation 33.3 17.5 15.8 Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 23.0 23.5 0.5 Pollution from Domestic Sewage 29.9 20.8 9.1 Pollution from Indulstrial Waste 23.0 20.4 -2.6 Pollution from Agricultural Waste 22.0 21.3 0.7 Flooding 26.6 20.0 6.6 Drainage 19.4 23.1 -3.7 Salt Water Intrusion 25.9 32.5 -6.6 A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger local-state-federal responsibility than did commissioners. tN tN

PAGE 41

34 -4. EFFECTIVENESS. OF TEN SELECTED MEASURES The respondents.' images were compared on another dimension: how effective they thought certain selected measures might be in dealing with any water use problems the state might face. Both :legislators and commissioners were asked: "How effective do you think each of the following measures might be in dealing with any water use problem Florida might face?" The measures included: (1) water rationing (2) flood plain zoming (3) control population growth (4) desalting (5) land use planning (6) river basin planning (7) regional planning (8) weather modification (9) interbasin transfer of water (10) higher water and sewer rates. A ranking of the respondents' assessment of the effectiveness of these measures was obtained on a four-point scale ranging from 4 (very effective), 3 (fairly effective), 2 (not very effective), 1 (not at all effective). Then, a mean score of the respondents' rankings was obtained. These data are presented in Table 16. The most outstanding feature of these data, in terms of the respondents' rankings of the effectiveness of the selected measures, is the identical rankings given to the first five measures: land use planning, regional planning, river basin planning, flood plain zoning, and control population growth. This is a particularly significant finding in view of the strong parochial attitude found between the legislators and commissioners about who should be responsible for handling water problems. On the one hand, the legislators and commissioners, when asked who should have the responsibility for attending to water problems, were certain that it should be within their own government's purview. On the other hand, almost complete agreement was found between the legislators and commissioners on what actions should be taken to deal with water use problems.

PAGE 42

35 -TABLE 16 LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS'IMAGES OF EFFECTIVENESS OF TEN SELECTED MEASURES MEAN SCORES MEASURES LEGISLATORS COMMISSIONERS Water Rationing 2.280 2.388 Flood Plain Zoning 3.250 2.794 Control Population Growth 2.842 2.686 Desalting 2.625 2.271 Land Use Planning 3.584 3.437 River Basin Planning 3.455 3.175 Regional Planning 3.500 3.267 Weather Modification 2.135 2.051 Interbasin Transfer Of Water 2.580 2.449 Higher Water & Sewage Rates 2.108 2.143 RANKING Legislators Land Use Planning Regional Planning River Basin Planning Flood Plain Zoning Control PopuIl::.atlllon Growth Desalting Interbasin Transfer Water Rationing Weather Modiflcation Higher Water-Sewer Rates Commissioners Land Use Planning Regional Planning Rlver Basin Planning Flood Plain Zoning Control Population Growth Interbasin Transfer Water Rationing De s'al t'ing Higher Water-Sewer Rates Weather Modification

PAGE 43

36 -5. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Water problems are directly related to factors of growth and development. Growth and development include population and economic growth and those concomitant aspects of development which are necessary to sustain public needs and demands. In Florida, growth and development is anything but evenly distributed. Although the state has experienced a 56.3 percent increase in its population over the last three decades, the concentration of this population is diversely located. It has come in those areas where the balance between man and nature is most delicate. The greatest concentration of this population has been in coastal areas and interior wetlands where the weather is the most desirable but resources the most frail. The diversity of population growth is vividly illustrated when we consider that while Florida is the eighth most populated state in the United States, slightly over one-third of her people live in three counties: Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. Between 1950 and 1970, Broward, at an annual rate of 10.5 percent, was not only the most rapidly growing county in Florida, but in the United States as well. (See Table 17). During the same years that Broward and other counties were experiencing a phenomenal increase in population, other Florida counties were losing population. Moreover, the U. S. Census shows that 43 of Florida's 67 counties (64.1 percent) had less than 50,000 in 1970. Against this background of diversity, .the legislators and commissioners were asked to respond to two groups of statements about growth and development. On the one hand, to illicit their attitudes about stimulating growth and development, they.were tendeQ. to agree, tended to disagree, or disagreed with the following statements: (1) "We should promote state growth and development." (2) "We should allow private landowners to use their land as they see fit for growth and development."

PAGE 44

-37 TABLE 17 POPULATION OF DADE, BROWARD, AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES: 1950, 1960, 1970 county 1950 1960 1970 Dade 495,084 935,047 1,267,792 Broward 83,933 333,946 620,100 Palm Beach 114,688 228,106 348,753 TABLE 18 FLORIDA COUNTIES WHICH LOST POPULATION BETWEEN 1950-1960 and 1960-1970 1950-1960 Calhoun Gilchrist Hamilton Holmes Jefferson Lafayette Levy Liberty Madison Suwannee Union Wakulla Washington 1960-1970 Flagler G1adsden Holmes Jackson Jefferson Madison

PAGE 45

-38 -(3) IIWe should provide more services to our citizens as a means of encouraging more people to live in Florida.1I On the other hand, to assess their attitudes about controlling growth and development, the legislators and commissioners were asked if they agreed, tended to agree, tended to disagree, or disagreed with the following statements: (1) IIWe should encourage statewide control of growth and development.1I (2) IIWe should stabilize current state growth and development. II (3) IIWe should utilize stricter zoning practices to limit growth and development. I' Responses to these two groups of statements about growth and development offer some interesting insights into the respondents' attitudes about growth and development. 5.1 Stimulating Growth and Development Commissioners tended to agree that efforts should be made to stimulate growth in the state, while legislators tended to disagree that efforts should be made to stimulate growth and development in the state. Insofar as the manner in which growth and development should be stimulated, the commissioners tended to agree that efforts should be made to promote growth and development, but in these efforts the commissioners disagreed that private landowners should be allowed to use their land as they see fit. They tended to agree, however, that the counties should provide more services to citizens as a way of stimulating growth and development. The legislators, on the other hand, tended to disagree that growth and development should be promoted. Also, the legislators tended to disagree that either private landowners should be allowed to use their land

PAGE 46

39 -as they see fit (here they were in agreement with the commissioners) or that more services should be provided as a way of stimulating growth and development (here they were in disagreement with the commissioners) (See Table 19) 5.2 Controlling Growth and Development Legislators tended to agree that growth and development should be controlled. They tended to agree that this control should be carried out through statewide control and stricter zoning practices. Commissioners, by comparison, tended to disagree that growth and development should be controlled. Their attitude about statewide control was in marked contrast to the legislators' attitudes. Also they were somewhat less anxious than legislators to advocate stricter zoning practices (see Table 20).

PAGE 47

40 -TABLE 19 LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS'ATTITUDES ABOUT STIMULATING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Mean Scores Legislators Commissioners nWe should promote state growth and deve1opment.n nWe should allow private landowners to use their land as they see fit for growth and development. "We should provide more services to our citizens as a means of couraging more people to live in Florida." TOTAL AVERAGE MEAN 2.480 3.143 1.904 1. 966 1.667 2.384 6.051 7.493 2.016 2.731

PAGE 48

-41 -TABLE 20 LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS' ATTITUDES ABOUT CONTROLLING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT "We should encourage statewide control of growth and development." "We should stabilize current state growth and development." "We should utilize stricter zoning practices to limit growth and development.1I TOTAL AVERAGE MEAN Mean Scores Legislators Commissioners 3.181 1. 781 2.792 2.955 3.027 2.619 9.000 7.355 3.000 2.452

PAGE 49

-42 -6. CONCLUSIONS The preceding analysis has suggested some interesting and important conclusions about the images that Florida legislators and county commissioners have of the problem context of water resources in the state of Florida, intergovernmental responsibility that should be exercised in taking action on these problems, and related factors affecting water resources such as growth and de velopment. 6.1 Problem Context As shown in 1, both legislators and commissioners are concerned with the immediacy of environmental and environmentally related problems. However, the immediacy of environmental and environmentally related problems was found to be difficult for legislators and commissioners in terms of how each group of public officials assesses the severity of water problems. A basic difference, for example, was found between legislators and commissioners in their orientation to the severity of water problems relative to the severity of other public problems. Legislators indicated that water problems are more severe than other public problems such as education, welfare, health/hospitals, and roads. Commissioners, on the other hand, indicated that other public problems (education, welfare, etc.) are more severe than water problems. Some important differences were also found between the legislators and commissioners in their assessment of water problems. Overall, on the eleven water problems investigated, legislators indicated that water problems were more severe than did county commissioners. On specific water problems, legislators indicated that water pollution problems were more severe than water supply and related water problems. Commissioners, while noting the severity of specific water pollution problems, (e.g., domestic sewage) indicated that certain water supply and related problems were just as severe as pollution problems.

PAGE 50

43 -These findings suggest .that both legislators and commissioners are concernecI' about water probl.ems but their concerns (when examined in. light of hoW-they. perceive the severity of water problems)' run in different directions. Legislators appear to be oriented to water resources as they pertain to domestic uses (e.g., pollution from domestic sewage and industrial waste; and water supply for domestic uses and industry). Commissioners, on the other hand, appear to be oriented to water resources as they pertain to more "traditional" concerns (e.g., drainage and flooding). 6.2 Intergovernmental Responsibility In their images of intergovernmental responsibility on water problems, both legislators and commissioners defined intergovernmental responsibility in parochial terms. Commissioners indicated that either the county operating singularly or other units of local government (city, special district) operating with the county should be principally responsible for water problems. Legislators indicated that either the state operating singularly or the state operating with some unites) of local government should be principally responsible for water problems. Although parochialism was apparent in the legislators' and commissioners' images of their responsibility on water problems, they strongly agreed about what solutions should be sought in dealing with water use problems. Moreover, both commissioners and legislators strongly agreed that the federal government should exercise little or no responsibility on Florida water problems. When the respondents' attitudes about the federal government's responsibility in water resources was investigated, an attitude of virtual federal exclusion was found.

PAGE 51

44 -APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA The following ques.tionnaire was sent to Florida's 167 legislators and 357 county commissioners. Three mailings were sent to both groups of respondents. The first mailing to the county commissioners (sent in May, 1972) produced a 15.5 percent return. The second mailing (sent approximately one month later) raised the return rate to 24.0 percent. The second mailing was followed up by personally contacting selected county commissioners. Also, a third mailing was sent. These efforts raised the response rate to 35.0 percent. The first mailing to the state legislators (sent in June, ,1972) produced a 25.6 percent return. The second mailing (sent approximately one month later) raised the return rate to 38.6 percent. As with the questionnaire sent to the commissioners, the second mailing was followed up by personally contacting selected legislators and a third mailing. This raised the response rate to 47 percent. The questionnaire sent to the county commissioners included 33 questions --19 attitudinal and behavioral questions and 14 biographical questions. The questionnaire sent to the state legislators included 30 questions --15 attitudinal and behavioral questions and 15 biographical questions. This report utilized only those questions which pertain directly to water resources. (These questions are reproduced below.) The county commissioners' questionnaire was also mailed to Georgia county commissioners. This effort was undertaken by Professor Vincent L. Marando of the State University of Georgia. At present, Professor Marando and I are engaged in a comparative state analysis of these data. (1) For Legislators: In your opinion, what is the most pressing problem now facing Florida? For Commissioners: In your opinion, what is the most pressing problem now facing your county?

PAGE 52

45 -(2) For Legislators: Here.isa list of water. problems facing. certain sections of the. state. Would you please indicate: to what degree these are now probl:emsfor the state? (If you feel one of these is not a problem for the state, check "not applicable") For Commissioners: Here is a list of water problems your county may now face. Would you please indicate to what degree these are now problems for your county? (If one does not apply to your county, check "not applicable.") Not Severe Not Very At All Not ApSevere Severe plicable Water Supply for Agriculture Water Supply for Domestic Uses Water Supply for Industry Water Supply for Recreation Water Supply for Fish and Wildlife Pollution from Domestic Sewage Pollution from Industrial Waste Pollution from Agricultural Waste Flooding Drainage Salt Water Intrusion (3) For both Legislators and Commissioners: Would you please indicate which level of government you feel would take the principal responsibility for handling and solving these water problems. (Check one or more as you see fit.) 'V"1. ep'Y'V"Y."" 'Ve e.(,,1; 'Ve! cP.' Water Supply for Agriculture ." Water Supply for Domestic Uses Water Supply for Industry Water Supply for Recreation Water Supply for Fish and Pollution from Domestic Sewage ,,Pollution from Industrial Waste Pollution from Agricultural Waste Flooding Drainage Salt Water Intrusionr

PAGE 53

-46 -(4) For How effective do you think each of the following measures might be in dealing with any water use problems Florida might face? For Commissioners: How effective do you think each of the following measures might be in dealing with any water use problems your county might face? Very Fairly Not Very Not at all Effective Effective Effective Effective Water Rationing Elood Plain Zoning Control Population Growth Desalting Land Use Planning River Basin Planning Weather Modification (e.g., Cloud Seeding) Interbasin Transfer of Water Higher Water and Sewer Rates (5) F6r Legislators: We hear a great deal these days about growth and development. Here is a list of statements about activities on growth and development. Would you tell us if you generally agree or disagree? Tend To Tend To Agree Agree Disaqree Disaqree I "We should promote state growth and development" "We should encourage statewide control of growth and develop-ment" "We should seek cooperation with local officials in planning for growth and development" "We should allow private land-owners to use their land as they see fit for growth and develop-ment" "We should stabilize current state growth and development" "We should provide more ser-vices to our citizens as a means of encouraging more peo-ple to live in Florida" "We should utilize stricter zoning practices to limit growth and development" ..

PAGE 54

47 -(5) (Cont.) For Commissioners: We hear a great dealthes.e days about growth and development. Here is a list of statements about activities on growth and development. Would you tell us if you generally agree or disagree? Agree! Tend To Tend To Agree Disagree Disagree "We should promote county growth and development" "We should encourage statewide I Icontrol of county growth and I jdevelopment" I "We should seek cooperation with I i adjoining counties in planning for! \ growth and development" I "We should allow private land1 I t 1 jowners to use their land as j they see fit for growth and I I l !development" i .1 i !"we should stabilize current I 1 I I 'county growth and development" l "We should provide more services to our citizens as a means of en-couraging more people to live J I here" l"we should utilize stricter zonI ; ling practices to limit county I I J I i growth and development" l

PAGE 55

-48 -APPENDIX B STATE EXPENDITURES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS: FISCAL YEAR, 1971 Land Resources $ Non-Renewable Land Resources Water Resources Air Quality Coastal-Ocean Resources Amenities General Administrative Activities TOTAL Percentage of Natural Expenditure Resources-Env1ronmental Programs Budget 6,475,000 24.2 931,000 3.4 10,099,000 37.8 509,000 1.9 3,956,000 14.8 --------1,606,000 6.0 3,110,000 11.6 26,686,000 100.0