Title: Letter advising of reconvening the Water Management Task Force
CITATION PAGE IMAGE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00051069/00001
 Material Information
Title: Letter advising of reconvening the Water Management Task Force
Alternate Title: Letter advising of reconvening the Water Management Task Force for making additions or changes necessary in the December 20, 1977 Task Force Report to be presented to Governor Graham after he takes office. Includes original and revised copy.
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publication Date: Nov. 21, 1978
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: Box 2, Folder 3A ( STATE WATER POLICY ), Item 59
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00051069
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

/.

Page 12

Comment:

It is recommended that all the above be deleted and the following be adopted as

the recommendations of the Task Force:

1. WMD funding:

A. Requests by IMD's will be made under the three separate categories:

Operations, land acquisitions and construction.

B. The WMD requests will be forwarded intact to the Governor's office

but DER may make recommendations as it deems appropriate.

C. The Governor's budget recommendation will segregate the WMD's request

from DER's.

D. Funds for land acquisition will be continued but will be justified

by relating to water quality and its significance toward statewide

benefit.

E. Funding of WMD operations relative to state programs will be

available but need not be requested.

F. Funds for construction will continue to be available but all new

authorizations will require statewide benefit for justification.

The two federal projects will continue to receive state support but

only if they can be phased out once a specified period (5 years was

discussed). Both SFWMD and SWFWMD indicated the projects were winding

down and could be "wrapped up" following realistic evaluation of those

portions likely to be deleted.

G. All local projects will continue to be funded by ad valorem taxes.

Task Force Report, cont'd:

ISSUE 2

DER/.0 Relationships How should DER relate to WOiD's and what are the
relationship problems?







~~ C131CI~-~~I -r~lit. .`-L~r I~ III~IIIYm r~rr~rrr- Irr~ llLrr~l~.. rrr~r~rrrr rrLLI~rur~rrr~~rc ~rrrrcrrr~LI~lrrr__________________________-rr +-rC









Page 2

Board feels funds should be spent for purposes consistent with their lawful

responsibilities. The issue here is whether or not state funds should be provided

to WMDs to carry out specific programs or projects mandated by the state. There

is no argument that state funds should be made available for such programs; however,

these funds should not be a substitute for the normal administrative costs incurred

or for projects initiated by the W0s. There is a very real problem, in some cases,

in making the differentiation and some of the WMDs may choose to fund the programs

themselves with ad valorem taxes rather than becoming embroiled in all the red tape

associated with obtaining state dollars. On the other hand, the three newer

districts are still under severe constraints with regard to their taxing capabilities

and need state support of their operations. Obviously some flexibility is necessary.

To date, the state has never funded (and really isn't expected to) the entire costs

associated with the "regulatory" activities. By the same token, the state has never

funded the entire non-federal share of the two flood control projects. Ad valorem

taxes have made significant and substantial contributions in the three-party commit-

ment. ( it seems contradictory that the state, by supporting federal

funding, agrees these projects are in the national interest, but not in the

state's interest.)
TasK"orce Report, contifT -
"Reference: Ch. 373.503, F.S.; Ch. 25209, Laws of Fla.; Ch. 25270, Laws of Fla.;
Ch. 61-690, Laws of Fla.; Land Development Element of the State Comprehensive
Plan; Water Element of the State Comprehensive Plan; Governor & Cabinet Resolution
on National Water Committee Report."
Comment:
It has been mentioned by the WMD's on several occasions at earlier Task Force meetings

', that Chapter 373.498 should be included as a reference because it directly relates

to the above issue. Because the Summary mentions it but neither includes it as a
v
reference or quotes it as are other sections, we recommend it be included in its

entirety, to wit:

"373.498 Disbursements from water resources development account. Subject to
the provisions of this chapter, there shall be available to any flood control
or water management district created under this chapter or by special acts of
legislature, out of said water resources development account upon the approval
of the division of interior resources of the department of natural resources,
a sum or sums of money not exceeding in the aggregate the total estimated

--'









ISSUE 5

Water quality restoration projects, status report on the
Department of Environmental Regulation water quality restoration
program.

References: Chapter 403, F.S.; Chapter 373, F.S.; Chapter
77-369, L.O.F.; and PL 92-500

Discussion

Chapter 403, F.S., places the primary responsibility for water
quality in the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department
of Environmental Regulation also administers the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended in 1972 (PL 92-500). Under Chapter
373, F.S., WMD's have the responsibility to consider water quality as
well as to acquire land and exercise the power of eminent domain for
water storage purposes.

The Department of Environmental Regulation is authorized by
Chapter 77-369, L.O.F., to (1) establish and administer a program for
the restoration and preservation of bodies of water, (2) adopt all
rules necessary to accomplish this purpose, (3) acquire land, and
(4) allocate funds from the Water Resources Restoration and Preservation
Trust Fund.

.Currently, the Department of Environmental Regulation is developing
a rule establishing criteria by which to assess applications for funds
from the Water Resources Restoration and Preservation Trust Fund. The
Department of Environmental Regulation will coordinate the review of
applications for project funding with WMD's and other interested agencies.
Feasibility studies, detailed planning and physical restoration or pre-
servation of water resources will be contracted by the Department of
Environmental Regulation with the best agency/entity based upon bid
prices and other relevant information. Cost-sharing ceilings may be
established by rule, but specific cost-sharing arrangements will be
determined on a case by case basis.









Non-structural projects may include: (1) large land holdings for
water retention and supply and aquifer recharge; (2) floodplain regu-
lation and management; and (3) land and water management and regulation
in prime aquifer recharge areas. Non-structural projects consisting
of large land tracts, in addition to flood control and water supply,
provide statewide benefits in water quality protection and enhancement,
open-space and recreation, procreation of fish and wildlife and land
for future use. Additionally, such projects enhance state goals of
long-range energy conservation and economic efficiency due to little
or no energy requirements for construction and operation and maintenance.
Therefore, state funding of non-structural projects is not in conflict
with s. 373.503, F.S. It. should be noted that, whereas the federal
government funds 80% and 83% of the cost of construction of the South
Florida Project and Four River Basins Project respectively, it will not
fund land acquisition costs.

Section 373.503, F.S., states that the state should substantially
fund the regulatory, planning and administrative (operational) costs of
Water Management Districts. This does not imply, however, that
districts should feel obligated to request state funding for these
purposes, if they prefer to utilize ad valorem tax revenue and permit
fees entirely to fund these costs.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The task force agrees that the state's funding of works of Water
Management Districts should be for projects. which have direct benefits
to the state in general and which will not result in the most direct
benefits accruing to limited segments of the population; the state should
fund the acquisition of large land tracts; projects which primarily
benefit regions or sub-regions should be funded by ad valorem taxes and
other district revenues, not by the state.

Since state funding of district works is authorized by sections
373.495 and .498, F.S., and the state has historically funded the South
Florida Project, the Four River Basins Project, and the Upper St. Johns
River Project from their beginning and since the recent planning and
budgeting for certain portions of these projects has been predicated
upon the expectation of state funding assistance, the majority of the
task force recommends that, rather than an abrupt curtailment, the
state phase out funding as soon as feasible for the South Florida
Project, Four River Basins Project, and the Upper St. Johns River
Project. The.South Florida WMD and Southwest Florida WMD strongly
favor a phase out of state funding of federal project construction.
The St. Johns River WMD, Suwannee River WMID, Northwest Florida WMD and
the Department of Environmental Regulation also favor a phase out. The
Department of Administration representatives believe, since state law
authorizes and directs ad valorem taxes to be used to pay for district
works, that state funding of these works violates the intent of
s. 373.503, F.S., and that the state is not obligated to continue to
provide funding for these projects. However, the Department of
Administration representatives agree that a phase out of state funding
of WMD works over a short period of time may be more desirous than an
abrupt curtailment.

6







JOHN R. MALOY, Executive Director

SSouth Florida


Water Managem nt District

POST OFFICE BOX V, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, 33402
TELEPHONE 305-686-3800

. Y ,LFt Y CFER TO:
6-104J December 2, 1977


yr. Estus Whitfield
.cart.ent of Administration
Division of State Planning
C60 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Dear Estus:

Following our meeting on November 28, 1977, I have reviewed your proposed
Task Force document in detail and as a result I would recommend that certain
changes be made (see attachment) to improve the tone, balance and credibility
of the document. Since the Committee spent much of its time reworking the
Conclusions and Recommendations of the report, I will await your rewritten
version. M1y comments are directed toward the Discussion Section on Issue
"?o. 1. By and large the attachment supports the comments and recommendations
contained in Southwest Florida Water Management District's submission to the
Committee at the last meeting. I would urge your serious consideration of
these changes.

It is important to note that this should not be interpreted as my approval or
concurrence with the report, but simply my effort to bring to your attention
those portions of the document with which I cannot agree or I feel are
superfluous to the task at hand. As agreed to at our last meeting, I will
not take a position on the report itself until I have an opportunity to review
the final product.

I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,


Robert L. Clark, Jr. -
Chairman, Governing Board
RLC/jwj
Attachment
cc: Water Management District Chairmen
R*et L. Clrc, k. Or. John M. DeGrove C. A. Thomas Robert W. Padrick W. J. Scarborough
C. ,*A Fort Lauderdale Vice Chairman Uoca Ratont Lake Harbor Fort Pierce Lake Placid

J SEutI R. Hardy Matheson Ben Sheperd Stanley Hole Maurice L. Plummer
CLe Itl Miami Hiaedah Naples Ft. Myers
Formerly Central and Southrrni Floricla Flood Control District









Page 3

amount required to cover the costs allocated to the district for constructing
the works of said district, for the acquisition of lands for water storage
areas, for highway bridge construction, and for administration and promotion.
These works may include small watershed projects (Public Law 83-566). Said
sum or sums shall be available as money is required for said purposes and
may be a grant to said Gistricts. Also, subject to the provisions of this
chapter, there shall be available to any navigation district or agency created
under chapter 374 or by special act of the legislature, out of said water
resources development account upon approval of the division of interior
resources, a sum or sums of money not exceeding in the aggregate the total
estimatedamount required to cover the costs allocated to the district for
constructing the works, for highway bridge construction, for the acquisition
of land for rights-of-way, for water storage areas, and for administration
and promotion. Said sum or sums shall be available as money is required for
said purposes and may be a grant to said districts or agencies.


Additionally, references to various elements of the State Comprehensive Plan, at

this point, are inappropriate.Not all of the elements have been approved by the

Governor and none have been approved by the legislature.

Chapter 23.013 (2) states: (2) Nothing in the plan or parts or revisions
there of shall authorize the implementation of any programs not otherwise
authorized pursuant to law. Any part of the plan not otherwise authorized
by law shall be subject to review and approval by the legislature as expressed
through its acts, both through substantive law and emphasis as contained in
appropnations acts.

Since the legislature has not approved any part of the Comprehensive Plan, there

is no argument that it should,through this Task Forcebe urged to exclude its

traditional support of the two federal projects. Even if the Comprehensive Plan

were state policy at this time, to suddenly drop state participation in these two

projects would be irresponsible. At the last meeting of the Task Force, both

SWF1MD and SFTD indicated that much of the remainder of these projects may never

be built due to new cost/benefit criteria being utilized by the Corps and

environmental considerations.J Consequently the cost remaining to complete the
/
projects is actually far less than earlier estimated and state participation can

be phased out over a reasonably short period. This appears to be a reasonable

method to move the state from a structural to non-structural flood control

philosophy pursuant to the concepts set forth in the current drafts of the

State Comprehensive Plan.







/


Page 13

/ References: Ch. 373.016, F.S.; and Ch. 373.026, F.S.

Discussion: Chapter 373, F.S., vests in the DER the power and responsibility
to accomplish conservation, protection, management and control of waters of
the state and encourages the delegation of power to ',iM's to the greatest
practical degree. The DER is given general supervisory authority over WMD's.

SWater-4s-a-r ese Fe e-ef- Fara u t-e neee -te- the-s tare-. -- n- hat-wate s

; enva?^9 teR-4i-a e93^- e-5e-rsafed--Ihe-Ayap.^4y-e^d-e ai ty-a~s^65
| L-e the*p9af-Seee49--28-ad-93-pa;-wa-



maRagee .. -Fe ,e s ^ 1*4 es-frem- R -we y 7- ea, -4et- 4 -e e, -w4 h
.en.v4Fe.. etal-4 ea4t -a -6atR-2}-e Fate-8sa e-ad


: te-prete-a,d-eanfee-the-Bya $y-ef-wa e---The Fe-=e^e-the-Fe aat e.sh -e.
I; NER-aed-9es-a4-de F e6.ed-y*e"eeawe-44 *aI-a _e .

1 -eve the e55-pQ'fa^45-betweef-^he- ,R- pd-tr^6i-have-bee-'#a4,edT<- e -al.y
ebleiteve-explasa.4rets-f-these Fe ..e.s-a.e-dif?4y^t--Heweve^^-^e-;9l*ew4R
SeseRvaer s-ae-tee- made:
m R---There-has-beePre- ak-ef-See t i9Aeat efS-be weeR- E -a d- s-wR R-Ey d






e-4e--4Rsy? .se.,-s=f?.. e- e.-5CS- -d.ffe:e=es-.-F*sauFe-anages::e
e --






SphPeAsaphy-Re1weesH--4-aYd- se-e-e" Ps.


S---Re seRmeR-e -h e-pa-e f- sene-3 s -e f-9R-(a e-sype v seA.
iRe-wa.ex-aasae erqs-P-asp-Asb '-es-are--ea4ve4y-,ew---e-dea!:rme tI

s-wa~tte,:-mg-a beRt-aet4y44es.

Comment:

There is no apparent position held by any member of the Task Force that questions
the need for state involvement in the protection and proper management of its water

resource. There is no question that the legislature as clearly indicated the need

for an effective regulatory program and a state-level department to implement it.

The legislature has also clearly indicated the DER is to have this responsibility

but to the greatest degree practical it is to be delegated to the '.TD's. Additionally,
5

to prevent public confusion over the permitting process, DER permitting office should

be collocated with those of the WD's wherever feasible. The DER has worked diligently

to respond to this legislative mandate delegating responsibilities as appropriate and

working closely with the WMD's to collocate facilities.










The South Florida WMD estimates that a maximum of $13,000,000 in
state funds would be needed to complete its current ongoing projects
which include (a) Raisinq the Level of Lake Okeechobee to 17.5 feet
above mean sea level, (b) Supplying Water to Everglades National Park,
and (c) Alleviating Flooding in Hendry County. The District further
indicates that due to environmental and new cost/benefit considerations,
it is likely that substantial portions of the total South Florida Project
may be deleted.

First estimates by the Southwest Florida WMD indicated that
approximately $16,000,000 in state funds would be needed to complete
the Four River Basins Project. However, further tentative analysis
by the District indicates that the need for state funds (to match
federal contributions) for construction of the Project (including
bridges) will be less than $10,000,000, and that further analysis which
will include environmental considerations and new cost/benefit consid-
erations may result in a further reduction in the need for state funds
for the Project.

The St. Johns River WMD estimates that a maximum of $13,200,000 in
state matching funds (20%) would be needed over the next five years for
construction on the Upper St. Johns River Project.

The majority of the task force recommends that commensurate with
a state funding phase out, and within the constraints of funds available
and state review and approval processes, the state should provide fund-
ing assistance to the above projects.

With the exception of some level of phase out funding as indicated
above, the task force recommends that the state not fund project works
in districts, unless it can be clearly shown that such projects are in
accordance with s. 373.503, F.S., i.e., projects which have direct bene-
fits to the state in general and which will not result in the most
direct benefits accruing to limited segments of the population; further
funding (non-federal) of these and other such projects should be by
district revenues.

2. The majority of the task force agrees that the state should
substantially fund WrI'D regulatory, planning and administrative
(operational) functions. However, the St. Johns River WMD feels that
land acquisition should be funded by the state in lieu of operations;
the Southwest Florida WMD feels that it does not need nor does it desire
state operational funds; and the South Florida WMD feels that state
operational funds represent a low priority in state funding.

3. The task force agrees that WMD legislative budget requests for
operational funding should utilize the following definitions:






7






4v


ISSUES


ISSUE 1
Financing of Water Management Districts Should state general revenue

funds and/or district ad valorem tax revenues finance the non-federal share of

project works of districts and regulatory and administrative functions of districts.

References: "Ch. 373.503, F.S.; Ch. 25209, Laws of Fla.; Ch. 25270, Laws of

Fla.; Ch. 61-690, Laws of Fla.; Ch. 373.495, F.S., Ch. 373.498, F.S."

a4--^eveeme4-Eeme -f-the-State-Gempreehens4ve-P1,aR -WateP-;emlent
(1)
S-t he-State-6omprehensve-Pm(n;(1)

"Governor & Cabinet Resolution on National Water Committee Report; Governor

Askew's Letter of Jan. 19, 1977, to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."

Discussion:

This issue can be divided into three separate subsections:

Susection A. -- The state's role in funding the non-federal share of project

construction.

Subsection B. -- Justification and incentive for state participation in land

acquisition programs, and

Subsection C. -- State funding of regulatory and administrative functions of

:e districts.
(Subsection A) The creation of Water Management Districts, originally called

flood control districts, was enabled in 1949 by Ch. 25209, Laws of Fla., principally

to participate with the federal government in projects for flood control, reclamation,

conservation and related purposes. This act directed ad valorem taxing for the


The proposed Land Development and Water Element of the State Comprehensive Plan
should not be considered as references until they are adopted by appropriate
bodies as required in Ch 23, F.S.






-:7'"









Page 4

Task Force Report, cont'd:

"Discussion: The creation of Water Management District, originally called
flood control districts, was enabled in 1949 by Ch. 25209, Laws of Fla.
Principally to oarticioate with the federal government in projects for flood
control, reclamation, conservation and related purposes. This act authorized
d4Feeted ad valorem taxing for the purpose of providing cooperative part of
works of districts, maintenance, operation, administration and other costs.
This act also created the "state flood control account" (changed to "water
resources development account" --Ch. 373.495, F.S.) to assist districts in
construction and land acquisition in regard to federal projects.

The Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District (currently the South
Florida 'Water Management District) and Southwest Florida Water Management
District (SWF'IMD) were created by Chapters 25270 and 61-691, Law of Fla.
respectively, which authorized ad valorem taxing to support project works.
Funding of the non-federal share of project construction in these districts
has included beeR-2a,:gey-by state revenue.

Comment:

Generally, there is no problem with the above part of the report; however, what

follows indicates a lack of understanding of the intent of the legislature and

confusion between the two federal projects and the many other local oro.iects

that are totally funded by ad valorem taxes:

Task Force Report, cont'd:

"In this regard, Chapter 373.503, F.S., makes the following statement of
Legislative policy:

It is the finding of the legislature that the general regulatory and
administrative functions of the districts herein authorized are of general
benefit to the people of the state and should substantially be financed by
general appropriations. Further, it is one finding of the legislature that
water resources programs of particular benefit to limited segments of the
population should be financed by those most directly benefited. To those
ends, this cznapter provides for the establishment of permit application
fees and a method of ad valorem taxation to finance the works of the district.

Additionally, on February 20, 1973, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as
the Board of Natural Resources in the State's response to a report by the
National Water Commission, stated "Generally, we strongly support the report's
findings, particularly the concept that all beneficiaries should share the
costs of particular projects, programs and services."

Comment:

The confusion referred to is manifested in the first three words of the above

passage. The assumption is that 373.503 is in "regard" to state participation

in the two federal projects, which is simply not the case.

Section 373.503 expresses two positions each of which can be construed based









Page 15

Should the state receive title to these lands or should it leave the titles
in the districts and require state approval of disposals of such land.

i References: Chapter 373.089, Florida Statutes.

SDiscussion: Considerable amounts of W49 land were have been purchased by
the s ase 1,'s usind state funds. Titles to these lands are in the W.MD's.
WMD's are authorized by Chapter 373.089, F.S., to sell land determined by
the governing board to be surplus. A WMD is authorized to sell or otherwise
dispose of lands it has whkeh-were purchased with by-the state funds.

Since the state has many requirements for land (public facilities, etc.) it
would be beneficial to the state to have the option of using such lands
declared suDlus' by the ',.4D's exeess-WS-aRS-eR-w.h-eS-eF-yses-a.e
eempa T++e-w AR--i.e-raPase Re. However, due to legal ramifications
regarding federal project requirements, it is not feasible to convey titles
to the state for all lands whIeh-it-has purchased by the WMD's with state
funds. The most acceptable method of protecting the sate's interest in
this land pyuehase'-by-stat.e is by requiring state approval before the
land is sold ef-W a-lad-d-isaasas.

!Conclusions and Recommendations: The task force recommends that the
disposal by-n9 -s of land purchased or partially purchased with by-he
state funds and declared surolus by the M JD's be approved by the Governor
land Cabinet sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund and that Chapter 373.089, F.S., should be amended to induce
This provision.
Comment:

The above should be revised as indicated; however, there should be included in the

discussion of the issue the need for the WMO's to be able to transfer title to other

governmental agencies as dee.iied appropriate by the 1MD governing board. There has

been occasions when, for example, in order for the Department of Transportation to

proceed with construction of a bridge needed in conjunction with a WMD project,

transfer of title to that department was necessary on a timely basis. Delay in

transferring title to this property would have unnecessarily delayed the project.

In this regard, the WOID's need to have this type of flexibility. It is felt that

any land purchased with state funds and surplus by the W'ID's should require state

approval before the land is sold; however, other methods of disposal consistent

with current law should remain available to the WMD's.










a. Regulatory Functions includes, but is not limited to,
the establishment and administration of permit systems
as provided for in Ch. 373, Parts II, III and IV and
s. 373.106; establishment of minimum flows and levels in
accordance with sections 373.042 and 373.103(4); estab-
lishment of saltwater barrier lines in accordance with
s. 373.033; and data collection and technical support
and water quality regulatory activities as may be delegated
by the Department of Environmental Regulation (Ch. 75-22,
F.A.C.).

b. Planning preparation and revision of the District
contributions to the State Water Use Plan and other
District planning benefiting the state in accordance
with provisions of sections 373.036 and 373.103
including data collection and technical support.

c. Administration administrative activities associated
with the State Water Use Plan, regulatory activities,
,and data collection activities as described above.

4. The task force agrees with the concept of state funding of district
activities on a "needs" basis rather than on a "formula" basis. Under
this concept districts would submit funds requests to the Department of
Environmental Regulation for consideration and submission to the
Department of Administration; then, should it be determined that the
total amount of state funds available for WMD's is less than the total
of all district requests, the districts and the Department of
Environmental Regulation would make recommendations as to what portions
of the predetermined totals should go to the various districts, All
WMD representatives strongly support this concept. Department of
Environmental Regulation representatives favor this concept, but
Department of Administration representatives doubt that a unanimous
decision could be reached and whether the outcome would reflect state
priorities.

The concept of the state funding of WMD's on a formula or cost-
sharing basis met with strong objections by all WMD representatives, who
feel that cost-sharing does not adequately address individual district
needs due to current differences between their respective taxing capa-
bilities. However, the WMD's did not present any specific methods to
be used in the state budget process for allocating limited resources
between the districts.

It was generally agreed that WMD funds requests should be
distinctly identified and separated from other portions of the
Department of Environmental Regulation budget, and that district
requests for legislative funding should contain categories for
(1) operations, (2) projects, and (3) land acquisition.





8







-2-



purpose of providing cooperative part of works of districts, maintenance, operation,

a.-inistration and other costs. This act also created the "state flood control

account" (changed to "water resources development account"--Ch. 373.495, F.S.) to

assist districts in construction and land acquisition in regard to federal projects.

The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (currently the $iuth

Florida Water Management District) and Southwest Florida Water Management District

SVF7'D) were created by Chapters 25270 and 61-691, Laws of Fla. respectively,

-ech authorized ad valorem taxing to support project works. However as provided

!:r in Ch. 373.498 funding of the non-federal share of project construction in these
(2) In the opinion
districtss has included significant investment of state revenue. I- his-Pegad
f t.he state, this practice is not totally consistent with Chapter 373.503 which
t^e^ter-S3^5T3ST-FtS-f-lakes-the-fellew^Rg-stateseR^-e^-tegislative-pe^^eyr
.:t:es in part:

I-4s-the-fRi^iHg-ef-the-le^sa e-that-the-geea-Pegatey
and-aiRistprative-fase-t4ems-ef-the-distPrets-here+R-authe =ed-ape
ef-eneoPral-benefit-te-he-opeple-ef-t e-state-53d-0heid-bsta-t4a;y
be-fiaReed-by-eenePal-apipiep4ateQ5s. Further it is the finding of the
legislature that water resources programs of particular benefit to limited
seccents of the population should be financed by those most directly
benefited. Te-'hese-eRds-th-ehapteF-pteves-ep-the-estab4shmen
ef-pe.rit-appgiea eR-tfees-aRd-a-methed-ef-ad-vale*em- aat4eR--f naRee
t^e-wePks-ef-he-AIstA4et.

Additionally, on February 20, 1973, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the
.:ard of Natural Resources in the State's response to a report by the National Water

..-rission, stated "Generally, we strongly support the report's findings, particularly

'e' concept that all beneficiaries should share the costs of particular projects,

;rc9rarms and services."
This legislative directive and statement by the Governor and Cabinet supports
A -e jeetive-ee taiRed-4R-the-aft-Watep-6emet-ef-the-S a e-6empreheR sve
;e objective that water resource projects should be based on the beneficiary pays
*-satdes-"The-f4RaRnei g-aRd-fiisea -maaagemefit-ef-wate -a eeatie9-wate-p ei

'To date on the C&SF Project $338 million have been invested in the construction
program. Federal expenditures through fiscal year 1977 total $230 million. The
state has invested $108,334,207 and the District's contribution has been in excess
of S150 million.









Page 5

upon previous and current legislation, or literally. The report obviously

construes it literally and is using it as a basis for justifying an end to the

states partnership in completing the two federal projects. Actually, this section

of the statute refers to those types of local projects that do benefit limited

segments of the population, which are initiated by a NMD and does not involve

federal participation. Both of the older tM4D's have completed a number of these

projects and many are underway at this time. Almost all of the costs involved,

easily 95 99%, have been funded and will continue to be funded by local ad valorem

taxes and there is no need or desire to involve state dollars. The following are

a few of these type projects:

1. Rufe Wysong Lock and Dam

2. Lake Tarpon Sink Enclosure

3. Sawgrass Lake Water Management Project

4. Largo Water Management Project

5. Edward Medard Park and Reservoir

6. Alligator Creek Structure

7. Channel "A" Salinity Barrier

8. Channel "G" Salinity Barrier

9. Brogden Bridge Structure

10. Flint Creek Structure

11. Keystone/Island Ford Structure

12. P-7 Structure

A!ll of the above projects are within the SWFDI0 and were initiated and paid for

by the basin boards of the District. This was the intent of Secticn 373.503.

A review of existing and past legislation clearly indicates that the legislature

never intended this section to be used to terminate state support of the two

federal projects. Section 373.498 cited earlier should be proof enough but
there is also chapter 25209 which states:








Page 16

Task Force Report, cont'd:

ISSUE 4

Water quality restoration projects, status report on DER water quality
restoration program.

(To by added)

ISSUE 5

Water supply authorities what problems relate to them and should Chapter
373 be amended in this regard.

References: Ch. 373.196, 373.1961, and 373.1962, F.S.

Discussion: Water supply authorities may be established by agreements
between local governmental units and upon approval of the Secretary of DER
for the purpose of developing, storing and supplying water for county or
municipal purposes. Water supply authorities are authorized to levy up to
mill ad valorem tax; acquire water and water rights, develop, store and
transport water, sell and deliver water; exercise the power of eminent
domain; issue bonds; sue and be sued; and borrow money.

The rationale for water supply authorities includes (1) economy of scale;
(2) prevention of overdevelopment of water resources; (3) improvement of
the capability to balance water demand with availability; (4) reduce
friction between local/county water systems; and (5) prevention of large
investments for duplicative facilities.

There are currently two water supply authorities (WSA) in the state, West
Coast Regional Water Supply Authority and Withlacoochee Water Supply
Authority. The West Coast WSA incompasses Pinellas, Hillsborough, and
Pasco Counties, and was created by interlocal agreement in 1974.

The Withlacoochee WSA, created in 1977 by interlocal agreement, encompasses
Marion, Levy, Citrus, Hernando, and Sumter Counties and includes portions
of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Suwannee River Water
Management District and St. Johns River Water Management District.

It is the understanding of task force representatives that a third WSA is
being proposed which would include counties primarily within the Suwannee
River drainage basin.

When new concepts are cemented into law, problematic situations almost
always occur that are not and perhaps could not be foreseen at the time
of adoption. Below are several observations resulting from the legislation
that allows the formation of water supply authorities:

Existing WSA boundaries follow county lines. With the state's current
interest in watershed basins and the philosophical issue related to
interbasin transfers of water, it may be more appropriate to have authority
boundaries conform more closely to major drainage basins, or at least along
lines that are more hydrologically homogeneous. The WRWSA, for example,
crosses the three major drainage basins of the Suwannee, Withlacoochee and
St. Johns Rivers.










5. The task force agrees and recommends that (a) the Department of
Environmental Regulation and WMD's should confer during the preparation
of WMD legislative funding requests to promote consistency between WMD
requests and the Department of Environmental Regulation budget; (b) if
the Governor issues tentative budget recommendations prior to the
printing of the formal recommendations, then the Department of
Environmental Regulation should notify the WMD's immediately of such
recommendations; and (c) relevant to the Governor's tentative budget
recommendations the Department of Environmental Regulation should give
full consideration to WMD proposals for allocating funds between indi-
vidual WMD's, make the district proposals known to the Governor and,
when deemed necessary, afford districts the opportunity to share their
views with the Governor.

6. The task force recommends that since the absence of federal
participation in land acquisition for flood control and water supply
projects represents a serious impediment to non-structural projects
and the achievement of state goals, the Governor and the Legislature
should strongly urge the federal government to take the necessary admin-
istrative and/or legal steps to enable federal cost-sharing of non-
structural projects, including land acquisition.






























9






v6 .-^,nt The intent is to use and make sure the budgetary orccess will acco;plish
4..^ anrett-^u+ -be-yased-e-^he- eineep e ^ ese E4ai-paysto-e te
S e consistent wiv this objective.
^t^uJ -- age-24)
I is not the intent, however, to suggest that all water resource projects are
m a-d ^M3-Qf-pve9eGt-werks-sui-h-as-a Ra; s'-4evees --dams- ad-eservG4 rs,-w4
teoefit to only limited segments of the population. Sorre projects (i.e., Lake
!-a "-..pives-&efie 5-eg eRaR y-er-sub-reg4onaIy7-4s-eentrary-tehe-e
-- Tar-a By-Pass Canal, Everglades National Park, etc.) may have numerous
1 ^/^/ ^-eC-cr H-3 t;593 -the-S i tel5-Be5^eH-9R-the- a^4ieRaa ^ate^- e^miSsB n
-*-: stte-wide benefits and therefore are of particular benefit to the State.
o ;, ^\! 4le^^f^-Wdte.eefleBt-0f- e-S ate-aepPeheRsive-P.aR.

"" .--^wered question pertains to an accepted definition of "limited
I ^^ ^..L^ i -ni D Lx x.tt-a ti CLcIr- .O
.. .; e oul.aton" and more importantly its converse, as to what
+ + I. I ^-f^to^ ^U-poltitlTrronl^ -.rTi tt
| .,.:+ ,or justifies state participation.




.- bt:t4 .- -


t-r tr t-c )ee --r -I -e th-e" st c .r.
I f







,, .-., -+s- -- ..+ s^ y^ my $j-Q j- r -t- t' s. trt r *b t .-rt k .n r -3
"" ; a4f-r- -t4,-CmA;t- f -rZ.,. .- ca n---1--of-. --c-.-t atP -"- rr





I C_ .
t4 w A : s









i) t~~n -tt tc iC~~ -n..--





/
1 / w

Page 6
Section 2. State cooperation with districts authorized. The State of
Florida is authorized to cooperate with any such district organized under
this chapter or created by the legislature in the interest of flood control,
reclamation, conservation and allied purposes, where a cooperative federal
project hterefore has been authorized by the Congress of the United States
in which said project it is required as a condition for effectuation that
local interests shall cooperate with the United States in the manner purposed
by the Congress.

Section 3. Appropriation for flood control, etc. There is hereby created
in the General revenue fund of this state an account to be known as flood
control account ..... the purpose of said account shall be to provide
assistance to districts described in Section 1 hereof.

It is clear that 373.503 was in reference to local water shed projects, not the

two major federal flood control projects underway within the two older districts.

It is not reasonable to suggest the Governor has been recommending and legislature

approving appropriations against "legislative intent" since 1949 when the first of

these two projects was initiated. Nor is/reasonable for the state to urge the

federal government to continue to fund the largest part of the projects in the

interest of the nation on one hand, while on the other to suggest they are not

in the state's interest and use this to justify an end to the state's partnership

in sharing the cost. But nevertheless if the state still wishes to change its

posture, it would be much more acceptable to phase out its participation over a

reasonable period of time and in an organized fashion.! It should be kept in mind,

however, that these projects were designed to protect existing populations and

structural development from the ravishes of another major storm and changing the

the state's posture isn't going to prevent that storm from occurring again. The

number of new residents and structures have increased dramatically and there is

no question that a storm will strike. The question is when.

Task Force Report, cont'd:

"An objective contained in the draft Water Element of the State Comprehensive
Plan states The financing and fiscal management of water allocation, water
projects and water management should be based on the concept of beneficiary
pays to the extent practical.

State-funding of project works such as canals, levees, -dams-and reservoirs,
which provide "most-direct benefits'"-regional -y -or- sub-re i ona.1y, ..i s-con.trar.y
to-...the-letter and-intent of Ch. 373.503, the State's-position..or-the-.cational
Water- Commission Report and the- draft-Water-Eiement of-the-State-Comprehensive-
Plan. (page 24)."








Page 17

An authority should, from its inception, include enough area to insure there
is adequate sources to meet its projected demands well into the future. It's
obvious from recent events that if an authority moves to develop a supply
outside its own jurisdiction, there will likely be many philosophical,
political and legal ramifications. The West Coast WSA is investigating
sources outside its boundary.

The authorized area of the Withlacoochee WSA includes portions of three
i water management districts. This could cause major conflicts between the
districts and the authority as each attempt to cary out their respective
responsibilities.

When approval for the formation of a water supply authority is given it
should be clearly understood that the authority will need a certain amount
of funds before it can become operational. Ad valorem taxing, sales
contributions from member governments and legislative grants or loans
are all possibilities for funding a water supply authority. The require-
ment for a water management district to levy a tax for the authority if
requested is an inappropriate use of that district's taxing authority.

The first water supply authority was formed to end a socalled water war
by creating an agency with the responsibility to meet demands. The second
authority was formed, according to statements from member governments made
on numerous occasions to the press, in order to "protect" that area's
water resources. One was formed witnin an urbanized area to facilitate
the availability of supplies while the other was formed by a generally
rural area to prevent and/or control distribution to other areas. These
apparently conflicting purposes indicate confusion over the supply function
of authorities and the regulatory function of water management districts.

Currently, the authority to approve the formation of authorities has been
transferred from the Governor and Cabinet to the Secretary of the Department
of Environmental Regulation. This came about incidently rather than inten-
tionally by the 1975 Reorganization Act and clarification by the Legislature
j as to its intent would be appropriate.

The West Coast WSA has been wrought with problems since its creation. It
has been suggested that these problems are largely attributable to the
varied and conflicting interests of the membership, which consists of
local elected officials.




Comment:

The above generally represents the discussion by the Task Force at its last meeting.

The last sentence, however, does not and should be deleted. The question as to

whether or not ND's should be given WSA responsibilities is certainly one that

merits further fact-finding and discussion. WMO's are not necessarily "reluctant"










ISSUE 2

DER/WMD Relationships How should DER relate to WMD's and what
are the relationship problems?

References: Section 373.016, F.S.; and Section 373.026, F.S.

Discussion

Chapter 373, F.S., vests in the Department of Environmental
Regulation the power and responsibility to accomplish conservation,
protection, management and control of waters of the state and encourages
the delegation of power to WMD's to the greatest practical degree. The
Department of Environmental Regulation is given general supervisory
authority over WMD's.

The task force unanimously agrees that the state should be
involved in the protection and proper management of its water resources
and that an effective regulatory program is needed and that the
Department of Environmental Regulation is the proper agency of state
government to implement water management. Chapter 373, F.S., places
this responsibility in the Department of Environmental Regulation and
encourages the delegation of responsibility to WMD's to the greatest
degree practical. In this regard the Department of Environmental
Regulation has worked diligently to co-locate its permitting offices in
WMD offices in order to facilitate the permitting process and avoid
public confusion.

The present relationship between the WMD's and the regional offices
is satisfactory and excellent progress has been made toward improving
the permitting process.

Problems between the Department of Environmental Regulation and
the WMD's by and large have resulted from differences in interpretation
of the term "general supervision" and exactly what it constitutes.
Due to the technological complexities of water resource management, the
complexities of relevant laws and the relative newness of the Department
of Environmental Regulation, into which the legislature only recently
incorporated most environmental regulatory responsibilities from other
state agencies, this situation needs to be allowed to stabilize before
being further addressed. With improved communications and mutual
respect for each other's responsibilities, the relationship between the
WMD's and the Department of Environmental Regulation will doubtlessly
improve.

The question arose as to whether the Department of Environmental
Regulation should take a more active role in proposing district ad
valorem tax millage changes. The WMID's and the Department of Environmental
Regulation feel that current procedures, which involve WMD interaction
with appropriate legislators, are sufficient.





10





-4-


pl-aRR^g-sheud-PeeegRze-hat-he-availabty-aRd-ees-ef-e-epgy-supp^esT

Rew-aFd-in-the- f upe 5et5s-imt5-eR-the-quaRt 4y-ef-watep-hat-eaR-be-supp 4ed

to-aR-aPea-aRd-the-exteRt-that-water-treatmeRt-ean-be-depesded-upeR-te-4ffmpeve

wateP-qual$y-4page-22T-peh4ey-#74)

(Subsection B) While the preceding addressed the construction authorization

of the Water Resources Development Account (WRDA), the other authorized funding

area, namely land acquisition, represents an approach to water resource problems

which is not in conflict with Chapter 373.503, F.S. Non-structural projects

consisting of large tracts of land, in addition to flood control and water supply,

provide state-wide benefits in water quality, protection of fish and wildlife as

well as land for future use.

The Governor supported this position in a letter dated Jan. 19, 1977, to

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "As you know, projects with flood control and

land drainage and reclamation as their primary objectives often conflict with

the need to maintain water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. This conflict

and the high energy costs of development and maintenance of structural solutions

to water resource problems indicate that more consideration should be given to

the non-structural approach."

TFhe-felewiRg-S a e-geaI-are-expres ed-4R-nRme reus-Fe4da-Statutes-aRd

vaPieys-pPepesed-eFemeRts-ef-the-State-GempaeheBs ve-PlaR

( -keRg-pa ge-eaRepgy-ee setva teRt

42)-eRg-PanRe-e6eefie4e-effieieRey;

f3^-ERv^eRAmeRtahuaty-aad-RatyraaPeseavees-pie-eetPeR-and
eeRseFvat4eR-aRd

f4^-MaxnffrateeR-ef-the-publBe-we-ayFer
Eaeh-ef-these-gea s-a Rd-epe4ees5-adveQae-ep-fa -RveR- -svtewvta-wate- eseu ee

ppedeets-as-eppesed-te-sCt=e-tva-pejeets- Within this context non-structural

projects may include: (1) large land holdings for water retention and supply and








Page 7

Comment:

It is highly unlikely that any of the five WMO's is going to object to the first

paragraph above. This is probably the very reason why there are five WND's and

why each has been granted the authority to levy ad valorem taxes, even though their

respective taxing capabilities vary widely. This is also why the SWFiWMD utilizes

the Basin Board concept. The second paragraph, however, shows a lack of insight

as to the true intent of the section cited and the conclusion drawn is therefore

wrong and out of order.

Task Force Report, cont'd:

^-eaR-be-a g ed-ha State financing of local any Water Management District
project works would conflict with these policies. However, by considering
other related State goals and policies and the fact that some water resources
projects may have numerous direct statewide benefits, a state role in water
resource project funding becomes evident."

Comment:

The first sentence above is probably true; however, no WND is asking the state

to finance its works in general as the sentence implies. This is a misconception

pervasive throughout the report. The funding requested by the WOD's for

"project works" is coming primarily from the two older districts who are mak ing

the requests relative only to the two federal projects. No funds are being

requested for any of the other truly local projects. Assistance by the state

to these two projects, again, has been a partnership with local and federal

participation since they were begun; and the strength of that partnership has

been reinforced with each year of support the state has provided, but the point

is that these two projects are not simply local projects affecting a limited

segment of the population. We suggest the wording be changed as indicated.

Task Force Report, cont'd:

The proposed Land Development Element of the State Comprehensive Plan
contains the following policies: (1) utilize the capabilities of natural
systems to perform beneficial work as a compliment to high cost structure
and technology, consistent with protection or enhancement of these resources
(page 11, policy S3) and (2) encourage floodplain regulation and management,
relocation of people and other nonstructural solutions as alternatives to
structural flood control facilities (page 59, policy -8).






V. ^



Page 19

Comment:

With regard to (b) above, absolute prohibition against the transfer of water

between WSA's should be avoided. However, such transfers should only be allowed

with the approval the 'WD's involved and perhaps the state (this should be discussed

further by the Task Force).

Item (d) was not discussed by the Task Force in detail but should be.

Other changes indicated above should incorporated.










Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The task force agrees that no consideration of legislative changes
be made for portions of Chapter 373, F.S., which relate to the Department
of Environmental Regulation responsibility for water resource management.

2. In regard to the Department of Environmental Regulation and WMD
relations, the task force recommends that positive action be taken by
the Department of Environmental Regulation to enhance communications
with WMD's and specifically, that the Department of Environmental
Regulation consider resumption of regular meetings with WMD's.

3. The task force concludes that current procedures for requesting
ad valorem tax millage changes are adequate and that there is no need
for further efforts by the Department of Environmental Regulation in
this regard.



































11







"V -5-


and aquifer recharge; (2) floodplain regulation and management; (3) land and

water management and regulation in prime aquifer recharge areas; (4) study and

research; and (5) public information and education programs.

As-s5pp^4es-ef-
w^it-eeRitRue-^e-^RepeaseT-ffak^Rg-i^ iePeas^Rg-y-flpeiait-feF-the-state-te

seek-eRe gy-eff e4eRt-sel ut:4eRs- e-wate ese uee-pFe l ers -- Suetupa -pee ets-

44itia%-eests-w%%-eeR.4iue-e- PiseT-due-e-eaepgy-aad-4 faat4ear-aad-%eag-tefm

eperat$eRal-aRd-mAa4i eRanae-{g-&-M)-ees s-may-beeeme-pih4b4eI4ve-due-te-Pe44aaee

eR-fiess4-fue^t--NeR-s5^uetupa+-pF3ePts-4Rve:*v4R-^ad-aPquas4^4eR-^ay-pequ4pe

gPeae-4R4eaeap4^a-euaysi-hewevepT-s4Ree-they-ape-fmee-eaepgy-eff4eeeat

4i-Beth-the-shePt-e m-a d-BeRg- te aR-d-due-t e--ewew-9-&- M- eests- They-w4 1 -be

mere-eeenefia^^y-effieet-eve-he-%eag-tewm=-

StPueetra-pfeaeets-feeP-f eed-ee te-a d-4d a4age-eemme y- esu -4a

eeeegieal-disrtubaHeesS-esses-iR-fish-aBd-w^^^4fe-habta-watep-qualty

degPadat en-aRd-e9the-eRv peRFeIta -aRd-RatyPa -eseu ees-p ebems5--6R- the

etheP-haS4-H -se- tsue tua -p e ee ts-ted-t--p eteet-eeesysems"-%4 sh-aRd-wP4 4fe

hab4 tat-wate-quat y-aRdi-ethep-esv eRmeRtal-aRd-Ratuya,-va ues.

It-^s-i^fpeRtant-te-Rete-that-wheeeas-eertaeR-sPuetyra^-pPeaeePs-^easals-

%evees-dams-asd-pesepve4Ps)-genepally-pBev4de-d4^eet-fee4-eestpe-aBd-wateF

ssppl-y-hberefts-e Ry- e- 4me4-segmets-e f-the-pepu %at4e R -Re-st:uetuPa

ppe eets-ee s ,st g-e -^apge- aR^-iaet s-R- add4t e-e-f eed-eeBRe -aRd

wateP-suppy--pevd4e-stat ewde-beRef ts-4R-wate -qua 4y-pe ee t 4e-a d

eshaseefmeRt-epes-spaee-feePeat eRt-pwee)eat^eQ-ef-4 sh-and-w44%dfe-aBd-%asd

feP-fCtutre-use.

Nef-stPuetual-ppeaeets-whPeh-paev^de-a-vaPety-ef-beeef#ts-te-the-state-4R

geReral-wehl- d-Ret-eef et-w4th-Ghaptep-7.Q---Fu thep-s4 ee-pu b% e-pe^ ey
stPeRg y-favePs-ReR-st u e tya peeets.







Page 8

The draft Water Element of the State Comorehensive Plan contains the
following policies: (1) Design future water-management plans and practices
to be as fuel efficient and maintenance free as practical and wherever
practical utilize the free energy of natural, physical processes and natural
systems (page 11, policy #7); (2) Use non-structural means to prevent flood
damages and replace existing structures with non-structural methods wherever
practical (page 15, policy 75); and (3) Water management planning should
recognize that the availability and cost of energy supplies, now and in the
future, sets limits on the quantity of water that can be supplied to an area
and the extent that water treatment can be depended upon to improve water
quality (page 22, policy :7).

The Governor stated in a letter to (to be added)

The following State goals are expressed in numerous Florida Statutes and
various proposed elements of the State Comprehensive Plan:

(1) Long range energy conservation;

(2) Long range economic efficiency;

(3) Environmental quality and natural resources protection and
conservation; and

(4) Maximization of the public welfare.

Each of these goals and policies advocate or favor non-structural water
resource projects as opposed to structural projects. Non-structural projects
may include: (1) large land holdings for water retention and supply and
aquifer recharge; (2) floodplain 'regulation and management;- (3) land and
water management and regulation in prime aquifer recharge areas; (4) study
and research; and (5) public information and education programs.

As supplies of fossil -fuel-continue to -diminish,- fuel-cos.taandi nf.ilationwill
continue to increase,- making-it-inrea-s y-4i-!. .- R"
energy-effi-e ent--so utions -to wa ter--resource-problems--Str-u-tural -pro-jects'--
-initi4--costs--wi-l-. continue--to--r-i-se-,-due--to energy and inflation, and long-
te-m-opea-io-a--a nd-Tai ntena nee-(0 -&- N)-- cos-ts-may- bec orm.-proh-ibit-i-ve.-due-
te-rel-ance-on -fossil--fuel. Non-structural- projects-.invol.ving-.l.and-acqu.i-
s444-tio-may-requi re-greater-initial-capital- out-lays-;---however,- since-they--
a-e-Tzrore-energy-effi c-i ent i n both -the-short-term--and-l-eng-tem--and--due-4e-
-lkwer--O4-&-c-o-s t--hey-w414- be- moore-econcmic-: e-4f4-4e-rt -ove .e--.otam..

Sfr-uc-tura-T-prGects-for--flood-control-a nd-dra-anage--coono-ly- e sult--ia-
e csto4a4-^4i'i-subances --t-osses-in^-4rh-anC-wil4i4Je-habUt-a'^,rw^4ta -ebr-^t^
de.gra da.tior--and-. h er--v-i-onmren ta-a nd-natur-a -resource s-p.ob ers-.--On--te-
other-hand--non-s4truc-tura4--p rojects- tend-to- pro-tec t-eco sy-s-tems.- .tfis-a-nd
wi-I dl-i-fe-habi-ta t ,- water qua Ii ty -and other- envi ronmentaI- nd--na-ua--va-lue-s-

Comment:

The. above is a summary of state "policies" used to lay a foundation for certain

conclusions to be drawn later. The last two paragraphs are value judgements, however,

based on an extraordinarily generalized viewpoint toward the concepts of structural

versus non-structural approaches to water management. These are Mom and apple pie

". --










ISSUE 3

Disposition of water management district (WMD) lands purchased
with state granted funds Should the state receive title to these
lands or should it leave the titles in the districts and require state
approval of disposals of such land?

References: Section 373.089, F.S.

Discussion

Considerable amounts of WMD land were purchased with state grated
funds. Titles to these lands are in the WMD's. WMD's are authorized
by section 373.089, F.S., to sell land determined by the governing board
to be surplus. A WMD is authorized to sell or otherwise dispose of
lands which were purchased with state granted funds.

Since the state has many requirements for land (public facilities,
etc.) it would be beneficial to the state to have the option of using
excess WMD land (purchased with state granted funds) which has been
declared surplus by the Board of Governors of the WID. However, it does
not appear to be appropriate for the state to obtain title to these lands
primarily because: (1) the local sponsor (WMD) of a project is required
to certify lands to the Corps of Engineers for federal projects; (2) the
state does not have the power to condemn land; (3) large legal costs
associated with land acquisition, sometimes up to 40% of the cost of the
land, would likely be incurred by the state; and (4) in some cases WMD's
share the cost of land acquisition with the state. Therefore, the most
acceptable method of protecting the state's interest in this land is by
requiring state approval of WMD land disposals purchased with state
granted funds.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The task force recommends that the disposal of lands purchased or
"partially purchased via state granted funds" be approved by the
Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund, unless such lands are transferred to a state
agency, and that this be implemented, if possible, through interagency
agreements (should interagency agreements prove to be unworkable then
legislation should be considered). The proceeds from sales should be
distributed to the state treasury and WMD on a prorated basis, considering
the cost of acquisition and disposal.












12






-6-
6. 6 -


The State should provide incentive through financial assistance for the

implementation of this policy. Since the federal government will fund major

portions of the cost of structural projects but will not fund land acquisition,

it is particularly important that the State participate in land acquisition in

order to counteract the federal incentives for structural projects.

The information presented regarding the limited nature of the benefits of

structural projects is based upon analysis of previous and currently planned

flood control and water supply projects. It is recognized that these may be

cases where structural projects may provide the most direct benefits on greater

than a regional basis. In such cases, state financial assistance would not

conflict with Chapter 373.503.

(Subsection C) Pursuant to the legislative intent as expressed in Chapter

373.503, which states in part:

It is the finding of the legislature that the general regulatory and
administrative functions of the districts herein authorized are of
general benefit to the people of the state and should substantially
be financed by general appropriations.

This does not imply that a district should feel obligated to request state funding

for these purposes, if it prefers to utilize ad valorem tax revenue and permit fees

entirely to fund these costs. In case where a district does not request any state

funding of operation costs, the State should give consideration to applying the

amount of funds which the district may have received for operations, had it

requested them, to a project which the district may request.









Page 9

statements that add no credibility to the report and which can be refuted on

a project by project basis. No one is going to argue the conceptual values of

structural projects over non-structural projects if one is in a position to look

only toward potential problems The question at hand is whether or not the

state should continue its support of two federal projects under construction at

this time which are designed to rectify existing major problems. To suggest the

state is now favoring non-structural water management and use this as an

argu ment to terminate its involvement in badly needed projects which it has

supported for years is both illogical and unreasonable. -State adoption of

non-structural policies will be of tremendous value to the future of Florida,

but it does nothing to resolve the problems these two projects were designed

to rectify) Certainly parts of the remainder of the projects yet to be built
/
could be reviewed to determine if the non-structural approach is feasible,

but off hand it is probably too late in light of the problems that exist.

Task Force Report, cont'd:

"iat- 4s-m eat3aRt-te-Rete-sha t--wheeas-s te a -p seecas-aRass -levees,
dars-aAd-Fese4Pve4 Ps ,-geReray-pevi4e-a Foee=-fi e e-s e -aR-wa eF -supply
beRef ts-eR y-e-"peep e-lef-egi eRs-^^-sub-qee s-ef-whe-'Sae, non-
structural projects consisting of large land tracts, in addition to flood
control and water supply, provide statewide benefits in water quality
protection and enhancement, open-space recreation, procreation of fish
and wildlife and land for future use.

Since non-structural projects provide benefits statewide, state funding
of these projects should not conflict with Chapter 373.503. Further,
since public policy strongly favors non-structural projects, the State
should provide incentive through financial assistance for the implementation
of this policy. See-the-.e-e.a-.9ve,e t-wi:-#d-a^s-pe^e^as
ef-the-eest -ef-s rye al-yeeee ts- -wU-Be-fd-laf-ae s

4R-ere^k-fe--seaVReyaa6s-^he-fede-a:^-4neeft4ves-tke-$^y ^a+-9ije-t5.

Comment:

The first sentence of-the above should be deleted as indicated. The discussion

at the last Task Force meeting was in general agreement that certain structural

projects are of statewide benefit. The portion deleted is irrelevant to the value

of the succeeding statements.









ISSUE 4

Water supply authorities what problems relate to them and should
Chapter 373, F.S., be amended in this regard?

References: Sections 373.196, 373.1961, 373.1962, and
373.1963, F.S.

Discussion

Water supply authorities may be established by agreements between
local governmental units and upon approval of the Secretary of the
Department of Environmental Regulation for the purpose of developing,
storing and supplying water for county or municipal purposes. Water
supply authorities are authorized to levy up to 1/2 mill ad valorem
tax; acquire water and water rights, develop, store and transport
water, sell and deliver water; exercise the power of eminent domain;
issue bonds; sue and be sued; and borrow money.

The rationale for water supply authorities includes (1) economy
of scale; (2) prevention of overdevelopment of water resources;
(3) improvement of the capability to balance water demand with avail-
ability; (4) reduction of friction between local/county water systems;
and (5) prevention of large investments for duplicative facilities.

There are currently two water supply authorities (WSA) in the
state, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority and Withlacoochee
Water Supply Authority. The West Coast WSA encompasses Pinellas,
Hillsborough, and Pasco Counties, and was created by interlocal agree-
ment in 1974.

The Withlacoochee WSA, created in 1977 by interlocal agreement,
encompasses Marion, Levy, Citrus, Hernando, and Sumter Counties and
includes portions of the Southwest Florida Water Management District,
Suwannee River Water Management District and St. Johns River Water
Management District.

It is the understanding of task force representatives that a
third WSA is being proposed which would include counties primarily
within the Suwannee River drainage basin.

The following is a discussion of some of the problems which relate
to water supply authorities:

Existing WSA boundaries follow county lines. With the state's
current interest in watershed basins and the philosohpical issue
related to interbasin transfers of water, some feel that it may be
more appropriate to have authority boundaries conform more closely to
major drainage basins, or at least along lines that are more hydrologic-
ally homogenous. The WCRWSA, for example, crosses the three major



13











WATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE REPORT ,R

The summary dated November 21, 1977, does not adequately or accurately reflect the
agreements or the basis for the agreements arrived at by the Task Force which met
November 15, 1977. It is apparent that face to face discussion between those
charged with developing the report and those participating in the meetings is
not going to result in a meaningful communication of respective positions. We
have, therefore, chosen to comment extensively in writing in an effort to assure
our position is adequately and accurately available. In doing so we are making
a sincere effort to provide a meaningful contribution tbwards a fair, accurate and
effective final report that reflects not only the policies of the State, but the
real-life problems associated with their implementation as well as a rational
and responsible means of doing so.









65 j. ^ s ^










Page 10

There is. no apparent basis for the last sentence in the second paragraph. It

implies the federal government undertakes construction of structural projects without

state support and that it would do so in conflict with the state position on a given

project. It unjustifiably puts the Corps in the posture of working against the

government of the State of Florida. This is unfounded and should be deleted.

Task Force Report, cont'd:

"Pursuant to the legislative intent as expressed in Ch. 373.503, it is a
proper function of the State to substantially fund the regulatory, planning
and administrative (operational) costs of Water Management District Programs
mandated by the legislature. This does not imply that a district should feel
obligated to request state funding for these purposes, if it prefers to
utilize ad valorem tax revenue and permit fees entirely to fund these costs.
In cases where a district does not request any state funding of operation
costs, the State should give consideration to applying the amount of funds
which the district may have received for operations, had it requested them,
to other a-seR-s9Fet-Pat projects consistent with state policy which the
district may request."

Comment:

Recommend the revisions indicated.

Task Force Report, cont'd:

"Conclusions and recommendations:"
1. The task force agrees that the State's funding of works of Water
Management Districts should be for non-structural projects and that the
State should fund the acquisition of large land tracts. It further agrees
that structural projects which primarily benefit regions or sub-regions
should be funded by ad valorem taxes, not the State.

I However, task force representatives from SFWMD and ;SWFWMD feel that the
State has a commitment to fund the completion of structural aspects of
i South Florida Project and the Four River Basins Project, emphasizing the
fact that the State has historically funded these projects and pointing
j out that Chapter 373.498 authorizes state funding of such works. Task
i force representatives from State agencies do not share this belief and
argue that State law autnorizes ad vaiorem taxes for these purposes, that
it would violate the intent of Ch. 373.503 and that the State is not commi-ted
to funding the completion of the projects.

2. The task force agrees that the State should substantially fund WMO
regulatory, planning and administrative (operational) functions. However,
since all districts may not request operational funding, the State should
give consideration to applying the amount of funds which a district may
have received for operations-had it requested them, to the district's
request for non-structural projects (in addition to other state funding of
non-structural work uo to the amount or tne districts' request). It was
Agreed that districts' budgets would reflect operational costs whether or
not State funds for operations were requested.









drainage basins of the Suwannee, Withlacoochee, and St. Johns Rivers.
The authorized area of the WRWSA includes portions of three water manage-
ment districts. This could cause major conflicts between the districts
and the authority as each attempt to carry out their respective
responsibilities.

An authority should, from its inception, include enough area to
insure that there are adequate sources to meet its projected demands
well into the future. It is obvious from recent events that if an
authority moves to develop a supply outside its own jurisdiction,
there will likely be many philosophical, political and legal ramifica-
tions. The WCRWSA is investigating sources outside its boundary.

When approval for the formation of a water supply authority is
given, it should be clearly understood that the authority will need a
certain amount of funds before it can become operational. Ad valorem
taxing, sales contributions from member governments and legislative
grants or loans are all possibilities for the funding of a water supply
authority. The requirement for a water management district to levy a
tax for the authority, if requested, is an inappropriate use of that
district's taxing authority.

The first water supply authority was formed to end a so-called
water war by creating an agency with the responsibility to meet demands.
The second authority was formed, according to statements from member
governments made on numerous occasions to the press, in order to
"protect" that area's water resources. One was formed within an
urbanized area to facilitate the availability of supplies while the
other was formed by a generally rural area to prevent and/or control
distribution to other areas. These apparently conflicting purposes
indicate confusion over the supply function of authorities and the
regulatory function of water management districts,

Currently, the authority to approve the formation of authorities
has been transferred from the Governor and Cabinet to the Secretary of
the Department of Environmental Regulation. This occurred as a result
of the 1975 Reorganization Act.

West Coast WSA has been wrought with problems since its creation.
It has been suggested that these problems are largely attributable to
the varied and conflicting interests of the membership, which consists
of local elected officials.

From both the public and resource management points of view,
there would be numerous advantages to placing water supply responsi-
bilities in WMD's. However, the WMD's believe that should they advo-
cate this, those who disagree would assume the WMD's were simply
empire building.






14










Quotations are from the November 21, 1977 summary of the meeting held November 15,

1977. 0__ _________

Task Force Report

ISSUE I



"Financing of Water Management Districts -- Should state general revenue

funds and/or district ad valorem tax revenues finance the non-federal share

of project works of districts and regulatory and administrative functions

of districts."

COMMENT:

The issue as stated fails to correctly identify the complexities involved with

the State providing funds to IMDs. The real issue regarding state funds for the

federal flood control projects is not whether it should or shouldn't, but whether

it should be continued. Through laws enacted by the legislature as far back as

1949 and through support of these projects to the federal government and by

legislative appropriations as late as last year, the state has shared in a local -

state federal commitment to alleviate a major flood danger by cash contributions

toward project construction. Local ad valorem taxes could never have gotten

these projects meaningfully underway. The question really being asked is whether

or not the state should continue its ongoing commitment to help

build these projects before another major storm strikes Florida. Should such a

storm occur before this issue is settled, the question would then be. how

soon can we finish these projects and would additional state funding be helpful,

not whether the state should contribute at all. The health, safety and welfare

of literally millions of people are involved.


The other half of the issue relative to the "regulatory and administrative functions"

of the district being funded by the state is also misleading. The ad valorem taxes

constitutionally authorized for water management was obviously granted to the

WMDs so that they would be self support nn in the e ar1s whrp ;'-h nif .,l '








Page 11

S3. The task force agreed that ?O1D budget requests for operational funding
should utilize the following definitions:

A. Regulatory Functions includes, but not limited to, the establishment
and administration of permit systems as provided for in Chapter 373, Parts
II, III and IV and Chapter 373.106; establishment of minimum flows and
levels in accordance with Chapters 373.042 and 373.103(4); establishment
S of saltwater barrier lines in accordance with Chapter 373.033, data collection
S and technical support and water quality regulatory activities as may be
S delegated by the Department of Environmental Regulation (Chapter 75-22).

B. Planning preparation and revision of the District portion of the
State Water Use Plan in accordance with provisions of Chapters 373.036 and
373.103 including data collection and technical support. In preparing the
S Plan the Department of Environmental Regulation and Districts are to study
existing water resources in the state; means and methods of conserving and
augmenting such waters; existing and contemplated needs and uses of water
for protection and procreation of fish and wildlife, irrigation, mining,
power development, and domestic, municipal, and industrial uses; and all
other related subjects including drainage, reclamation, floodplain or
flood-hazard area zoning, and selection or reservoir sites.

C. Administration administration activities associated with the State
Water Use Plan, regulatory activities, and data collection activities
as described above.

4. Task force representatives from all WM.D's strongly advocate State funding
of district activities on a "needs" basis rather than on a "formula" basis.
The districts recommend tha ..iD budgets contain three categories:(1) operations,
(3) projects and (3) land acquisition. The districts feel that if the State
decides that the total amount of funds available for .6!D's is less than the
total of all districts' requests, then the districts and Department of
Environmental Regulation are best able to decide what amounts should go to
the various districts. Department of Encironmental Regulation representatives
favor this approach.

The concept of the State funding of IWMD's on a formula or cost-sharing basis
met with strong objections by all WMD representatives, who feel that cost-
sharing does not adequately address individual district needs.

It was generally agreed that .WMD activities should be distinctly identified
iand separated from other portions of the DER budget.

5. The task force agrees and recommends that (a) the DER and WMO's should
j confer during the preparation of WMID budget requests to promote consistency
between WlMD budgets and the DER budget; (b) if the Governor issues tentative
budget recommendations prior to the printing of the formal recommendations,
then DER should notify the WMO's immediately of such recommendations; and
(c) relevant to the Governor's budget instructions, the DER and DOA should
give full consideration to WND proposals for allocating funds between
individual ,ID's.

6. The task force recommends that since the absence of federal participation
i in land acquisition for flood control and water supply projects represents a
'serious impediment to non-structural projects and the achievement of state
goals, the state should strongly urge the federal government to take the
necessary administrative and/or legal staps to enable federal cost sharing
.of land acquisition.

-- -- i










Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The majority of the task force recommends that section 373.1962,
F.S., be amended as follows:

(a) Water supply authorities' boundaries shall conform to
watershed basins and shall not cross water management district
boundaries. (The Department of Environmental Regulation does
not support this recommendation as it feels that WMD's have
sufficient authority to regulate water use through consumptive
use permitting as provided by Chapter 373, F.S.).

(b) The area encompassed by WSA should be of sufficient area
to provide adequate water supplies for present and future
needs for the area contained within the authority.

(c) Approval of the creation of water supply authorities
shall be by the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission,
with the Department of Environmental Regulation serving
as the staff for this purpose. (The Department of
Environmental Regulation does not support this recommend-
ation as it feels that this responsibility does and
should continue to rest in the DER; however, the DER
would agree that the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
could have appeal authority over such departmental decisions.)

(d) Water supply authority board membership shall consist
of one representative from each member government and shall
be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.

(e) Water Management Districts shall not levy ad valorem
tax revenues for water supply authorities, however, the
governing board and basin boards of Water Management Districts
may grant funds to WSA's as deemed appropriate by the respec-
tive boards.


















15







STATE OF FLORIDA

department of baninistration

Division of State Planning
Room 530 Carlton Building
Reuibin O'O. Askew
TALLAHASSEE GOVERNOR
R.G.Whittle, Jr. 32304 Wallac W. Hend*eron
STATE PLANNING DIRECTOR (904)488-2401 SECRETARY OF ADMINISTRATION

November 21, 1978




Mr. Donald Feaster
Executive Di rector
Southwest Florida Water
Management Di strict
5060 U. S. Highway 41, South
Brooksville, Florida 33512
Dear M-. Feaster:

The Secretary of Administration has asked me to re-convene the
Water Management Task Force for the purpose of making any necessary
additions or changes to the December 20, 1977, Task Force report.
It is planned that the report will be presented to Governor Graham
shortly after he takes office.

I hope that the Task Force can meet at least two times before
the December 31 due date and prepare a revised report. Would you
please review the enclosed copy of the 1977 Task Force report in
light of any additions and changes which you feel would be appropriate
for the Task Force to discuss.

On or about November 28, I will telephone you and other Task Force
members to discuss this matter and hopefully schedule a meeting of the
Task Force.

Sincerely,


Estus D. Whitfield
Senior Planner
EDW-jp
Enclosure








WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TASK FORCE


Estus Whitfield Department of Administration

Jerome Johns Suwannee River Water Management District

Donald 0. Morgan Suwannee River Water Management District

James Ward Department of Administration

Robert Clark South Florida Water Management District

John R. Maloy South Florida Water Management District

Chuck Littlejohn Department of Environmental Regulation

General Henry C. Lane Northwest Florida Water Management District

William McCartney Northwest Florida Water Management District

Jim Lewis Department of Environmental Regulation

Derrill S. McAteer Southwest Florida Water Management District

Donald Feaster Southwest Florida Water Management District

R. T. Clay St. Johns River Water Management District

Frederick 0. Rouse St. Johns River Water Management District

















WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS







ISSUE ANALYSIS







TASK FORCE






DECEMBER 20, 1977



Department of Administration
Department of Environmental Regulation
Office of the Governor
Northwest Florida Water Management District
Suwannee River Water Management District
St. Johns River Water Management District
South Florida Water Management District
Southwest Florida Water Management District














WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ISSUES ANALYSIS



Page

Introduction 1


Purpose 2


Method 3


Issues 4

State Funding of Water Management
Districts 4

DER/WMD Relationships 10

Disposition of WMD Lands Purchased
with State Funds 12

Water Supply Authorities 13

Water Quality Restoration Projects 16















INTRODUCTION


The Water Management District Task Force was created pursuant to
Lt. Governor J. H. "Jim" Williams', Secretary of Administration,
memorandum of August 23, 1977. The purpose of the task force was to
study WMO related issues and prepare recommendations to assist the
Secretary of Administration and the Governor in preparing budget sub-
missions and other recommendations for the 1978 Legislature.

A policy committee consisting of Lt. Governor Williams, Jim Tait,
Wallace Henderson, Joe Cresse and Randy Whittle provided guidance to
the task force. Task force members were: Estus Whitfield, Division
of State Planning (task force leader); James Ward, Division of Budget;
Ken Woodburn, Office of the Governor; Jack Merriam and Jim Lewis,
Department of Environmental Regulation; General Henry Lane, Northwest
Florida Water Management District; Mr. Jerome Johns, Suwannee River
Water Management District; Mr. Tommy Clay, St. Johns River Water
Management District; Mr. Derrill McAteer, Southwest Florida Water
Management District; and Mr. Robert Clark, South Florida Water
Management District.

























1
















PURPOSE



The primary purpose of the task force was to analyze various
issues which related to water management districts. The following
issues were defined by the policy committee and concurred with by
the task force as important matters to study:

Issues:

1. State Funding of Water Management Districts

2. DER/WMD Relationships

3. Disposition of WMD Lands Purchased with State Funds

4. Water Supply Authorities

5. Water Quality Restoration Projects

It is contemplated that the results of the task force study will
be utilized by the Secretary of Administration and the Governor in
making recommendations to the Legislature regarding budgetary and other
matters concerning water management. The report should also be useful
for providing guidance for long-range decisions concerning water man-
agement financing and other matters.




















2
















METHOD


Pursuant to Lt. Governor Williams' memo of August 23, 1977, the
initial meeting of the policy committee was held on September 8, at
which time a tentative set of issues was identified. The initial
meeting of the task force (state agency representatives only), held
on September 16, was primarily concerned with general discussion of
the functions and membership of the task force. The task force met
again on October 11, (state agencies and two WMD's) at which time the
issues were agreed upon and discussed. At a meeting of the policy
committee on October 20, the Lt. Governor further defined the issues
for task force study. Meetings of the full task force were held on
November 7, 15, and 28.

The task force findings and recommendations were derived basically
through extensive discussion of each issue. Various task force repre-
sentatives provided relevant technical information and recommendations
reflected in this report. A preliminary draft report prepared by
Estus Whitfield was discussed and amended at the November 15, task
force meeting. A second draft report was prepared and sent to the
task force on November 21. The second draft was further amended on
November 23, based upon telephone conversations with several task
force members. The second draft as amended was discussed and amended
further at the meeting on November 28. A final draft of the report
was completed and mailed to the task force and policy committee on
December 1. Each task force member was consulted by telephone during
the week of December 5 to obtain their points of view on the report.
Considering the various comments received from the task force the
final report was prepared.

Attachment 1 is a summary of the task force comments on the final
draft received by telephone. Written comments regarding the task
force are also attached from the South Florida Water Management District
and the Southwest Florida Water Management District.












3

I















ISSUES



ISSUE 1

Financing of Water Management Districts Should state general
revenue funds and/or district ad valorem tax revenues finance the
non-federal share of districts' project works and regulatory and
administrative functions of districts?

References: Section 373.503, F.S.; Section 373.498, F.S.;
Chapter 25209, L.O.F.; Chapter 25270, L.O.F.; Chapter 61-690,
L.O.F.; Land Development Element of the State Comprehensive
Plan; Governor & Cabinet Resolution on National Water
Committee Report; Governor Askew's Letter of Jan, 19, 1977,
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Discussion

The creation of Water Management Districts, originally called
flood control districts, wv' enabled in 1949 by Ch. 25209, L.O.F.,
principally to participate '.ith the federal government in projects
for flood control, reclamation, conservation and related purposes.
This act directed ad valorem taxing for the purpose of providing the
cooperative part of works of districts, maintenance, operation,
administration and other costs.

Chapter 25209, L.O.F., also created the "state flood control
account" (changed to "water resources development account"--sections
373.495 and .498, F.S.) to assist districts in construction and land
acquisition in regard to federal projects. Sections 373.495 and .498
state in part

"Subject to such appropriation as the Legislature may make
from time to time, the purpose of said account shall be to
provide assistance to water management districts under the
act for the protection, conservation or development of the
water resources of the state." and to cover cost
allocated to the district for construction of the works of
said district, for the acquisition of lands for water
storage areas, for highway bridge construction and for
administration and promotion."




4










The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (currently
the South Florida Water Management District) and Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD) were created by Chapters 25270 and
61-691, L.O.F., respectively, which authorized ad valorem taxing to
support project works. Funding of non-federal project works has been
primarily by district ad valorem taxes. However, funding of the
local (non-federal) share of project construction for federally
assisted projects in these districts has been largely by state revenue.
In this regard, s. 373.503, F.S., makes the following statement of
legislative policy:

"It is the finding of the legislature that the general
regulatory and administrative functions of the districts
herein authorized are of general benefit to the people of
the state and should substantially be financed by general
appropriations. Further, it is the finding of the legis-
lature that water resources programs of particular benefit
to limited segments of the population should be financed
by those most directly benefited. To those ends, this
chapter provides for the establishment of permit appli-
cation fees and a method of ad valorem taxation to finance
the works of the district."

Additionally, on February 20, 1973, the Governor and Cabinet,
sitting as the Board of Natural Resources in the State's response to
a report by the National Water Commission, stated, "Generally, we
strongly support the report's findings, particularly the concept that
all beneficiaries should share the costs of particular projects,
programs and services."

It is important to recognize that structural projects for flood
control and water supply have been important to development within the
state and to the protection of life and property. However, such
projects provide the "most direct benefits" regionally or sub-regionally
and, therefore, state funding is contrary to the letter and intent of
s. 373.503, F.S., and the State's position on the National Water
Commission Report. Additionally, structural projects for flood control
and drainage require very large amounts of energy and money for con-
struction and operation and maintenance. Ecological disturbances,
losses of fish and wildlife habitat, water quality degradation and
other environmental and natural resource problems commonly result from
structural flood control and drainage projects.

The Governor stated in a letter dated January 19, 1977, to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

"As you know, projects with flood control and land drainage
and reclamation as their primary objectives often conflict
with the need to maintain water quality and fish and wild-
life habitat. This conflict and the high energy costs of
development and maintenance of structural solutions to water
resource problems indicate that more consideration should be
given to the non-structural approach."


5





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs