February 24, 1981
Further thoughts after studying the latest draft a little more:
17-40.04 I'mat a loss on how to do it, but it seems desirable in this
section to lay the groundwork for resolving conflicts over competing uses of
17-40.05 This whole section still makes me uneasy, although there are
a few improvements over the draft that I reviewed. It gives the receiving
areas a lot of opportunity to build a case for transport but does not give
the supplying area much chance to defend itself or to plan its future growth
in a prudent manner. Furthermore, transfers by a sub-district unit such as
a Water Authority which could be set up by several counties are not addressed.
I would feel happier about this if the Task Force recommendation that WMD's
be the unit for water supply had been implemented.
17-40.09(4) In addition to preventing problems from reaching critical
levels, planning should include prevention of problems where they do not yet
I agree with your rationale for adopting the policy by rule. This policy
statement is a good first step and it seems to me that the rule-making process
gives more opportunity for public participation, and provides more continuity
than an administrative or gubernatorial policy would. I couldn't hear all that
Paul Parks was saying about public participation, but in general, FDE supports
maximum opportunity for comment from the general public.
I thought you conducted an excellent workshop and got some good comments.
I hope these ideas may be helpful, too.
\ FLORIDA DEFENDERS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, INC.
f^ 622 North Main Street
Gaminesville, Florida 32601
February 24, 1981 i
FE3 25 i381
Department of Environmental Regulation Office f tie Secretay
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
This letter will formalize my comments on Chapter 17-40 made at the
Workshop February 12, 1981, in Tallahassee. They are based on the Workshop
Draft dated 2/12/81 and were made for FDE.
17-40.01(6) I concur with the general feeling that this section should
be clarified by expanding it--I do not concur with Charles Lee's statement that
you are perpetrating a lie. It is a matter of semantics as far as I am
concerned. A policy can state a series of goals, or it can be a combination
of goals and objectives, or it can be a statement of objectives, or it can
be any number of things. What is important to me is that certain criteria be
set down to apply statewide, yet allow water management districts the flexi-
bility to handle problems peculiar to each district. The Task Force found
that an umbrella of statewide concerns is absent from most planning and it is
very badly needed, particularly in water resource issues.
17-40.03(1) Affordable makes me uncomfortable, too. The Tampa area
could afford the pipeline from the Suwannee if the Corps built it with federal
funds more easily than they could afford desalinization plants that had to be
built with local funds.
(11) I concur with Jack Merriam that structural and nonstructural
alternatives should be given equal consideration, and that criteria should be
included to evaluate structural versus nonstructural alternatives.
17-40.06 I agree with Dr. DeHan and Mr. Baker that a section on ground-
water should be added, perhaps in this section so that you can follow the
sequence of the statutes. I am enclosing my comments on EPA's proposed
groundwater protection strategy which in an indirect way make a case for this
inclusion. EPA's proposed strategy relies so heavily on state strategies and
implementation that I believe Florida must address groundwater immediately,
so that we have the umbrella of state policy to help make the trade-offs that
are implied in EPA's Management Approach.
17-40.08(1) Hydroperiod or the hist^6ical water regimen must be a
consideration in setting minimum flows and levels, if the goal is protection
of water resources and the environmental values associated with coastal,
estuarine, aquatic, and wetlands ecology.