Title: EESC. Unapproved Draft, Meeting Minutes, October 8-9, 1987, with list of members and other attendees. 17p.
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00052225/00001
 Material Information
Title: EESC. Unapproved Draft, Meeting Minutes, October 8-9, 1987, with list of members and other attendees. 17p.
Physical Description: Book
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00052225
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

Finding that it would be valuable to say very specifically
what the supervisory authority of DER is over the WMDs, the
group discussed s. 373.026(7). Although s. 373.114 states
that DER shall have the exclusive authority to review rules
of the WMDs other than rules relating to internal management
to ensure consistency with state water policy, the provision
was found to be confusing. It was stated that as of now the
WMDs and DER are not clear on what the provision means. The
Environmental Regulatory Commission is presently coming up
with what amounts to a minimum standard rule which allows
more stringent standards at the WMDs. Discussion then
turned to a motion which would provide that the ERC shall
adopt minimum rules and standards for nonpoint source
programs at the WMDS and shall determine the consistency of
WMD rules to those standards. It was agreed that this
motion should include the concept that this shall not be
interpreted as restricting WMDs from setting more stringent
standards. This concept passed upon vote of the Commission.

Susan Lubitz pointed out that individuals can challenge
rules for consistency and inconsistency with minimum
standards and she found that giving the standard setting to
the ERC would not necessarily solve the problem. It was
suggested that a related motion would have to be passed
which would change s. 373.114(2) by moving the authority of
DER to review the rules of the WMDs to the ERC. John
DeGrove pointed out that this change would assign the
functions for the state water board to the ERC regarding
state water policy. Bud Viessman expressed his concern and
his disapproval of making the ERC the state water policy
board. Buddy Blain agreed that giving the ERC the
additional duties would create a problem. He moved that the
appeals for consistency with rules go directly to the
Governor and Cabinet. Chairman Landers pointed out that the
motion that had passed was limited to the ERC setting rules
and examining consistency with nonpoint source rules. On
further discussion it was decided that the ERC should not be
placed in supervisory authority to ensure consistency with
state water policy and that therefore this s. 373.114(2)
change should not be made.

The discussion then centered on the appeal procedure to the
Governor and Cabinet. David Gluckman reviewed previous
Commission discussion regarding the discretionary appeal to
the Governor and Cabinet and their initial conclusion that
both this appeal and the appeal through the Chapter 120
process should remain in place. Buddy Blain moved that s.
373.114 be amended to delete the words "or order". David
Gluckman found this to be a critical issue and explained

I -^

that if standards were always numerical there would be no
problem, however presently 90% of WMD permitting does not
use number evaluations, but uses public policy
determinations and balancing tests. He explained that the
Governor and Cabinet need to examine the orders for proper
implementation of the rules, and this is critical for public
confidence in the WMDs and maintainence of the WMD governing
boards as nonelected positions. He pointed out that there
had only been twelve appeals of orders to the Governor and
Cabinet in the last twelve years and that this was not an
abuse of the system, since it had been used sparingly. Jack
Maloy pointed out that presently the appeal from a DER
dredge and fill permit is through the Chapter 120 process
and that this should be suitable when the program is moved
to the WMD. John DeGrove rejected the amendment since it
would affect those programs already in place. Noting that
the appeal to the Governor and Cabinet is discretionary,
Marilyn Crotty questioned the advisability of discontinuing
the appeal. On a show of hands vote the Chairman counted
five opposed and eight in favor, including himself.

David Gluckman moved that DER establish a bureau of WMD
oversight to make certain that: 1) the permitting is
consistent among districts, 2) standards are consistent
among districts and 3) enforcement is consistent among
districts and adequate to do the job. On a voice vote the
motion failed.

Bud Viessman moved that there be created a state water board
to have supervisory authority and coordinate with the WMD to
implement state water policy. David Gluckman moved that
appointed collegial bodies be subject to qualifications and
criteria in an effort to make these bodies more
professional. He extended this recommendation to bodies
such as WMDs, ERC, and the RPCs. The Governor's
appointments would then be made from a list of qualified
applicants. Both of these motions failed.

Local Government Issues

Subcommittee chair Susan Lubitz stated that the subcommittee
had met and submitted a draft of their recommendations
reached by consensus. Their agreement was that those
permitting programs currently handled by state agencies
should be delegated to local governments under two
circumstances: 1) where the local government demonstrates
and ability to handle the program through its expertise and
competent staff and 2) where the local government has


adopted ordinances that are equal to or more stringent than .
the state regulations.

The amended subcommittee was approved and provides that in
order to accomplish complete delegation from the state
agency to the local government, the local government may
accept the program and the state or regional agency must
delegate the program if it finds that the conditions set
forth below exist:
1. The local government must provide by ordinance,
regulation or local law for requirements compatible with or
stricter or more extensive than those imposed by the
applicable state agency.
2. The local government must provide for the
enforcement of such requirements by appropriate
administrative and judicial process.
3. The local government must provide for the
administrative organization, staff and other resources
necessary to carry out the program.

The group approved provisions that sections of the Florida
Statutes which restrict the issuance or cost of fees be
amended or deleted. The s. 373.109 reference that fees for
permits "shall not exceed the cost to the district for
processing the application" would be changed to provide that
local governments have the ability to set their own fee

Approved also was a provision that qualified municipalities
will have the option of accepting delegation. If the
municipalities refuse the delegation, then the counties
which accept delegation will extend such programs into the
municipal areas, and will issue permits and perform
regulatory activities on behalf of the municipalities if the
county meets the criteria set out in the numbered three
paragraphs set out above. The sole control exercised by the
state will be a review of the program to ensure that the
local government has maintained equivalent or stricter
standards with respect to state criteria of this scheme.

The group determined that financial assistance must be
provided -to local governments that agree to administer these
programs. Funds should be transferred from the agency
delegating the program to the local government. Additional
examination of current statutes is necessary to determine
what authority the various agencies have to transfer funds
to local governments.


Discussion continued on local government issues but was not
focused, therefore, it was suggested that subcommittee
circulate among themselves various suggestions and that
these be presented at the Tuesday, November 3 meeting.

The meeting was then adjourned at approximately 3:15.


The following people attended the Environmental Efficiency Study
Commission meeting on October 8, 1987, in Tampa.


John F. Wright DER

Sam A. Elrabi DER

Robert K. Vanderslice DER

Rick Garrity DER

Randy Armstrong DER

Frank Walper DER-Tallahassee

J.A. Jurgens Parker, Skelding, McVoy
& Labasky
Mark Ives Office of State Comptroller

Chris L. Jensen Chris Jensen Associates
Exxon E & P Regulation
Don Duden DNR

Brad Hartman GFC

Richard Owen SWFWMD

Rich McWilliams NWFWMD

Bruce Parker SJRWMD

Steve Light SWFWMD

Irene Quincey SWFWMD

Mary Jo Phillips Moffitt, Hart & Herron

Neal Schobert Hillsbourgh County
Health Department
Joseph R. Hillring Environmental Engineering


Cal Landau General Development
Cliff Waters Dade County Resources Mgmt.

Chuck Littlejohn Florida Chamber, FES

Jack Merriam Sarasota County

Colleen O'Sullivan Florida Sierra Club

Laurie MacDonald Florida Sierra Club

Carolyn A. Dekle South Florida Regional
Planning Council
Diana Sawaya-Crane Attorney General's Office

Tom Atkeson HRS-State Health Office

Chuck Courtney Tampa Palms Development
Bruce Marsh FPC

Roger Sims Holland & Knight

Will Abberger State Treasurer & Insurance
Charles Blair DACS


The following people attended the Environmental Efficiency Study
Commission meeting on October 9, 1987, in Tampa.


Will Abberger State Treasurer & Insurance
Cliff Walters Dade County Environmental
Resources Mgmt.
Carolyna Dekle South Florida Regional
Planning Council
Rich McWilliams NWFWMD

Steve Light SWFWMD

Irene Quincey SWFWMD

Richard Owens SWFWMD

Kathleen Daly Aide, Rep. Peter Wallace

James F. Murley 1,000 Friends of Florida

Diana Sawaya-Crane Attorney General's Office

Bruce Parker SJRWMD

John K. McPherson CGR, U.F. College of Law

Cal Landau General Development
Frank Walper DER-Tallahassee

Randy Armstrong DER

Rick Garritz DER-Tampa

Glenn Ray Florida Association of
Brian Lussier Adam Smith Enterprises

Bruce Marsh FPC


Tom Atkeson HRS-State Health Offices

Joseph R. Hillring Hillsbourgh County Health

Mary Jo Phillips Moffitt, Hart & Herron, P.A.

Frank Meeker ITT CDC

J.A. Jurgens Parker, Skelding, Malloy &

Chuck Littlejohn Florida Chamber, FES

Brad Hartman GFC

Don Duden DNR

Chris Jensen Exxon E & P Regulation

Charles Blair DACS

Mark Ives Office of Comptroller

Robert Clark WMDs

Ellen Foumier Florida Department of

Tasha Buford Young, von Assdeys, et al.



David Gluckman, Vice-Chairman 122 East Jefferson Street
L. M. Buddy Blain Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
Leslie G. Bromwell Telephone (904) 487-3733
Marilyn E. Croity
Frank X. Friedmann
James L. Lafrenz
Jack Maloy
Frederick C. Prior
Theodore C. Taub
Peter Rudy Wallace October 8-9, 1987
Warren Viessman

A meeting of the full commission was held on Thursday,
October 8 and Friday, October 9, 1987 at the Tampa Hyatt
Regency Westshore. The meeting was attended by members of
the public and agency staff listed at the end of these
minutes and by commission members listed below:

L.M. Buddy Blain Jay Landers
Leslie G. Bromwell Susan Lubitz
Marilyn Crotty Jack Maloy
John M. DeGrove Frederick C. Prior
Frank X. Friedmann / Carol Rist
SDavid Gluckman Theodore C. Taub
SJames L. Lafrenz Warren Viessman, Jr.

Chairman Landers began the evening meeting of the commission
at approximately 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 8th. The
originally scheduled November 20th meeting in West Palm
Beach was again described as a one day meeting at which
public testimony would be taken.

As the meeting progressed, the Commission decided that they
needed to meet prior to November 20, in order to discuss all
previously identified issues. Therefore, a meeting was
scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 1987 to be held in Tampa
at the Airport Marriott.

Chapter 380 Issues

Chairman Landers stated that the focus in the Chapter 380
area within the DRI process was the relationship of
permitting agencies and the regional planning councils
(RPCs), and the authority of RPCs, the Department of

Community Affairs and local governments to make
recommendations that exceed those made as part of permitting
requirements of the substantive agencies. The issue arose
as to whether there was inherent authority in Chapter 380
for local governments to issue development orders which
impose conditions or whether conditions must be based on
local government ordinance.

Commission consultant Bob Apgar reviewed legislation drafted
from previous recommendations. While discussing the
requirements of agencies to participate in the coordinated
review process, it was noted that it is difficult to impose
time frames on a collegial body and obtain input from staff
that would be binding on the collegial body. It was
suggested that it is important to the process that it be
mandatory for the agencies to come to the table and be able
to make decisions regarding their conceptual permits.
Marilyn Crotty described a process where agencies would work
in a coordinated effort to determine what is permitable
rather than analyzing each part in isolation. This in turn
would cause the regional planning council to bring the
agencies together for a series of meeting.

It was noted that a major problem with the DRI process is
the lack of agency attendance at conceptual review meetings.
The agencies sometimes justify their absence because they
have not yet received an application for a permit. Jim
Lafrenz stated that this frustrates the developer as his
purpose is not to submit a permit but to get feedback on the
general acceptability of the development design and design
limitations. The group approved a provision that if the
conceptual permit application is received by the agency and
the agency does not come to the table, the agency would be
penalized by allowing the developer to presume that the
project is permitable and would issue automatically in 90

Regarding the November 20th meeting at which public
reactions to Commission recommendations will be received,
Chairman Landers suggested the need for recommendations of
policy rather than the precise language for statutory
revision. In light of this aim, Chairman Landers presented
goals for the development-of-regional-impact process.
Because of the need to move forward with the decision
making, the consensus approach was abandoned and the
commission began using a voice vote and a show of hands vote
when necessary.



Bob Apgar reviewed draft legislation which provided that the
developer is automatically in the process until and unless
he chooses to give notice to the RPC that he will not
participate. The commissioners approved this provision as
well as setting a thirty day time period in which the
developer must notify the RPC of his decision to opt out
otherwise, he would be locked into the process.

The commissioners discussed making the conceptual review
process more valuable to a developer by freezing the rules
and criteria used in evaluation of a permit as of the date
that the conceptual review process was begun.

the date for agencies to complete rulemaking for new
conceptual permits was changed to July 1, 1989. The
commission did not approve a procedure for the RPC to act as
the coordinator of the review process.

Discussed next was whether the RPC should decide which
agencies would be involved in the conceptual permit review
since they have access to the developer's information
initially. As an alternative the developer could determine
which agencies would be involved. The commissioners
discussed the feasability of allowing the developer to
choose which agencies he would solicit to get conceptual
permits, but this concept was rejected. The commission
voted that all state and regional permitting agencies must
be directly involved in the process.

Currently, there is no provision in the law that requires
the conceptual agency review to be run concurrent with the
DRI review a mechanism was discussed to make them run
concurrently. The discussion revolved around providing an
incentive for long-range planning and certainty in the
process, yet this was weighed against the value of changing
technology which could provide better solutions than those
addressed in the original criteria. Ted Taub expressed the
developer's need to have definite time frames to conduct
business. Bob Apgar pointed out that the sufficiency
reviews during the conceptual process can result in agencies
imposing additional information requirements that delay the
process. Jack Maloy stated that the process' biggest
problem now is uncertainty and the reason a developer would
use the process is to obtain some certainty.

During the 10 years that the conceptual approval remains
valid the criteria under which conceptual permits were
granted would remain in effect. An additional proposal
would allow agencies to retreat from the original approval

under certain circumstances. It was noted that these
exculpatory conditions are of presently a part of agency
rules. On a voice vote these provisions were rejected from
the draft legislation.

The next order of business concerned the addition of
hazardous waste and air quality to those areas for which
agencies must develop conceptual rules and conceptual
permits. Upon motion and vote, this was approved.

Next an attempt was made to resolve the problem where the
local government may be ready to act on the development
order yet the developer has not received conceptual approval
on his permits. Draft legislation was suggested which
would give the RPCs duties to report to local governments
and time frames in which to act. Buddy Blain pointed out
that even conceptual permits are subject to the Chapter 120
challenge process; therefore, the time frames could not be
imposed according to the draft legislation. As a solution,
Bob Apgar suggested that where there was a Chapter 120
challenge, the agency's permit would be dropped out of the
conceptual review process. The commission later voted to
reject a provision that would set time tables for actions by
permitting agencies.

Frank Friedmann distinguished between conceptual permits
issued pursuant to Chapter 380 and regular permits issued
pursuant to Chapters 403 and 373. David Gluckman stressed
the need to retain local autonomy, rejecting an amendment
that would keep local governments from imposing stricter
standards in conflict with the development order.

To aid their analysis of the interrelationship between local
ordinance, Chapter 380 authority and state provisions, Frank
Friedmann described the regulation of the gopher tortoise.
By state law a gopher tortoise cannot be captured; however,
there is no state law that requires the preservation of
gopher tortoise habitat. Local ordinance could be adopted
which would protect gopher tortoise habitat. However, local
governments use Chapter 380 authority to impose conditions
for the protection of habitat. He stressed that these extra
conditions apply only to DRI developers and are not imposed
on other developers. In order to deal with this situation,
a provision was approved that in the absence of specific
authority set forth in an applicable law or ordinance, the
development order shall not conflict with a conceptual


Draft legislation was accepted which would state that the
developer may in his discretion elect to submit a complete
permit application and receive a full permit review
concurrent with development-of-regional-impact (DRI) review.
After further general discussion, the commission members
agreed to adjourn until Friday morning.

The Friday morning meeting began with Marilyn Crotty's
suggestion of the existence of additional recommendations
from the subcommittee on areawide DRIs. The recommendations
had described a funding mechanism for local governments to
fund areawide and downtown DRIs. Marilyn Crotty suggested
there were three areas the subcommittee had focused on: 1)
the conceptual review process 2) a reformation of the
application for development approval and 3) encouraging the
use of areawide and downtown DRIs by providing a funding
mechanism. Although various financing mechanisms were
proposed, Marilyn Crotty stated that there had not been
agreement on how to go forward with these recommendations.
John DeGrove described an up-front financing scheme that
would be a revolving fund. Both John DeGrove and Frank
Friedmann referred to the Governor's interest in funding and
encouraging areawide and downtown DRIs. The motion was made
and passed to encourage the use of areawide and downtown
DRIs by providing funding mechanisms. It was suggested that
inquiry be made in the Governor's office to determine his
position on the financing mechanism.

The Commissioners approved goals for the reformation of the
application for development approval and the procedural
rules for DRI review. These are to maximize coordination
efforts between the DRI review and the permitting process,
facilitate developments of overriding state benefit, and
designate areas suitable for development for which reduced
information requirements shall apply. It was determined that
the DCA, in consultation with the permitting agency, should
initiate this rulemaking.

Department of Environmental Regulation/Water Management
District Issues
Chairman-Landers framed the issues using activity oriented
classifications. He described the Commission's
recommendations made at Captiva to move all water related
permitting to the water management districts (WMDs) and
noted that the Commission did some rethinking at the Ponte
Vedra meeting. He suggested alternatives (1) moving all
water related permitting to the WMDs, or (2) determining a
proper split between DER and the WMDs which could shift


programs either way. Chairman Landers examined the cost of
shifting the DER dredge and fill program to the WMDs as
opposed to shifting the management and storage of surface
water programs from the WMDs to DER. From staff research,
he estimated the cost of the DER program to be $1.5 million
and necessitate approximately 100 staff people. The cost
for the WMDs was $5.75 million and 199 staff people. The
group discussed the value of a cost analysis and noted that
the actual impact of moving either program may not be
directly related to the present cost of the program.

Chairman Landers pointed out that splitting up the
management of the water resource would occur if nonpoint
source regulation were separated from point source
regulation. He noted that groundwater management would also
be split and this was not an improvement. Chairman Landers
pointed to the research capability and funding of WMDs as
two factors favoring the programs movement. He noted that
there would not be a duplication if dredge and fill programs
were moved to the WMDs with programs involving works of the
district and proprietary lands. Chairman Landers recognized
that if the programs were moved, there would be a
correlative need to strengthen the role of the Environmental
Regulation Commission. He stressed the need for adequate
funding for the WMDs should programs be moved to them.

David Gluckman pointed out the different standards and
criteria used under the Henderson Wetlands Act regulation of
dredge and fill and those standards and criteria used by the
WMDs for protecting isolated wetlands. This idea was
challenged by Frank Friedmann who stated that although WMDs
are not looking for archaeological sites, the criteria being
considered are substantially similar. Regarding stormwater
permitting, Frank Friedmann asserted that WMD does examine
water quality when issuing a permit. Jack Maloy stated that
he found there to be a very broad authority for WMDs to
examine water quality under Chapter 373 and that during his
work with WMDs this had never been challenged.

Buddy Blain suggested that the law should take effect on
July 1, 1988 because the fiscal year for the WMDs begins
October 1, 1988 and that the recommendations be implemented
by October 1989. He suggested the legislation should also
rewrite the Henderson Wetlands Act to substitute the WMDs
for "the department." Bud Viessman directed the
Commissioners attention to a proposal he had distributed
earlier. Bud Viessman proposed that by 1989 exclusive
permitting authority for nonpoint source programs should be
in the WMDs. He pointed out that such assignment might not

be feasible unless other recommendations were implemented,
therefore interim assignment to DER might be needed. He
would vest exclusive permitting authority for point source
discharges with DER. He reiterated that the WMDs have a
much broader role than regulation. He urged the need for a
state-wide policy on water that he pointed which would aid
in directing agency programs. Les Bromwell supported Bud
Viessman's recommendations and the idea of phasing in
program authority in WMDs. He was also supportive of a
strong state water policy. Preferring management of the
total resource, Les Bromwell stated that he preferred a
phased in approach where eventually the WMDs would be the
regional resource manager.

John DeGrove moved to adopt Bud Viessmann's recommendations.
These recommendations are to move nonpoint sources to the
WMDs, retain point sources in DER with review and implied
possibility of phasing in additional duties for the WMDs.

CQmmission consideration of moving nonpoint source programs
to the WMDs included the exception that the WMDs'
projects would be permitted by DER when they include dredge
and fill. John DeGrove stated that districts should not be
permitting themselves and upon a vote the Commission agreed.

Rejecting the split of nonpoint and point sources of
pollution, David Gluckman explained that the pollution
problem is still the same. He found that this would not
accomplish the goal of protecting Florida waters. He voiced
concern that Chapter 373 does not have appropriate water
quality standards and would not authorize WMDs to consider
water quality impacts. He noted that establishing a water
quality section in each of the WMDs would be duplicative
with DER.

Jack Maloy defended splitting authority by activity saying
that it solved some of the problems and that it matches
assets with programs. He stated that he did not believe the
resource would be more vulnerable because of this decision.

Marilyn Crotty favored the split as a first step in a phased
process. This phased process would be completed when point
sources were finally moved to the WMDs. Les Bromwell agreed
that this should be a phasing in process. He suggested that
down the road he would like to see regional water management
agencies and regional resource management agencies. He
described a system where the WMDs would have non-regulatory
functions and that the environmental resource management
agency would be the regulator. Carol Rist expressed an

interest in having a single resource management agency on
the regional level. She concluded that it would be
profitable to take the big step and not make the transfer of
programs an incremental process. She expressed her opinion
that managing a resource is best accomplished by permitting
and that all permitting activities should be in the same

Chairman Landers pointed out that the last reorganization
was twelve years ago (1975) and that it may be a
substantial time period may pass before the evaluation
process is reinitiated. So he encouraged the Commissioners
not to be timid about making major revisions.

Frank Friedmann stated that there were three issues to be
resolved: 1) a mechanism to provide study as to what would
happen after 1989, 2) the supervisor capacity of DER, and 3)
the constitutional questions about funding for the WMDs. He
reintroduced a statutory change to take effect July 1, 1988
which would create s.373.427 and read: "1(a). When a water
management district has issued a permit pursuant to this
part, the department shall not require the permitted to
obtain a permit for dredging and filling established under
provisions of part VIII of Chapter 403.
(b). This prohibition shall extend to all dams,
impoundments, resevoirs, appurtenant works or works which
are included in the permit issued by the water management
2. In issuing a permit for a dam, resevoir, appurtenant
work, or work in a wetland, the governing board may consider
those criteria contained in 403.908 and 403.919." The
Commission determined that the amendments were unnecessary
since the program shift would eliminate the duplication of
permitting programs. As a result, the motion was withdrawn.

Returning to the program transfer issue, John DeGrove stated
that he would like the recommendation to include the future
action of combining management of the water resource to
incorporate water quality and water quantity with planning,
management and regulation at the regional level. He agreed
that program transfers must be accompanied with clear water
quality standards. He stated he is convinced that the way
to manage the resource is holistically and at a regional

Bud Viessman submitted written language that in 1994 an
assessment should be made of the performance of the WMDs and
DER to determine whether additional transfer of functions to
the WMDs is warranted. John DeGrove described the doctrine

of unanticipated consequences which revealed the
advisability of an assessment to take place after the
initial transfer. Although various forms of assessment and
study were discussed, no recommendation was made.

The Commission voted affirmatively to move nonpoint source
programs to the WMDs by 1989 as the first step in a process
to move all water programs to the WMDs by 1994.

Buddy Blain moved that the Commission request staff to go
through Part VIII of Chapter 403 and change the term
"department" and leave "water management district" thus
giving the WMD the criteria contained in 403.918 and
403.919. These sections would become part of Chapter 373
rather than remaining part of Chapter 403. The staff was
asked to point out statutory inconsistencies. He also
suggested that in every part of Chapter 373 that uses the
term "governing board or the department" merely delete "or
the department." He suggested deleting the provisions that
the department may do anything the WMD may do making it very
clear that Chapter 373 applies to the exclusive authority of
the WMDs.

Voicing concern about WMD funding, the group discussed the
constitutional amendment regarding the milage cap and some
alternative funding source for the Northwest Florida WMD.
It was suggested that as a precondition to the transfer of
authority from DER to the WMDs that all WMDs have the same
tax milage available. Therefore, they conditioned the
Commission's recommendation on a constitutional change which
would give Northwest Florida WMD the same taxing ability as
the other districts. They approved a recommendation that a
proposed constitutional amendment be submitted to the people
which would equalize milage authorization and limitations
for water management purposes.

A motion failed that there be no transfer of dredge and fill
jurisdiction to St. Johns River, Suwannee River, Southwest
Florida or South Florida WMD unless a constitutional milage
was changed. It was suggested that funds could be
transferred to the Northwest Florida WMD out of DER's budget
and they -ould hire DER staff people. It was decided that
the added regulatory WMD responsibilities should be funded
through general revenue funding where necessary. John
DeGrove's motion was approved that Commission
recommendations are preconditioned on the legislature
assuring adequate funding for the transfer of regulatory
responsibilities including appropriation of general revenue
where required.

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