Title: EESC. Meeting Schedule, Revised September 17, 1987 for October, 1987 - January 8, 1988. and also EESC Unapproved Draft, Meeting Minutes, September 11-
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00052227/00001
 Material Information
Title: EESC. Meeting Schedule, Revised September 17, 1987 for October, 1987 - January 8, 1988. and also EESC Unapproved Draft, Meeting Minutes, September 11-
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: UF00052227
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

County, reviewed his thirteen year involvement in
environmental protection of the most densely populated
county in Florida. He pointed out that environmental
permitting is part of the puzzle of local development. Many
programs were begun locally where DER was not able to
provide the staff time, technical assistance nor collect
data. He described the sense of community identity
experienced by the staff. The County as a developer must go
through the same permitting process as the private
applicant, and so understands cost effectiveness for
projects. He stated that the county tries to promote a
coordinated review process where there is multiple agency

Representing Seminole County was the County Attorney, Nikki
Clayton and Jim Bible, Director of the Environmental
Services Department. Crowd noise from interested and
informed local residents has an important influence on the
quality of local decisions, explained Nikki Clayton.
Describing environmental permitting as a subset of growth
management, she stated that such programs must be responsive
to the people who are going to continue to live in the
area. Regarding those issues properly preempted by the
state, she listed only activities which provide a state or
regional benefit that should supercede the local ability to
interfere, such as jails and hazardous waste facilities.

Glenn Ray speaking on behalf of the Florida Association of
County Commissioners commended the balanced presentation of
the speakers and stated that overlap was inevitable in light
of the local responsibility for land use planning and the
direct imposition of federal regulations on the counties.

There followed a lengthy question and answer session in
which local government representatives sat as a panel. The
Chairman appointed a local government subcommittee to be
chaired by Susan Lubitz, to include Marilyn Crotty, Jack
Maloy, Frank Friedmann and Buddy Blain.

Stating that there was a need to extend the next meeting of
the Commission beyond the Friday, October 9, date that had
been scheduled, the Chairman requested that another meeting
period be added. Staff was directed to poll the members to
determine the most suitable time.

Bob Apgar, consultant to the Commission, then gave a summary


of the effect of the conservation and coastal elements of
"the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act stating that
local governments are going to be involved in environmental
regulation and enforcement. The Act requires that within
one year of adopting their plan the local government must
adopt land use regulations that implement those plans.

Discussion between Commission members and speakers continued
at great length until the meeting was adjourned.


The following people attended the Environmental Efficiency
Study Commission meeting on September 11, 1987, in Ponte

Name Or animation

Tim Lynch Fla. High Speed Rail Comm.

Bob Harris Haben & Culpepper, P.A.

Dan Fernandez SWFWMD

Wayne Daltry SWFRPC

Charles F. Justice NCFRPC

Mary G. Wiser Tampa Bay RPC

Charles Blair DACS

Ernest Frey DER

Rick Wilkins DER

David W.. Fisk SRWMD

Rich McWilliams SWFWMD

Bruce Congleton Fla. Phosphate Council

Peter Rosendahl Fla. Phosphate Council

Frank L. Hearne Environmental Science and
Jimmy D. Harp Enron Corp.

Don Morgan SRWMD

Bruce Parker SJRWMD

Brad Hartman Fla. Game & Fish Comm.

Carolyn A. Dekle SFRPC

Susanne Hesse Cusick 1000 Friends of Florida

Keith Hetrick Senate ECCA Comm.

Barry Kling House Natural Resources Comm.

Thomas D. Atkeson HRS

Glenn Lowe SJRWMD

Jennifer Burdick SJRWMD

Mary Jo Phillips West Coast Regional Water
Mgmt. Authority

Marvin Boutwell City Engineer Jacksonville

S.A. Salem Director, Public Works Dept.,

Will Abberger Cabinet Aide, Bill Gunter

Karen MacFarland Governor's Office

John Flowe Duval County Local Program

Irene Kennedy Quincy SFWMD

Steve Light SFWMD'

Diana Sawaya-Crane Attorney General's Office

Beverly Keneagy Fla. Times-Union

Rep. Rick Dantzler State

Ellen Fournier Dept. of Commerce

Ray G. Brookes Center for Government
Responsibility, Univ. of Fla.

Mary Jane Angelo Center for Government
Responsibility, Univ. of Fla.

John K. McPherson Center for Government

Jake Stowers Pinellas County
Administrative Office

The following people attended the Environmental Efficiency.
Study Commission meeting on September 12, 1987, in Ponte

Name Organization

Wally Livingstone Dade County Health Dept.

Bob Harris Haben & Culpepper, P.A.

John K. McPherson CGR, U.F. Law School

Jimmy D. Harp Enron Corp.

Charles Blair DACS

Frank Sholtes Peoples Gas System

Tim Lynch Flas. High Speed Rail Comm.

Jim Bible Seminole County

Nikki Clayton Seminole County

Jake Stowers Pinellas County

Glenn Ray Flas. Assoc. Counties

Charles Lee Fla. Audubon

Mary G. Wiser Tampa Bay RPC

Dan Fernandez SWFWMD

Rick Wilkins DER Tallahassee

John Schert Alachua County

Kenneth Manual HRS Jacksonville

Umesh Asrani Palm Beach Co. Health Dept.

Richard Owen SFWMD

Steve Light SFWMD

Irene Kennedy Quincy SFWMD

Thomas D. Atkeson HRS/State Health Office

Jeremy Craft DNR

Will Abberger Cabinet Aide, Bill Gunter

John R. Wehle DER

Debra Ousley Haskell Co.

Gary Shaffer DER Jacksonville

Keith Hetrick Senate EECA

Jim Sams Gainesville Sun

Marvin Boutwell City Engineer, Jacksonville

Karen MacFarland Governor's Office

Diana Sawaya-Crane Attorney General's Office

Barry Kling House Natural Resources

Cecil Howard Fla. League of Cities

Mary Jo Phillips Moffit, Hart, Rigsby &
Herron, P.A.


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. Crotty
John M. DeGrove
James L. Lafrenz
Susan R. Lubitz
Robert A. Mandell
Frederick C. Prior
W. F. Spann
Theodore C. Taub
Peter Rudy Wallace Revised September 17, 1987
Warren Viessman

October 8 9
Commission Discussion of Preliminary

Tampa, Hyatt Regency Westshore
At Tampa International Airport
6200 Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607
'- (813) 874-1234

October 8: 7:00 10:30 p.m.
October 9: 9 a.m. 5 p.m.

November 20
Public Testimony on Commission Recommendations

West Palm Beach, Royce Hotel
At West Palm Beach International Airport
1601 Belvedere Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
(305) 689-6400

December 11

January 8, 1988


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. Crotty
John M. DeGrove
James L. Lafrenz
Susan R. Lubitz
Robert A. Mandell
Frederick C. Prior
Carol Rist
W. F. Spann
Theodore C. Taub
Peter Rudy Wallace
Warren Viessman

LOCATION: Tampa, Hyatt Regency Westshore
At Tampa International Airport
6200 Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607
(813) 874-1234

DATE: Thursday, October 8, 1987

TIME: 7:00 10:30 p.m.

SCHEDULE: Commission Discussion of Preliminary

DATE: Friday, October 9, 1987

TIME: 9:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m.

SCHEDULE: Commission Discussion of Preliminary

Environmental Efficiency Study Commission


September 11-12, 1987

A meeting of the full Commission was held September 11-12,
1987, in Ponte Vedra, Florida at the Ponte Vedra Club. The
meeting was attended by the Commission members listed below
and by members of the public and agency staff listed at the
end of these minutes:

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

Chairman Landers began the meeting by introducing and
welcoming new Commission members Frank X. Friedmann and Jack
Maloy. The members then proceeded around the table giving
short summaries of their personal positions and
reconsiderations of recommendations made at the meeting in

The first substantive area of discussion was the Chapter 380
process. The Commissioners struggled with developing a
process to coordinate or fold permit reviews into the
conceptual review process successfully. Currently the
developer provides a great deal of information and this goes
to the local government for a final local hearing in which
the local government considers the report and its own
staff's concerns and comes out with the development order
covering the entire project. The desire was voiced to
design some kind of agency interaction so that when the
local government has its final hearing it not only has the
product of the regional planning council but it also has the
agency's product to use in coming up with a development
order. Noting that is consistent with the whole scheme of
DRI review, the goal was stated of providing information to
better enable a local government to deal with the large
development that comes to it for a development order.

It was discussed that a developer may not want to spend the
money to produce the data that an agency will require to

make its final decision when he is initially talking to them
about what the project is going to look like. It is not
cost effective for him. The term conceptual review
describes a process where the developer is not really
required to eventually come back and obtain the permit from
the agency in return for going through the process, he gets
the presumption that he is entitled to a permit when he
finally comes -in, while his application is consistent with
what went through the conceptual review.

Statute changes discussed would start with striking the
title, which would give a new image to this process and that
will let people know we're making some substantial changes
here. Rather than many permit reviews by the agencies that
are going to proceed parallel to the DRI review, the
preference was to bring the agencies into the DRI review,
make them parties to the DRI review at a minimum, the
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), the Water
Management Districts (WMDs) and the Florida Department of
Transportation (DOT). The group determined to tailor some
statutory language that describes the difference in agency
function and keeps the agencies from crossing lines. It
would be possible to go through the DRI review with
information for the local governments that comes not just
from the RPC, but from a number of different agencies. At
least one RPC (South Florida) operates fairly close to this
model right now.

It was suggested that some language be developed to define
for the local government the interface between the agency's
conclusion and the local government's decision, which was
recognized as a difficult task; and must be balanced with
Florida's tradition of strong local government. This would
put the regional planning council in a more important role
in the process than they're in now. A statutory mandate was
discussed to make the RPC the coordinator, the interfacer,
and the manager of this process.

It was noted that permitting agencies are concerned about
the additional administrative burden of having to get to
more meetings, however, it could be possible for the RPC to
go to agency headquarters. Regarding one stop preliminary
approval, a problem was raised about getting the agencies
into this process and keeping the 120 procedures wrapped
around the agency's permit. An agency's decision is subject
to the administrative hearing requirements of Chapter 120.
When any substantially affected person receives the agency's


notice of intent t :ake an action can take a cition for a
hearing on that action, yet conceptual approval is not a
final agency action.

Two more Chapter 380 issues were presented. These were:
1) If determinations by permitting agencies are binding on
the RPCs and DCA, are they also binding on local
governments? and 2) Is there independent authority in
Chapter 380 to fill in gaps of protection, in such areas as
habitat protection.

It was suggested that the Chapter 380 recommendation should
be changed to broaden the problem statement and describe the
problem that arises when agencies change requirements after
the development order is issued.

The group then turned their attention to the proper role for
WMDs. Bud Viessman pointed out that the WMDs are uniquely
set up to be the guiding force in setting state water
policy. While the WMDs have significant expertise that
could be used to handle permitting, this could detract from
their role in policy setting.

Frank Friedmann pointed out that WMDs have a unique ability
to study, budget and implement a policy within one group of
people. He voiced concern that this successful formula
might break down if the WMDs were forced to try to fund the
regulation of point sources of pollution with ad valoreum

_ Chairman Landers analyzed a strategy of dealing with the
water quality of a receiving body of water by pointing out
how splitting the management of a resource could fail. He
pointed out that the waste load allocation for effluent
discharge would be regulated as a point source program, the
reason the water body may be below water quality standards
could be problem with nonpoint source discharges to the
receiving water body.

Responding to a document submitted by the WMDs and DER,
there was an interest in following their suggested split of
authority between the agencies. This split would place
surface water management programs including dredge and fill
and stormwater in the WMDs. DER would retain responsibility
for point sources and waste. The group found that more
information was needed and gave an assignment to the DER and
WMD staff to further explain the meaning of the program
split they had developed. Noting that the next commission
meeting is October 9, a time period of two weeks was
suggested to complete the assignment.


The next topic of discussion was the DER/DNR overlapping
programs for dredge and fill in sovereign submerged lands.
Reviewing the non-final recommendation it was explained that
these would continue the state's right to assert its special
concerns that flows from ownership. The appeal procedure
was discussed under s. 373.114, and there was concern about
the likelihood that five representatives of the WMDs would
have to go to the Cabinet meetings.

Regarding mining programs, it was explained that the reason
to transfer the program out of DNR is that it fits with the
dredge and fill program which had been tentatively moved to
the WMDs, since it is a land use that affects water
functions. Conversly it was pointed out that DNR has one
Bureau of Reclamation and should the program go to the WMDs
that each would have to develop their own expertise.

Groundwater was discussed as currently being split between
DER who adopts groundwater standards and the WMDs who issue
permits for the consumptive use of groundwater. In choosing
a format for regulation two possible strategies were
examined. Regulation could be based on the activity being
permitted or it could be based on the resource. However,
since the resource is dynamic, it would depend on the stage
at which it is being regulated. For example, it was noted
that groundwater can very quickly become surface water and
visa versa.

The consensus was to retain the preliminary recommendations
made regarding oil and gas regulation and to keep these
programs at DNR.

A discussion of the coastal construction moved into the
Coastal Zone management program (federally funded) which is
presently at DER. Construction projects reviewed under this
program involved land use planning., The group found it
logical to move this program to DCA because of the grants
they administer to local governments and because it relates
to the coastal element of the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act. John DeGrove found that there could be better
strategic planning for the funds if the the whole unit were
moved to DCA.

Beach restoration was discussed as it related to DNR's
legislative directive to have an active role in promoting
beach restoration and the role of DER in protecting water
quality. Noting that the issuance of two permits was



necessary for a restoration project because it is always
conducted in waters of the state, the group determined that
the instances of conflict could best be resolved with long
range planning jointly conducted by the water quality agency
and DNR.

The group determined that it would be best to distinguish
between drinking water programs, local land use decisions
made to protect drinking water well fields and the
construction of a well system to provide drinking water.

Carol Rist summarized the previous position of the
commission in placing the drinking water program with HRS
exclusively, with full responsibility for monitoring and
enforcement of drinking water after it leaves the well
head. The construction of a drinking water well, however,
would be regulated by the water management district. The
Captiva recommendations of the Commission were to have DER
be completely out of the drinking water program. Therefore,
a differentiation was made between the delivery system and
the construction of the well. It was noted that private
wells do not require any permitting but that there is a
split between supply systems that provide water for
community and non-community systems. Therefore, a change
was made to the recommendations to name the issue "drinking
water" and distinguish it from well construction.

Summarizing, Chairman Landers stated that an applicant would
go to the water management district to get a permit to
construct a well. HRS would take over at that point and if
there is a problem meeting drinking water standards then HRS
would handle that. If it turns out that the groundwater is
polluted and fails to meet drinking water standards, HRS
shuts them down. However, HRS would have no authority over
the land uses around the drinking water well field or
pesticide use. He pointed out that the ERC could still
adopt drinking water standards.

The licensing of water well contractors was discussed and it
was determined that this licensing program should be moved
to the Department of Professional Regulation.

The Commissioners then discussed the reaction to the
recommendation to combine all salt and freshwater species
regulations and to create a new Department of Fish and
Wildlife. David Gluckman pointed out that there was a need
for constitutional protection for bag limits and for
seasons as a part of fisheries regulation but there was a


perceived need to have a legislatively supported agency.
His strategy was to direct the legislature to create a new
agency for fresh and saltwater fisheries regulation as well
as all game animals and this would be done by abolishing the
constitutional agency of the Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. Concern was voiced that there is a
constitutional limit on the number of agencies and this
number is nearly exhausted. When questioned as to whether
multiple agencies was a real problem, David Gluckman pointed
out that we are not efficiently handling the resource and
that it is deteriorating very rapidly. It was pointed out
that there are two agencies dealing with fish and that could
be viewed as a duplication but that this was seen as an
efficiency and management of resources issue. The chairman
pointed out that he had heard discussion for many years
that there should not be a separate marine patrol and
freshwater commission with separate law enforcement
programs. Carol Rist pointed out that if the goal is to put
all "critters" in one agency that it would be possible to
put them under an existing agency such as DNR. The chairman
suggested that this could be a new Division of Wildlife
within the Department of Natural Resources. Buddy Blain
pointed out that the constitutional amendment needed to
abolish the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (GFWFC)
would create a tremendous political consequence. It was
noted that the GFWFC has been very active in seeking
protection as a part of the DRI process but that their power
is limited because of their lack of independent authority to
protect habitat and their need to rely on unspecified
authority in Chapter 380.

It was determined that the recommendation should read
"abolish the constitutional agency of the Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission and combine species regulation
in a new department."

The discussion having gone on beyond 5:00, the Commission
adjourned until Saturday morning. The Commission met
Saturday morning to discuss local government programs.

In reviewing local programs the Chairman stated that it
would be helpful for participants to describe how local
pollution control programs work, how they are set up, their
authority and how they interface with state agencies.

Rick Wilkins, Deputy Director of the Division of Permitting,
DER, stated that the present administration desired that the
lowest level of government that is competent should perform


the administrative duties of program regulation. He
explained that a local program essentially supplies more
staff for DER purposes. He described delegation as either
partial, for a specific purpose such as inspections,
monitoring or lab work, with DER issuing permits, or a total
delegation with DER oversight.

Representing the Florida Local Environmental Regulation
Association and Dade County Environmental Resource
Management, Tony Clemente stated that local programs arise
where the state is not adequately addressing a local problem
or where it is not enforcing its rules. He listed several
advantages of local programs. Primary among these was the
sense of ownership local directors and staff have in the
resources they are protecting. He pointed out the longevity
of employees, the higher pay scale, and the accountability
the staff sense toward their neighbors and community. He
described the need for local governments to have inhouse
expertise to seek the permits needed for government
projects, and the access problem experienced when district
offices are remote. He remarked that there can be a sense
of urgency at the local level, where laws can be enacted
quickly and response time for onsite inspections is short.
He pointed out that local governments can issue tickets
under a fine system for violations and are able to use
zoning and building codes to develop a management scheme.
He found that local governments were unable to address
regional problems such as the ozone level and the siting of
unpopular facilities, thus representing a continuing need
for a partnership with the state.

From Alachua County, John Schert, Director, Department of
Environmental Services, stated that the local program in his
area was the result of a severe local problem of groundwater
contamination caused by leaking underground storage tanks.
The rapid increase in size of his department he attributed
to the County Commissioners' not being satisfied with the
level of environmental protection provided by the state.
Through the use of slides, he showed the unique hydrology of
Alachua County which resulted in a division of the county by
water management districts through which St. Johns WMD
surface water becomes Suwannee River WMD groundwater.
Although the county continues to move toward more delegation
of programs, he stated that because of limited funding, they
would prioritize which areas were not being adequately
addressed by the state to satisfy local needs.

Jake Stowers, Assistant County Administrator, Pinellas


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