MEMORANDUM wi. l- '
TO: JAMES A. MANN, Director, Water Resources Division
FROM: JAY T. AHERN, Staff Attorney' -1
RE: Environmental Reorganization Law
I have reviewed the inquiry from Harry Oleson on the interpretation of
the above law and will answer the questions to the best of my opinion.
The collocation of environmental districts with the water management
district is based on the qualifying words that it be done to the maximum
extent practicable. Thus, I believe-the collocation in the opinion of
the Secretary will be done only when it is reasonably feasible and con-
The boundaries of the environmental districts shall be coincidental with
the water management district, if practicable, but do not have to be
bound to the same boundaries when it would frustrate the purposes of the
Act or not be feasible.
As to Section 6(2) there is no change from existing or existing agree-
ment with the Regional Planning Councils. Also, I see no increase in
water quality powers unless the Secretary of Department of Environmental
Regulation finds the water districts has the financial and technical
capability to handle it and delegates the power to water districts. This
is a matter of proof to the Secretary and District policy decision to
assume the responsibility.
On power plant siting, the water districts have not been placed under
any division as of this date and have only its existing powers on the
In Section 7(1)(a) of the act, the activities listed therein are able to
be permitted from the District level and, if it exceeds these guidelines,
the permit comes from the Department level. On District works, the Water
Districts would appear to be able to permit under Chapter 16J-4FAC but
it is still subject to other agencies permitting procedures as presently
exist in our system.
James A. Mann
June 24, 1975
The encroachment line inquiry is concerned with the powers of the Trustees
of Internal Improvement Trust Fund which are transferred under the reorgan-
ization. It appears not to change what already is in existence on areas
The inquiry on exempt public water supply is misunderstood. It is not an
exemption but a placing of responsibility for such activity into a
responsive agency capable from a technical viewpoint of handling it under
the reorganization. The water supply mentioned in Section 9(2) is directed
at public water suppliers rather than water supply in a generic sense.
On the transfer of planning functions under the law, you have to read
Section 12 in conjunction with the transferred powers under Section 11
under the law. Thus, the duties of the Bureau of Water Resources are now
to be in Department of Environmental Regulations. Thus, I view the State
Water Use Plan work now under the jurisdiction of the new department (DER).
The exact breakdown within the new department is being worked out. Where
the water districts will fit into the new internal structure of divisions
appears ambiguous at this time.
cc: Myron G. Gibbons, Esquire
L. M. Blain, Esquire /