Title: Senate Resources Committee Questionnaire #2
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000847/00001
 Material Information
Title: Senate Resources Committee Questionnaire #2
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Senate Resources Committee Questionnaire #2
General Note: Box 7, Folder 3 ( Vail Conference 1988 - 1988 ), Item 18
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000847
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, 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





SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE #2
Introduction
The provisions of s. 373.0693 and 373.0695, F.S., and s.
373.073-373.103, F.S., have been scheduled for repeal effective October 1,
1988, by Chapter 82-46, Laws of Florida, and scheduled for review pursuant to
s.11.611 in advance of that date. The following questions are intended to
assist in the legislative review of these provisions.

A. The Law

1. List the specific statutory powers and responsibilities of the
governing board.
It is difficult to summarize the responsibilities of the Governing-
Board in narrative form. Therefore, the specific statutes requested are
summarized in the Appendix. See Tab 1. References to the substantive
responsibilities of protecting the water resources under Parts II, III and IV
have not been included. Section 373.103 authorizes these powers to be
vested in the Governing Board.

List any other Florida Statute in which the governing board is
affected or mentioned in any way.

Other statutes listed in Appendix. See Tab 2.

2. List the primary reasons for the creation of the governing
board. Attach any reports, studies, or issue papers that documented
the situation or problem which led to the creation of the governing
board.

The creation of the Governing Board cannot be separated from the
adoption of the Florida Water Resources Act, Chapter 373 F.S. which was
adopted in 1972. That Act was influenced substantially by the Model
Water Code and the lessons learned from the accumulated years of state
involvement in actively managing the water resources of the State. The
Model Water Code provided the direction in laying out the various water
resource programs that needed to be developed (e.g., water use, surface
water management, etc.).
In the book Water Law and Administration, the Florida Experience
by Maloney, Plager and Baldwin, the authors review the hydrologic cycle
and point out the increasing need for water as Florida continues to
develop. They conclude that "On the whole, Florida's water resources



.57








should exceed the demands for water in the foreseeable future, provided
these resources are properly managed. However the data...as well as
several authorities, indicate that the rate of water consumption for
beneficial purposes is rapidly increasing in Florida, and the changeability
of the available water supplies with respect to time and place may create
conditions whereby the water requirements of a given area will exceed
the quantities available during certain periods of the year." Such a
severe drought occurred in the years 1970-71.
The results of the 1971 Governor's Conference on Water
Management in South Florida provided the drafters of the Water
Resources Act with an analysis of emerging water supply and
environmental issues. A series of recommendations was developed that
accurately identified the scope and variety of capabilities that the
regional districts and their governing boards would need to manage
effectively. Included in the Appendix is a copy of "A Statement to Rubin
O'D Askew Governor of the State of Florida from the Governor's
Conference on Water Management in South Florida." See Tab 3.
The primary reasons for the adoption of Chapter 373 were to protect
the water resources of the state and to plan for Florida's water future.
Specifically, the legislature recognized that "the waters in the state are
among its most basic resources. Such waters have not heretofore been
conserved or fully controlled so as to realize their full beneficial use."
Thus, Chapter 373 was designed:
"a.To provide for the management of water and related land
resources;
b. To promote the conservation, development, and proper
utilization of surface and groundwater;
c. To develop and regulate dams, impoundments, reservoirs, and
other works and to provide water storage for beneficial purposes;
d. To prevent damage from floods, soil erosion, and excessive
drainage;
e. To preserve natural resources, fish and wildlife;
f. To promote recreational development, protect public lands, and
assist in maintaining the navigability of rivers and harbors; and
g. Otherwise to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of
the people of this state."
The Legislature recognized that the water resource problems of the state
vary from region to region. A state agency was given the responsibility
of overseeing implementation of the legislative goals through
delegation, as much as practicable, to the governing board of a water
management district. The structure of the Governing Board closely
followed the existing model of boards created for flood control and
water supply. The experience of the Central and Southern Florida Flood
Control District (C&SFFCD) since 1949 has shown this system to be
basically sound. (A brief summary of the history of the C&SFFCD is
included in the Appendix. See Tab 4.)





2








Briefly outline the legislative actions that have had an effect on
the duties, purposes, or organization of the governing board. Discuss
these actions chronologically by legislative session.

An outline of the legislative actions is included in the Appendix. See
Tab 5.

3. What is the rationale for the governing board terms
expiring on July 1 in any given year?

There is no stated or known rationale.

B. Rules and Regulations

1. Do the statutes give the governing board rulemaking
authority? If so, cite the statute.


Section 373.044



Section 373.088


Section 373.113



Section 373.171


Authorizes the governing board to make and adopt
reasonable rules, regulations, and orders which are
consistent with law in administering Chapter 373,
Florida Statutes.
Authorizes the governing board to adopt rules to
provide for assessment and collection of reasonable
fees for certain real estate transactions.
Authorizes the governing board to adopt,
promulgate and enforce such regulations as may be
reasonably necessary to effectuate its powers,
duties, and functions in administering the provisions
of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes.
Authorizes the governing board to establish rules,
regulations or orders affecting the use of water, as
conditions warrant, and forbidding the construction
of new diversion facilities or wells, the initiation of
new water uses, or the modification of any existing
uses, diversion facilities, or storage facilities within
the affected area; make other rules, regulations,
and orders necessary for the preservation of the
interest of the public and of affected water users.






3







2. List the chapter, subject, and effective date of those rules
which the governing board has adopted.

The rules that the Governing Board has adopted are included in the
Appendix. See Tab 6.


3. Explain any objections by the Administrative Procedures
Committee to any rule proposed by the governing board. How were
these objections resolved?

There has been one formal objection by the JAPC to a rule which had
been in effect for several years. This was rule 40E-4.301 (1)(j) which
required a surface water management permit applicant to provide
reasonable assurances that the proposed system was in conformity with
the land use plan of the local government. The District originally
informed the committee that it would evaluate the issue and report
back. However, upon reconsideration, the District decided to repeatthe
rule while it was evaluating the issue.
There have been several occasions when the staff of the Joint
Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) has made suggestions or
objections to proposed rules. These have been discussed with the JAPC
staff and resolved through either minor or substantive modifications to
the rule, if District staff could not otherwise resolve JAPC staff concerns.

4. List in the same manner as in question 2 above all other
state agency rules that pertain in any way to the governing board.

Other state agency rules that pertain to the Governing Board are
included in the Appendix. See Tab 7.

C. Organization and Finance

1. Does the governing board have a set of goals to guide its
activities? If so, please discuss.

Yes, it does have a set of goals to guide its activities. They are
included in the District's Mission Statement.
"The Mission of the South Florida Water Management District
is to manage water and related resources for the benefit of the
public and in keeping with the needs of the region. The key
elements of the Mission are: environmental protection and


4








enhancement, water supply, flood protection, and water
quality protection."
"The Mission is accomplished through the combined efforts
of planning and research, operations and maintenance,
community and government relations, land management,
regulation and construction. Inherent in the Mission is the
responsibility to assist the Public and Government Officials by
protecting water resources and by identifying and
recommending options for incorporating water resource
considerations into land use decisions."
The above Mission Statement was adopted by the Governing Board on
February 10, 1984. A great deal of time and effort was put into the
Mission Statement to make sure it related to the goals of the District.
It is a collective response to the needs of the District, which were
derived from the District's review of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and a
subsequent determination of the essential responsibilities under that
Chapter.

2. Please list the governing board members, their addresses,
and terms of appointment.


Nathaniel P. Reed
P. O. Box 375
One Riverview Road
Jupiter Island
Hobe Sound, FL 33455
8/5/85 7/1/89
Nancy Roen
General Development Corp.
1111 South Bayshore Drive
Miami, FL 33131
8/5/85- 7/1/89


Mike Stout
Southeast Business Corp.
4364- 35 Street
Orlando, FL 32811
7/1/87- 7/1/91

James F. Garner
Pavese, Garner, et al
P. O. Drawer 1507
Ft. Myers, FL 33902
7/1/87 -7/1/91


Oscar M. Corbin, Jr.
1306 Shadow Lane
Ft. Myers, FL 33901
8/5/85 -7/1/89


J. D. York
McArthur Management Co.
Suite 206
3226 S. W. Martin Downs Blvd.
Palm City, FL 33490
6/11/87 7/1/90

Arsenio Milian
President
Deltona Utilities
3250 S. W. 3 Avenue
Miami, FL 33129
7/1/87- 7/1/91
Doran A. Jason
The Doran Jason Company
Suite 60
799 Brickell Plaza
Miami, FL 33131
7/1/87 7/1/91


5








Fritz Stein
400 N. W. 16 Street
Belle Glade, FL
7/1/87- 7/1/91

3. Are members required to publicly disclose their finances
pursuant to Chapter 112, F.S.?

Yes, governing board members are considered "local officers" under
section 112.3145, F.S.

4. Please describe the organizational or functional relationship
between the Governing Board and the Department of Environmental
Regulation. Does the governing board make recommendations
directly to the Governor and Legislature, or does it make them to the
DER?

The DER is charged with exercising general supervisory authority
over the water management districts. The exclusive authority to review
any order of rule of a water management district rests with the Land and
Water Adjudicatory Commission. However, the DER has the exclusive
authority to review the rules of a water management district to insure
consistency with the state water policy.
The governing board is a decision making body as opposed to an
advisory body. As such, it does not, as a normal course of business, make
recommendations to other decision making bodies. When the board does
make recommendations, such recommendations are made directly to the
Governor, Legislature, and Department of Environmental Regulation
(DER).

5. Please provide a copy of the operating budget approved by
the governing board for the last two years.

A copy of the operating budget is included in the Appendix. See
Tab 8.

6. Please provide a copy of the independent audit reports for
the last two years and any district responses to the audits.

A copy of the last two years independent audits are included in the
Appendix. See Tab 9.


6








7. What are the current and proposed millage rates for the
basins and the districts?
Current Proposed Revised
(1986-1987) (Tentative (As of 8/14/87)
Budget
Adopted
7/10/87)
District .2 .291 .254
Okeechobee Basin .313 .326 .303
Big Cypress Basin .116 .116 .126
Total Millage (District and
Okeechobee Basin) .513 .617 .557
The tentative budget for 1987-88 will be considered by the Governing
Board on September 10, 1987, and the final budget will be considered for
adoption on September 23,1987.

D. Activities and Accomplishments

1. Describe the programs and activities over which the
governing board provides leadership and policy direction.

All SFWMD policies and activities are established and/or guided by
the Governing Board. The Governing Board also provides guidance
during the policy formation process through workshops and hearings.
Implementation of the District's programs and activities is accomplished
by the staff subject to oversight and review by the Board. A list of the
major programs that the District is currently engaged in is included in the
Appendix. See Tab 10.

2. How does the existence of the governing board benefit the
public?

Governing Board members bring to the policy making process at the
monthly board meetings, a broad range of views, backgrounds,
professional experience, and insights. They understand and are skilled in
the practicalities of implementing regionally effective water resource
solutions. The discussions among the members at the monthly meetings
function as an open and collegial decision making process. Their
meetings provide a unique forum for discussion, debate and public
participation in the formation of policy. They are also available at the
local level to discuss issues with the public.

3. Describe any instances in the past year where a governing
board decision has differed from the staff recommendation.







The standard operating procedure at the District is for staff to bring
policies in the formative stage to the Governing Board meetings to seek
guidance and direction in shaping policies and permit recommendations
before final recommendations are made. This process helps to build
understanding, commitment, and consensus on the Governing Board and
between the Board and staff.
On emerging policy issues staff holds workshops to obtain Governing
Board input. Staff then reshapes and refines the policy to address Board
concerns and then presents the refined policy for approval and adoption.
On regulatory matters, differences occasionally do arise between
initial staff recommendations and the Board's perceptions of an item.
Normally these differences are resolved by board/staff discussions by
adding or deleting special permitting conditions. In other cases, after
hearing both the staff and the applicant's positions, the Governing
Board, with the consent of the applicant, will ask staff to redraft
recommendations and negotiate an equitable solution. In such cases, the
revised staff recommendation is normally adopted.
Two years ago several staff recommendations related to right-of-
way (ROW) permitting were not approved by the Board. In these
instances the board was expressing the desire to change existing policy to
improve the environmental review of an application. As a result, the
staff formed a ROW Task Force which recommended changes in the
permitting process that more closely reflected the Governing Board
position. The change in ROW permitting process and criteria resulted in
more consistency between staff recommendations and Board decisions in
the area of right-of-way permitting.
In the rulemaking process, the staff, through public hearings and
workshops, facilitates the Governing Board discussions and negotiations
with affected parties. Normally, this process of public meetings is
continued until staff recommendations are in sync with Governing Board
desires. Then final adoption is sought.

4. Describe any programs or tasks required of the water
management districts by law or by delegation from the Department of
Environmental Regulation which have not been implemented or
completed, or are underfunded.

This response assumes that the question does not apply to ongoing
programs delegated by DER to the water management districts that, by
their very nature, will never be complete (e.g., water use and surface
water management permitting). To the best of our knowledge, the
SFWMD has attempted to implement all programs required by law or
delegated by the DER. Several of these programs, however, have not
been completed. These include the following:
a. Plugging of abandoned artesian wells has been an active
program at the District since 1979. The District has plugged 785 deep


8








wells and approximately 2000 two inch wells of the estimated 6200 that
the USGS believes exist in the District. (Total cost for the plugging of
wells is $1 million dollars). The District expects to plug 130 deep wells
this fiscal year and our goal for next year is 200 and 300-500 in
subsequent years.

b. Minimum Flows/Levels--On an operational basis the District
attempts to maintain optimal canal levels throughout the Central and
Southern Florida Project. Based on predictive models the District
attempts to modify releases from Lake Okeechobee to maintain
minimum levels during periods of low rainfall. In the Water
Conservation Areas the District has minimum levels established by the
Corps. In Lake Istokpoga the District has established minimum levels. For
the Caloosahatchee River the District operates structures to maintain
certain chloride levels at 5-79 to prevent saltwater intrusion. In the South
Dade system minimum stages are established by the Corps of Engineers
General Design Memorandums.
In selected areas, such as the St. Lucie Estuary, and in water deliveries
to the Everglades National Park, the District is proceeding to establish
flow regimes which are more natural and conducive to the protection of
fish andwildlife habitat.
c. Ground Water Basin Inventories and Identification of Recharge
Areas--The District is attempting to satisfy 373.0395 by compiling existing
ground water and hydrogeologic information for all the counties in the
region with the exception of Polk and Charlotte as part of water
management district input to County Comprehensive planning process.
Staff has completed reports for all coastal counties and the inland
counties are in draft form.
d. Public Works--There are public works projects, which the
Congress has authorized and the Governing Board has approved, that
are necessary for the protection of the District's residents or the
environment. These are in differing stages of planning, coordination,
design and construction. (A copy of the Blue Book, which is the most
recent list of public works projects and their current status, is included in
the Appendix. See Tab 11. A map of the completed public works is
included in the Appendix. See Tab 12).


E. Potential Impact of Abolition and Abolition and Alternatives

1. Are there any changes that could be made to the statutes
that would enable the governing board to more efficiently and
effectively perform its tasks? Please specify.

Four suggestions are listed below. However, the District would like
to continue discussions on improving the efficiency of the permit review
process.


9








a. Recognize the proprietary aspects of SFWMD land ownership and
Streamline the process for right-of-way permitting.
b. Statutory clarification of the ability of water management
districts to delegate surface water management permitting to local
governments with a demonstrated capacity, and a willingness to handle
this program under guidelines and oversight by the Districts.
c. The water management districts should be given eminent domain
for water quality and environmental protection and enhancement
purposes.
d. The legislature should consider delegation of some authority to
District staff for implementation of Board adopted policies, such as the
ability for staff to issue routine permits which comply with the rules of
the District.

2. Describe the effect on the district and the public, if any, of
abolishing the governing board.

This response assumes that if the Governing Board was abolished,
agency decision making would revert to a state agency head or the
Governor's Office. As a result the following effects on policy making are "
envisioned:
ra. The Constitution of the State of Florida prohibits the levy of an ad
valorem tax by the state. The water management districts are legally
denominated as special governmental units, rather than state agencies.
The fact that control of the Districts and the Governing Boards by the
state is quite limited by law is no accident or oversight; rather, it is a legal
necessity in order to protect the District's ad valorem tax levy against
legal challenge, alleging in effect it is a state ad valorem levy. If the
Governing Boards were abolished and some other form of leadership of
the District by the state was substituted, this too could lead to a serious
legal challenge of the tax levy.
b. The potential loss of an open, collegial decision making process.
c. The potential for reduced access by people of the region to water
resource policy makers.
d. The loss of diverse perspectives, ideas, professional backgrounds,
experiences, and insights that Governing Board members contribute to
the decision making process.
e. The potential loss of routine (monthly) oversight and control of
the budget and finances of the District in a public forum.
f. The potential loss of understanding the practicalities and
regional nuances associated with implementing state programs in
geographically and hydrologically diverse regions of the state.


10








g. The potential loss of oversight in providing staff with policy
direction and review during program implementation.

3. Are there any reasonable alternatives to having a governing
board and still have their type of responsibilities carried out?

No reasonable alternative exists, assuming the benefits described in
D.2 are worth retaining.

4. Describe the effect on the Department of Environmental
Regulation and any other state agencies, if any, of abolishing the
governing board.

The Secretary of DER or the Governor would have to absorb
considerable duties and responsibilities associated with WMD policy
making, oversight, financing, budgeting and permitting.


F. Other Required Information

1. Briefly describe the facts relating to any review of district
rules or orders conducted pursuant to s. 373.114, F.S., within the last
five years.

Strazzulla Brothers, Inc., and Acme Improvement District, vs. South
Florida Water Management District and Florida Audubon society.
March 22, 1984.
Involved an appeal of a denial of a surface water management
permit. The applicant had proposed a design which did not protect
the water resources since it virtually destroyed all wetlands on site.
The case had been through an extensive administrative hearing in
front of the DOAH. The DOAH upheld the staff recommendation of
denial. The hearing officer's recommended order was adopted by
the Governing Board. The Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
refused to hear the case because it was not timely filed. A copy of
the final order is included in the Appendix. See Tab 13.
In the Matter of Savannah Club Unit One, Surface Water
Management Application No. 03093-B. St. Lucie County.
Involved an appeal of issuance of a conceptual approval by the
governing board. The facts involved a surface water management
design which held water on-site prior to discharge into the
Savannahs. The Florida Audubon Society appealed and charged that
the permit issuance was harming environmentally sensitive areas.

11
Zw







The Water Management District and applicant agreed to impose a
clarifying special condition that final design drawings would be
required to show specific information. The case was dismissed by
the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission because the Florida
Audubon Society had not appeared before the Governing Board to
complain about the permit before it was issued.
In the Matter of Surface Water Management Permit No. 50-01420-S
Issued to Mr. Georqe Michael Challancin and Mr. James Richard
Challancin. J-Mark Fishing Village by South Florida Water Management
District, April 17. 1986.
Involved the appeal of a surface water management permit for a
development inside of Lake Okeechobee. The Florida Audubon
Society appealed the case on the grounds that it would violate
Standards for protecting Lake Okeechobee. During the proceeding
the SFWMD requested the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
to return the case because information supplied by the applicant
Smay have been misleading. The Land & Water Adjudicatory
Commission overturned the District's decision and denied the
permit. A copy of the final order is included in the Appendix. See"
Tab 13.
In the Matter of South Florida Water Management District
ConceDtual Surface Water Manaement System A proval for the
onial Bouevard pension Mile r Slou in ee
County. Florida. Application No. 03176-. February 20. 1987.
SInvolved an appeal by the Sierra Club from a surface water
management permit issued by South Florida Water Management
District to Lee County. Sierra Club claimed the roadway extension
would allow destruction of wetlands in violation of District criteria.
The District permit was affirmed and modified to provide for
| mitigation as agreed to by the parties. A copy of the final order is
1 included in the Appendix. See Tab 13.
In the Matter of Consent Agreement between South Florida Water
Mana ement District and Dry Lake Dairy. Inc., Order #87-06,
April 13,1987.
Involved an appeal by the Florida Audubon Society from a consent
agreement issued by South Florida Water Management District to a
dairy located within the Kissimmee River-Taylor Creek-Nubbin
Slough area flowing to Lake Okeechobee. The District's consent
agreement was affirmed. The Commission concluded and advised
Sthe District as to measures to include in final permit issuance. A copy
of the final order is included in the Appendix. See Tab 13.
Re: Proposed Acquisition of Lands in Dade County, Township 58
South, Ran e38 East and Township59 South, Range 38 East (Aerojet
SProperty in Canal 111 Basin). May 8. 1987.
Involved an appeal by Florida Audubon Society, Wilderness Society,
i Sierra Club, and Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club from a decision of

12







the SFWMD to purchase 4,650 acres of land near Everglades National
Park from the United States Department of the Interior. Florida
Audubon Society contended that acquisition was not necessary for
water management, water supply, and conservation and protection
of water resources. Request for Review was dismissed in accordance
with Florida Audubon Society's Voluntary Dismissal due to their
having entered into detailed negotiations with Aerojet, SFWMD and
the Department of the Interior. A copy of the final order is included
in the Appendix. See Tab 13.
Dade County Farm Bureau v. South Florida Water Management
District, August 15. 1983.
Involved an appeal by farming interests in south Dade County
regarding South Florida Water Management District Emergency
Order 83-10, entered on April 5, 1983. The order was entered in
response to a request by the Everglades National (ENP) to make
structural and operational changes as to the location and quantity of
discharges from WCA-3A, because the ENP was experiencing
significant adverse ecological impacts as a result of protracted high
discharges during the 1983-83 "dry season." The Florida Audubon,
Society intervened on behalf of the District. The "West Dade Areas
Homeowners' Ass'm" intervened on behalf of the petitioners. The
Commission adopted the DER recommendation and SFWMD motion
that the request for review be denied. A copy of the final order is
included in the Appendix. See Tab 13.

2. Please provide copies of the agendas of the governing
board meetings for the last two years.

Copies of the agendas are included in the Appendix. See Tab 14.

G. Items Relating to Basin Boards

1. List the specific statutory powers and responsibilities of
basin boards.

These are found in sections 373.0695 and 373.0697, Florida Statutes.
A copy of the statutes is included in the Appendix. See Tab 15.

2. Identify the name and jurisdiction of any basin boards
within the water management district.

The Big Cypress Basin Board was created in 1976 by section 373.0693
to generally encompass the Big Cypress Swamp and southwestern coastal
area. (Collier County and a small part of Monroe are depicted on the
map included in the Appendix. See Tab 12.)
The SFWMD created the Okeechobee Basin as a basin to cover the
remainder of the District.
13-14

W^7'








3. List the primary reasons for the creation of a basin board.
The Basin Boards were originally established to manage flood control
problems at a basin level. This still remains a viable water resources objective.
The Big Cypress Basin Board has the opportunity to focus on many secondary
drainage problems that would otherwise be handled by local government or
special districts.

4. Please list the basin board members, their addresses, and
terms of appointment.


James F. Garner, Esquire
Ex Officio Chairman
P. O. Drawer 1507
Ft. Myers, FL 33902
10/30/85 6/30/88
(Serving at the Request
of the District Chairman)
Mr. William M. Walters
334 Rockhill Court
Marco Island, FL 33937
7/6/84 6/30/87


Vacant


Mr. John E. Price, Jr.
P. O. Box 950
Immokalee, FL 33934
10/30/85 6/30/88


Mrs. Marilyn B. Evanish
3483 Balboa Circle
Naples, FL 33942
10/30/85 6/30/88


Vacant


1

I]

Ir


Not applicable.


9.7o


5. Are members required to publicly disclose their finances
pursuant to Chapter 112, F.S.?

Yes, basin board members are considered "local officers" under
section 112.3145, F.S.

6. Do the statutes give the basin boards rulemaking authority?
If so, cite the statute.

No.

7. List the chapter, subject, and effective date of rules that the
basin board has adopted.








8. Please describe the organizational or functional relationship
between the governing board of the water management district and a
basin board.

The District Governing Board adopts policy, while the basin boards
recommend and implement policy. The Big Cypress Basin Board has an
ex-officio chairman who is appointed by the District Governing Board
Chairman and who is a member of the District Governing Board.
Basin board budgets and tax levies involve formal action by the Basin
Boards to approve a proposed budget and tax levy and a
recommendation that the District Governing Board adopt the budget
and levy the tax to finance the budget. The Governing Board also
provides all support for the Basin Boards, such as contracting, instituting
suits for acquisition of property for Basin works, hiring personnel, and
other related administrative functions.

9. Describe the programs and activities over which a basin
board provides leadership and policy direction.

The Basin Board programs and activities are expressed through
budget proposals which are reviewed and approved by the District
Governing Board. The Big Cypress Basin Board has developd a Vw yW
plan which has been reviewed and approved by the District Governing
Board. (A copy of the five year plan is included in the Appendix. See
Tab 16.
The Basin Board is responsible for preparation of engineering and
construction plans for the development of the water resources of the
basin, development of overall basin plans of secondary water control
facilities, preparation of an annual budget for submission to the district
Board for approval, planning for water supply facilities, and otherwise
administering the affairs of the basin.

10. How are disputes between a basin board and the governing
board of the water management district resolved?

No disputes have occurred.

11. Please provide a copy of the operating budget approved for
any basin boards for the last two years.

A copy of the Basin operating budget is included within the District
budget, which is included in the Appendix. See Tab 8.


16
,2f71









Also, please provide a copy of available audit reports on basin
board operations for the last two years.

There is no separate basin board audit. An audit is conducted for the
District as a whole, a copy of which is included in the Appendix. See
Tab 9.

12. Please provide copies of the minutes of the basin board
meetings for the last two years.

Copies of the minutes are included in the Appendix. See Tab 17.

13. How does the existence of a basin board benefit the district
and the public?

Surface water resources are all interrelated throughout the District
with the exception of Big Cypress Basin; however, there is a commonality
of interest between the Big Cypress Basin and the rest of the District on
other programs. The remainder of the District (Okeechobee Basin)
functions as one resource system. The Basin Board also provides special
focus on resource issues at sub-district level.

14. Describe the effect on the district and the public, if any, of
abolishing basin boards.

If the Basin Board were abolished, the Governing Board would
assume all basin functions as it does in the Okeechobee Basin. Some
functions might also be assumed by local government.

15. Are there any reasonable alternatives to having a basin
board and still have their type of responsibilities carried out?

The Governing Board would assume this role in the same manner it
does in the Okeechobee Basin.

16. Describe the effect on the Department of Environmental
Regulation and any other state agency, if any, of abolishing basin
boards.

None, assuming that the reasonable alternative is for the Governing
Board to act as the Basin Board.



17







17. Are there any changes that could be made to the statutes
r^^ that would enable the basin boards to more efficiently and effectively
perform their tasks? Please specify.

None.

18. List and briefly describe projects which have been funded
with basin taxes for each of the five years.

A list of the projects which have been funded, with basin taxes for each
of the last five years, is included in the Appendix. See Tab 18.

19. Describe any instances during the last year when the
governing board has not adopted a basin board recommendation.

Not applicable.

20. Please provide copies of the agendas on any meetings of
the basin boards for the last two years.

SCopies of the Basin Board agendas for the last two years are included in
the Appendix. See Tab 19.

21. Have changes in the district's role and responsibilities in
recent years affected the role and responsibilities of the basin boards
and the need for basin boards?
The Basin Board's responsibilities have remained constant while the
District's role has expanded considerably since its inception.













18
1.73
^ -_______-




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