Title: Issues Receiving Highest Average Priority Ratings and Highest Weighted Rankings
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00001411/00001
 Material Information
Title: Issues Receiving Highest Average Priority Ratings and Highest Weighted Rankings
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Issues Receiving Highest Average Priority Ratings and Highest Weighted Rankings
General Note: Box 8, Folder 5 ( Vail Conference, 1995 - 1995 ), Item 25
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00001411
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


ISSUES RECEIVING HIGHEST ISSUES RECEIVING HIGHEST
AVERAGE PRIORITY RATINGS WEIGHTED RANKINGS
(SEE GRAPH 1) (SEE GRAPH 2)

Weighted
Average Issue Score
Item Rating A 54
D 4.1 D 52
I 4.0 I 43
F 3.9 E 39
A&E 3.8 J 38
F 37

All other issues had average ratings of 3.4 or less All others issues had scores of 25 or less.

ISSUES:
A) The legal responsibilities assigned to the water management districts and whether the responsibilities
should be modified

B) The need for a system of water management districts and a system of district offices of the Department
of Environmental Protection

C) Ways to improve the planning and management activities for land owned by the water management districts
and water resources by reorganizing and integrating the responsibilities of water management districts,
(" regional planning councils, the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Community
Affairs

D) The costs of operating the districts

SE) Funding mechanisms available to the water management districts to carry out their responsibilities

SF) Ways to improve the financial and programmatic accountability of districts

G) Alternatives to water management district management of district lands, including the feasibility of land \
management by the Department of Environmental Protection, other state or federal agencies, local
governments, and non-governmental entities, singly or in combination.

H) The need for revision to the budget development and adoption procedures of the districts including revision
of the laws governing the procedures for budget development, adoption, the levy of ad valorem taxes and the
public noticing procedures in chapters 200 and 373, Florida Statutes

I) Whether to continue the current system of appointed members of governing boards of water management
districts or the feasibility of using a system of elected members, or a combination of elected and appointed
members to serve on the governing boards, including the feasibility of selecting qualified board members
similar to that of the judicial nominating commissions or the Public Service Commission Nominating Council

(r ) The feasibility of creating new committees, subcommittees, or a joint committee of the Senate and House
of Representatives with the expressed purpose of continuing legislative oversight of water resources
l management in Florida


1.4.5






ADDITIONAL ISSUES MENTIONED IN ITEM 2


Inter-district transfer of water
ISn centives for users to become more efficient

Since water management district are a part of state government should they be subject to the same
organizational, compensation, and benefit programs and requirements as state agencies.

The possibility of a simplified appeal process for water resource regulation decisions by water
management boards.

Is there a scientific basis for rule-making, if not, should there be?
Does the efficiency of the operation have a reasonable overhead to the cost and benefit of the .
project. In short, does the resource and the public get enough bang for their buck on District
projects.

Not really an additional issue. Public needs to believe that districts are accountable.

In spite of ongoing efforts, public education on water issues needs more emphasis.

We might wish to spend some time and thought on that issue.

NWF Water Management District additional .5 mill tax question.
SWIM Plan funding

Land owner's private property rights.
Water management District being able to comment on non-related permitting issues for
other agencies require cost and delays permitting process. Was this the original intent?
Water transfer rights?

Create technical advisory group for technical review of issues.

Equity: taxpayer equity between districts

NWFWMD .05 millage cap
Funding for SWIM
Capital costs & budgets, bonding authority and revenue for capital expenses.

While the following will be difficult to determine, I believe an attempt to determine the
true economic cost of water in Florida is crucial. To that end:
a. Seek the cooperation of the PSC, local governments, the University System and
other sources to determine the current projected cost of supply and treatment of water by
district and total. Cost assumptions should include existing debt for capital projects,
annuala l operating expenses, mitigation and allocated costs from state, water management
districts and local government organizations for permitting, monitoring and enforcement.
b. Based on item 2(K)(a) calculate the project costs based on the 5, 10 and 20 year
projections as called for in item 2(J)(h).

1.4.6




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