Title: Memo: The PAC Meeting on the Water Element of the State Comprehensive Plan held in Tallahassee, Oct 19-20, 1977
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002515/00001
 Material Information
Title: Memo: The PAC Meeting on the Water Element of the State Comprehensive Plan held in Tallahassee, Oct 19-20, 1977
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Memo: The PAC Meeting on the Water Element of the State Comprehensive Plan held in Tallahassee, Oct 19-20, 1977, Nov 1 ,1977, To: E D Vergara, From: D K Parkin-Welz
General Note: Box 10, Folder 21 ( SF Water Use Plan, State-Water Element - 1977-78 and 1985 ), Item 17
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002515
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



S, Hote... 1, .1977 NOV 10 IM.



TO: E. b. VERBGA, Director, Dprtmnt of Interagecy Coordintion
TRi: i. R. T. ACISN, Public Inftrmtton Officer,
rSI: D. K. MKi I*ELZ, Public Inforttion Officer4

RE: The PAC meting on the Mrlme St El f the Sft CQrhe Plan
held in Tallaassee, O t719a, 197 7

) ejW oute 'of this meeting as to arrive at a e ore l gless rly

at A this 'ts ts a toto.*
u hrl etat IC
WW. 4.46 or*, 4 side-
r Ilariy-rea fth a bIs t the cientfic,
Sof ie plan ts ti;~ tli eI. 00 the .d.


S sts itf Aifii s1 on...






1iSfly. and pestits ? fof or ttgr tatical pAT4cftln.s
ignia cont$on on




Sw. i s Ii55N uet ..
e -..w r -o9 to et m v e as wi ti e -tr.
-,,


a.. aivota jn osewtlon. that is, egomi s py.
Ml IS.. ...- -- W




~~Ak ii


Memorandum to E. D. Vergara 2 November 1, 1977


Shortly after this, the discussion shifted to the advisability of municipalities
making a profit from their water supply charges. Casey Gluckman, Sierra Club,
stated that she did not feel this was a practice in line with conservation beliefs
as, in order to increase profits, the supplier would be inclined to encourage water
use rather than water conservation. She felt this to be especially significant
in cases where the water supplied is imported from areas outside the one in which
it is used. Vince Patton's response to this was fairly representative of most of
the urban-area representatives' feelings:
"Municipalities are strapped for tax resources and consequently must charge
for water and make a profit from its sale. For instance, St. Pete uses its profit
to finance its mass transit system ..."He went on to explain that that transit system
provides many senior citizens a mobility they would otherwise have to forego and it
V could not function without the revenue support -- and Patton would not want to be the
one who had to tell them to stay home. At this point, Riley Miles joined in and said
that he agreed wholeheartedly and felt like there ought be more consideration given
in resource management planning to the needs of Senior Citizens and other persons
on limited or fixed incomes.
Miles repeated and expanded on this belief during the next day's lengthy discussion
on whether or not beneficiaries should be required to pay for water related develop-
ments ranging from well fields to treatment plants to transportation facilities to
flood control work and desalination plants. The discussion involved the results of
SJR1MD's Public Opinion survey (part of its portion of the SWUP), especially centered
around the survey's questions which deal with the users' willingness to support
growth and development if it means importing water and financing that importation
themselves all or partially themselves. (Although no conclusion or decision was
based on this survey, I have attached a copy to this memo for your information and (
reference.)
The user-pays discussions seemed to center around three major problems --whether the
user should pay the full cost or a percentage of it; whether he should pay for con-
struction and development or operation and maintenance of new facilities, or both;
or whether he should be required to pay more than he is already paying for his water-
related services, no matter what developments are made for new users. Consequently,
policies six and seven were re-written and written again so many times that I'm not
certain anyone knows exactly which words were decided on. The group did come to an
agreement of sorts, and we were assured that the correct wording would be included
in the materials that will be mailed out as a result of this two-day session.

The constant changing of wording was a particular problem for me, as I had only the
August draft you'd given me to work from, whereas, the committee had not only the
August draft but also the full October 11 draft and a number of pages or revisions
to it as well. The DSP folk managed to obtain copies of these for me by Thursday
morning, however, when they handed out copies of the previous day's changes as well.
I jotted as many of the revisions on these as I could, and the planning staff said
we would receive copies of the revised document as soon as it was retyped.




V


Memorandum to E. D. Vergara 3 November 1, 1977


Other than what I gather was "normal" conflict between committee members the only
real clash that occurred during the meeting came during the closing comments on
Thursday. Charles Lee more or less accused South Florida Water Management District
of not "playing all their cards on the table." He felt like the District had not
been frank in expressing Its opinions on the Water Element during the meetings and
had not participated as fully in the discussions as the other members. He said that
because of this he felt the SFWMD had not acted with good faith or judgement during
the public meetings by being so vocal about its points of disagreement with the
Committee. According to Lee, the committee had not had an opportunity to discuss
these points or to attempt to iron them out prior to the public meetings, and
so were unable to respond to them during the meetings. Lee was very upset and felt
that this made the committee as a whole appear not only foolish, but arbitrary and
biased as well. Jack Maloy had attended the Wednesday meeting, but had not made the
Thursday session; the representative from South Florida --whose name I've unfortunately
forgotten -- said that she was not entirely certain to what Lee was referring as she
had not attended any of the previous committee meetings or the public hearings. She
apologized for any bad feelings that her District may have created among the members,
although she was certain that it had happened inadvertently. She also stated that
South Florida had additional comments on the Water Element in the mail at that time.

After closing comments from the remainder of the committee members -- some of whom
expressed their general agreement with Lee although in somewhat milder form -- the
meeting broke up in mid-afternoon.


DKP-W;ml s


___ A-,




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