Title: Quarterly Meeting between the Water Management District Board Chairman Exectutive Directors and The Dept of Environmental Regulation
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002609/00001
 Material Information
Title: Quarterly Meeting between the Water Management District Board Chairman Exectutive Directors and The Dept of Environmental Regulation
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Quarterly Meeting between the Water Management District Board Chairman Exectutive Directors and The Dept of Environmental Regulation, March 31/April1, 1977
General Note: Box 10, Folder 25 ( SF WMD Quarterly Meetings VOL II - 1977 ), Item 5
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002609
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















... ERi REETIlG

BETWEEN THE -

WAR DISTRICT

BOARD CHAIR MN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

AND

OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION


:1


Pc H 31/APRIL 1, 1977
-.-:.-..,-. .. ---
Sba-268 LAFAYETTE BUILDING

6iii -EXECUTiVE CENTER

SPALACHEE PARKWAY

;- TALLAHASSEE

,It- i .:
-..L. :- : .


.y ...*
...-





-.= ,..^
-. .- -iC


.' .- : '-
.. .. -, .f- ^
~ ~ ~ ..' ** '
-. ,**- ^ .- ...
*_-_ = ; :--_ ..__ ,: : :
v

-_..J

;I:i
-
-.I r
,.1
..
-L


---- -~- ------ ------~---n ----- --- -









AGENDA
QUARTERLY MEETING WMD/DER
March 31 April 1
Room 268 Lafayette building
Koger Executive Center
Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee


Thursday, M

8:00 P

8:30 P


9:00

10:00


Larch 31

.M. Opening Remarks Secretary Landers

.M. Status of Ongoing Programs Chuck Littlejohn

a. Water Use Plan

b. Public Works

c. Standardization of Rules

d. Well Permitting and Licensing

e. Artificial Injection

f. USGS Cooperative Agreement

g. 298 Districts

h. Interagency Agreements

P.M.- General Discussion

P.M.- Adjourn


Friday, April 1

8:30 A,M.- Opening Remarks Secretary Landers

9:00 A.M.- Program Audit Chuck Littlejohn

9:30 AJ.- Aquatic Weed Control Programs VNR and GFWFC

10:30 A1.- Break

10:45 AM.- Wate Quality Planning Dr. Tim Stuart

11;15 ArM.- Water Quality Permitting Division of Permitting'

11:45 AM..- Pearitting Report James Brindell

12:15 P.M.- Break for Lunch

1:30 P.M.- Legislation,

2:30 P.M.- USGS Film The Subject is Water

3:00 P.M.- Adjourn .

,: _.i . ^ U ^' -fjq ;


V4-


inj







0


Topic

Agenda .

Index .....

Water Use Plan.

Draft Outlii

Action Itea

Schedule

Public Works

Standardization

Sequence of

Headings fo

Letter to S

Secret

Water Well Progr

Artificial Injec

USGS Cooperative

298 Districts

Interagency Agre

Program Audit

Water Quality PI

Permitting Repor

Legislation

SB 63 .

SB 312 .

HB 484 .

HB 657 .

HB 658 .

HB 709

St. Johns F


9


INDEX


Page

S. II


. III

. 1


. e. . . .


no.......
'r ,-' I.,

s Status . .

. . .. .




of ruless . ,
of Rules ..

Chapters .

r Procedural Rule .

secretary of State from

ary Landers . .

a . . .

tion . .

Program. . .

. . . .

events . .


Sunning ii .
at.ing. . .

. . . ..



















blood Control Works..


r-
:h : Mri






r




*. .

r


34


S S S S S S *


FplL~slanraruaBrir-:~-'1. --


I
:I: ':-.' '*`*?,i


r

.
















r



ii







I;




t


i it
ii i


~:J~w~p~ .......








Water Use Plan

On March 4, 1977 a quarterly..eetAin,of :S water maagn,..

district planners ad. Department of Environmental Regulation planners

was convened in Tallahassee. ,Subjets discussed at ,is eating in

cluded the ,standard outlinean4 layout, the statu,of various action

items, tipe .schedules,.208 aiteractions, and the status of district,:.,

plans.

It was agreed that all district s wilU fpllowva standard outline

when developing .th," plans. $opy p of s outlinqois on page 3. In

some cases districts 4,lha1 savgeal volumes with the standard

headings as chapters within these volumes. This agre q ttha~ dis-

trict plans will follow the outline is to be caqfinred to DBR.inwriting

from each district.

The topic of Ja standard format (hyasical sigqa4d layout of ocu-

ment) was 4is4ussed The final ;Cnsensus wapSthqa each district ,will

submit all .text material to DER in 8 -" X I ormat and that.g ood4

copy graphics w41b ,b sent to DER..with aoig ial mastrial. agis4a1^)e 4
required. DRD willedit, reorganize, and compile Sha State wat, use

plan from .ae matewal subrittd bF e districts,

All action items were discussed and it was 4c4de tha*td the

Executive Directors, Governing Board Chairmen, ad Secretamy landers

should discuss adoption of porgions ofq th pun as a district or

Department rule. DER has several ac~ p it.ms still to be ompl-eed

A summary of the status of all action items is on page 4.

Another item of concern was the title of each district water use

plan. At present each district has a different title for their plan.

It was agreed that this could remain but that a subtitle reading "a

portion of the State Water Use Plan as per Chapter 373.037, Florida

Statutes" would be added. Also an introductory paragraph stating the


-___ __ __ I_;_ IYi--PDICf~sTIC_~-~i~---- _C------




L.


[':
I '-






i



































I
2-
r-



Tr;











%; '


Tpcf


relationship between district water use plans and the state water

use plan should be included as well as a statement indicating the plan

was de4vpted in conference with 'Cipter 373 -P.S.

'Thya schiedii e~or completion dif epati.ent and'District Water Use '

Plans was reaffirmed. This schedule is on page 6.

On the subject of"water use planning and water quadify planning

(208) interactions, there was support for meetings among 208 and water

management district planners. However, SWFNMD staff expressed some

concern that their governing board iia not want to get involved with

Water quality. A series of technical workshops is tentatively planned

within each iD on nthe subject of 208 planning and disintegration with

Water Use Planning. "

The water use inventory (WUI) was discussed and the districts

expressed several problems with these data. The data have noticeable

gaps and are not onsisitent. In additfdn collection techniques were

questioned. However, all districts pla toi use WI data except where

District data prove td 'b superior. A mtjr problem existed with agri-

culturalfwater use dati I- i* Department will ctitact IFAS to

determine ii'f a'statewide agricultural water use program could be developed.

Also, the USGS might bebable to' institute an ongoing WU rather than

an every five year program j

All diStrict pi'a~ners tfli be copied -'n alt Department -cbrepon- -

deuce concerning water use planning, in t0e' future. The next quarterly

meeting is8 scheduled 4t early Jije.'
,, 1 *. *' -* !* *' *** *


~. .kI


-







March*4, 1977


DISTRICT MaR 4tUS PLAN

.DRAFT OUTLINE


Introduction


r.i



. i.
~09


Des.crption of District




Water Use Present and Projected
f ': "


IV. Water Management Concepts a4 Tools




V. Proposed Water Magement Program




VI. fNeed for Ft Sudy Requirements


VII. Suary


Appendix

Bibliography


373 Cross-reference


z
'r


- i ." '


5 i "I' ;1"


jpii.


" *" .




~ira~ii--


WATER USE PLAN

ACTION ITEMS
Water Management District Respoxisibil.ti$es
1. Standard format


2. Steps and time schedule for dis-
trict water plans or components
to become a district rule.

3. Review appropriate 201 and 208 work
products with copies to DER.


4. Review State Land Development Plan
with copies to DER.


5. Assure WMD are represented on ap-
propriate 208 TechAical AdvisoY
Committee.

6. Develop a list of perceived problem
areas relating to the State Wter
Use Plan from a WMD viewpoint.

7. Review 1975 Water Use Inventory with
comments to DER and USGS. -,

18. Agree to use year 2020 as target
date for all projections.

9. Use of Florida Statistical abstract
for population projections.

10. Use of 1975 Water Use Inventory for
present water use estimate.

11. No district to evaluate the poten-
tial of resources outside its
boundaries.

12. DER to assess need for district
water transfer.

13. Oklawaha Basin and Upper St. Johns
to be evaluated by SJRIMD.

14. Portion of Waccassa Basin trans-
ferred to SRWMD to be evaluated by
SRIMD.

15. Manasota Basin to be evaluated by
SWFWMD.

16. Use of twenty-year increments in
proj sections.


-WMD and DER in agreement on
specific format.

-To be discussed with Executive
Directors and Board Chairmen.


-Some review taking place -BWRM
lias ndf received copies of
comments.

-Have received comments fiom SF3
NWPiS and a no c6iment letter
from SJRIWD.

-Has been accomplished.



-Received comments from SJRMND.
"' DE" t de6ifA types of problems


-DEhR h received comments from


-All agree except SPMMD -prefer
use land use projections.

-All Agree.


-All Agree.


-All Agree.


-All


-All


-All


Agree.


Agree.


Agree.


-All Agree.


-All Agree, some will use less
also.


1


3/25/77








17. Mapping efforts to be done at scale
of 1:24,000.


DER responsibilities were as follows:

1. Document the administrative procedure
the water use plan pust go thi6ugh
as part of the State Comprehensive
Plan.


2. Document procedures water use plan
must go through to become DER rule.

S 3. Develop standardize# format.

S 4. PERT out water use plan and 208
project.

5. Develop checklist of planning activ-
ities which impactt on the water use
plan.

6. Review 201 and 208 work products wit
comments to WMD .z

7. Assure IMD's are represented on ap-
propriate 208 Technical Advisory
Committies.

8. Review State Land Divelopment Plan
with comments toD. I.

. 9. Maps of most recent WND 208 areas,
R.PA and DER boundaries. -



10. DER list of perceived problem areas
relating to water use pin.

11. Review of other state's- wt" use pl
on regulatory program.


0


Ar


-Completed -to be
March 31.


distributed by


-All Agree where feasible.





es -To be completed.




-To '~be developed.


-Completed.

-To be completed.


-To be completed.



h -Completed where appropriate-
ongoing activity.

-Completed



-Completed copies to be sent
,to WID planners.

-The Atlas of Environmental
Jurisctians ib Florida
compiled by Floida Power
and LIght has been distributed.

-To be developed.


-.;


' t^ t


- ~-- -- I~ I-- ~-----






c- WATER


PLANNING


PROGRAMS


U I II ~- -- =- ___------------


1976


N
Q


1077


D J F M A M J J A
E A E A P A U U U


NWFWMD




SJWMD




SFWMD




SWFWMD




SRWMD




208


1978


D J
E A


CL~~; ''
:i o a~ P e
-i h. r. N' k
t-. e
'- U
-. r

;- sr:I~


-


___






I- bl '

Public.Works

FY-78 Program

The Corps' testimony before Congress, on February 17, for #Y-74

Funding emphasized continuation of current projects in the South

Atlantic Division. Only one new start, the South Florida water

supply study, was included in the presentation. Of particular con-

cern to the Public Works Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee

was the Corps' efforts to provide water storage facilities (reset-

voirs and detention areas) and beach erosion control.

Lt. Governor Jim Williams presented the State's needs for FY78

before Congress on Wednesday, March 50. Total State request was in

excess of $64 million for 36 construction pr-jects or general inves-

tigation studies.


FY-79 Program

The FY-79 conference was held on Feb iiry 23. To date, approti-

mately 55 proposals have been submitted for consideration, most Of

which fall under the traditional categories of flood control, navi-

gation and beach erosion control. However, some new project types

were submitted that would appear to fall under the environmental re-

storation and enhancement category (examples are Six-Mile Cypress Ii.

Lee County and the Golden Gates project in Collier County).

A schedule of the major steps to complete the FY-79 program is

provided for your information. This"ye6r, DER will follow through

with an additional in-house review that will provide water management

districts and DER's permitting division an opportunity to determine

the status of any required permits.


3 ., "


__ __ __~~ __















STATE PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM P.Y. 79


PREPARATION OF PMoJECT
DATA FOR CLEARINGWUISE
uBVin


S --45 DAY VIE-----


APRIL, 19717 1JN w, 1%77


WNR REVIEWS BEAL --
I- B-ASION COWNTL
PROJECrS


ISUIMSSION i FY 79
PROGRAM TO O.M.B.


1 SEPluMhR, 1977


1977


1974


PARALLEL AWDISORY FICTION


., 1978


IIII1LI~ I-~_l^.~,.lr:-.~u4r~sl ---~--~ --- ~----~-Prr-ii--~~--.1 e~--I _







STANDARDIZATION OF RULES


On February 18, 1977, the third workshop on the standardization of

rules was conducted inTallahassee. At the workshop the general outline

Sfor the sequence of parts was reviewed and some mindr changes were made.

The general outline as revised on February 18, 1It7 begins on page 10.

I' The main purpose of this workshop was to develop a standard procedural

ii rule. It was decided that this could not be accomplished in total and time

S at this workshop would be best used in developing headings, with the words

to be filled in after agreement to the headings. The model rule, Chapter

17-1, F.A.C., and material supplied by John Wheeler of the SFWMD were used

to develop headings for a standardized procedural rule. The first draft

of the general headings for the procedural rule is on page 12. This is to

be reviewed by all participants, written comments submitted and discussed

at the next standardization meeting.

Also discussed at the workshop was the ireumbering of IMD rules to

chapter number 17. There was no consensus on this matter. Some of the

WND representatives preferred each HID to'have their own chapter numbers

or a separate chapter number for all WMD. Some expressed no preference.

DER representatives felt WMD's should be in Chapter 17 since the department

S exercises general supervisory authority over the IMD and renumbering in

S this manner would stress consolidated regulatory efforts. In the absence

of any agreement, DER has requested the Secretary of State to renumber

S all WMD rules using the DER control number -17 (see February 24

letter on page 171,

A fourth workshop had been scheduled for March 24, however it was

canceled due to the conflicts with House Appropriations Committee hearings.

It is anticipated that the general procedural rule should be completed by

early June and that analysis of content changes can begin in August with a

S possible adoption of standardized rules by NMD and DER early in 1978.


S. .






February 18,


SEQUENCE COF ~PERS


Chapter 0



Chapter 1



Chapter 2:



chapter 3



Chapter 4,



Chapter 5



Chapter 6



Chapter 7



Chapter 8



Chapter 9


GeneralJ



Procedural



Ccxnsuptive Use of '1ater







n ageenIt Storage of Water



. Artificial aocharge



1brjke of District



Popmerty Acquisition an4 Disposal



CBeservewdar local)



(Open.


10


1977






Felary 18, 1977




Chapter 0


S.001 Description of Organization



.002 Delegations of Authority



S.003 Interagency Agreemnts
F-

.01 Policy and Purpose



.02 Definitions



.03 Implementation



.06 Basins



.07 Meetings and Workshops



.08 Agendas and Notices



.39 Bonds



.60-.64 Mininum Rate of Flows and Levels


.65-.69 Saltwater Barrier.Line


.80-.89 Reserved for local


.90 Forms and Instructions


1.1






^ CHAPTER I
SUGGESTED HEADINGS FOR STANDARD PROCEDURAL RULE


A. Rule Making Proceedings

1. Commencement of Proceedings
2. Notice of proceeding and proposed rule
3. Context of notices
4. Petition to instruct rule make proceedings
5. Agency action on petition
6. Rules effective prior to 1/1/75
7. Rule making proceeding hearings'
8. Description of publication by reference
9. Emergency rule hearing
10. Economic impact statement

B. Declaratory Statements

1. General
2. Purpose and Use
3. Agnecy disposition
4. Filing and indexing

C. Decisions Determine Substantial Interests

1. General
2. Parties
3. Appearances
4. Consolidation
5. Joinder of Parties
6. Disqualifications
7. Conference

a. Pre-hearing conference
b. Rule proceeding under 120.57
c. Requests for formal and inf8t6mal proceedings

8. Formal Proceedings

a. Amendment of petition
b. Formal proceedings
c. Continuance of hearing or extension of item
d. Subpoena
e. Witness Fees
f. Transcript
g. Recommendation and order of the court
h. Order of presentation
i. Pleadings

9. Informal proceedings

a. Informal proceedings
b. Submission of evidence

10. Order

a. Final order

11. Request fbr hearing
12, -









12. Retention of exhibits

Licensing (Permitting)

1. General
2. Application
3. Suspension of application of withdrawal
4. Emergency action
5. Filing of Citizen objections
6. Complaints

E. Procedures under Consultants Competitive Neg. Act

Miscellaneous

SFile of Record
Preparation of record'for review -costs of transcript to be
S included
Reference to hearing officer


i'>"''


13






6


9


February 18, 1977


SECrIcN HEADINGS (oont'd)
Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Policy and Purpose


Definitions


Implementation


. Penrits Required


Exemptions


(Open/Reserved for local)


Content of Application


Notice of Application Form


Notice and Hearing Requiraeents


Times for Receiving Objections and for Hearings


Permit Processing Fee


Conditions for Issuance of Permits


Cacpeting Applications


Duration of Permit


.03


.04


.06-.09


.11


.30


.32


lQ






9


Febdry 18, 1977


SECTICN HEADIDGS (oan~ d)
Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Modification of Permits


Revocation of Permits


Transfer of Permits


Renewal of Permits


Reapplying for Permits


Limiting Conditions


Bonds


Identification Tags


Completion Report


Emergency Authorization



Inspection


Abatement


Remedial and Emergency Measures


Unlawful Use






february 18, 1977


SECTION HEMADDGS (cort'd)
Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Permit Classification


Declaration of Water Shortage


Change, Suspension, or Restriction of Pe~mits During
Water Shortage


Procedures Under Water Shortage


Declaration of Emergency Due to Water Shortage


Procedures Under Ehergency Due to Water Shortage


Minimum rates of flow and levels


Saltwater Barrier Line


Constructions Standards


(open)


(Reserved for Local)


Forms and Instructions


I


t 16


___ __


.54


.55


.60-.64


.65-69


.80-.89


5.







i







; *-.
*'' ---


February 24, 1977 .


I C
Honorable Bruce .. Smathers E'"
o0 Secretary of State
N --ihe capitol
Tallahassee, Flotida 32304

Dear Secretary Smathers:

Renumberinr of Chapters 16G, 16H, 161,
16J and 16K, Florida Administrative Code

As you know five water management districts were created and
exist uhder Chpter 373, Florida Water Resources Act bf 1972.
These water management districts and their corresponding rule
chapters designated in the Florida Administrative'Code, are
as follows:

1. Northwest Floridh Water Management District;
Chapter 16G-1, et se_.,- Florida Administrative Code

2. Suwannee River Water Management District,
Chapter 1t-l1,-at seq., Florida Adz3nistrative Code.

3. St. Johnss'*iver Water management District;
Chapter 16--1, et seq., Florida Administrative Code.

4. Southwest Flkoida Water :Management District;
Chapt*s 16J-U, %t- sec., -Florida Adrfinistrative Code.

5. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control
ist6li' (So ith'ldri-da Water Manag4aenmt District);
S- Captea =I6K-Lr C t- sec., Florida -Atiinistrati'e Code.

As indicated, these WAter management district rules have continued
to utilize tha control rules (16) assigned by the Department of
-.tate to t!lo Department of naturall Resources.

The Environmental Reorganization .ct of 1975 transferred the
power, duties and functions of the Department of naturall Re-
sources relating to water -.anaqaemcnt as set forth in Chapter 373,
Florida Statutes, tc the ne~wl creae-. rDearrtment of Environmental




(7-





honorable Bruce A. Smathers
Page Two
February 24, 1977

Regulation (Section 20.261(7 Florida Statutes). The Department
of Environmental Reaulation exercises general supervisory author-i
over all water ,ainaipent -districts, and is responsible for th.
administration of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, at the state
level (Section 173.026,. Florida Statutes). The rules of the
water ma.nacemnent districts which administer Chapter 373, FloriCd
Statutes, at the district level relate to the rules of the De-
partment which effectuate Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, thro.ueb-
out the state. It is apparent that these rules should be oorralat
in the Florida Administrative Code with the department rules,,anc
assigned the appropriate department control numbers.
Accordingly, this is to request that Ms. Clou4-, Administrative,
Code Section renumber the described water management district rulc
by utilizing the departiapt's ass4gnei. control;n .uer -- 17. Sing
each of the districts pean be; viewed 4ga 4ima) act vity under the
general supervision of-the- department, it would be preferable
to assign, each district aj letter of.the alphabet which- should -
follow control number 17 The following numbers are suggested:

1.. oprthwestFlorida 4ateqr ianagerent District;
Chapter 17G-1, et seq., Florida Administrative Code.

2. Suwannee River vWate, managementt District;
Chapter 17H-1, et *eq., Florida. Administrative Code.

3. St. Johns River- Water Management district;
Chapter 171-a,: et seq., Florida Administrative Code,

4. Southwest Florida Water Management DiPtrict;
Chapters 17J-O, st seL., Florida Administrative Code.
5. Central aa Southec~p Florida F 4 Control i -
District (South Flo6rida water .lanagecent itrit4t);
Chapter 177-1, et seq., Florida Administrative Code.

Apparently, -1) peepart int of Natural Resources ewi4ss to use
the chapter .umbars nowi .utilisod by .5.e weter mraasgmnt district
for designating new department rules which it expects to promulgal
AdditiLoaally-, t follows that the rern4,boxiing ..ds sub equn*C zw-
locating of the water uanagemernt district rules are neoessacy to
effectuate the legislative intean et-pressed in the Znvironmental
Reorganization Act of 1975.





S18











1:o-orable i'ruce Smathers
~a~ hre
Feloruary 24, 19 7 To


1 appreci-Late vo ur con Unuec assistanc- to our 4epartnent. Is:'
contaCzt. xr ifr-ybu cavW'S 9MjcOnOdrntii ft~tj'this riattexr.


/s/ Jay


Joseph-w. Landers, Jr.
Secretary


JrL/bs


6c: John PR. Maloy
Donald R. reaster
Clint Schultz
DQnald 0. !-prgan
af by "illiaRip. cCartney
!Ze Vidze'

drafted by Rip Caleen













M -T -, ;- ^ ^ r








Water Well Program



The bureau has been investigating problems associated
with the Department's water well program. In general,, program
improvement efforts have been divided into two groups, those
dealing with Ch. 373 F.S. and those with 17-21 PFA.C.

There have been several meetings between PER and WD
legal, technical and policy making personAel aae with represent-
atives of industry. The propect ~f:the meetings is as follows:
Ch. 373 F.S.:

Legislation: At. the DER January Quarterly Meeting with
the WMD's it was the desire of the WMD's to propose no new
changes to Ch. 373 F.S8. Thee Department agreed to-.drop all
proposed legislative amendments to Ch. 373 except for the
amendment requiring that well contractors be bonded in order
to become licensed. The proposed bond language i4 attached for
your convenience. This was Bent to each WMQ on March 1977
E and no response has been received.
Enforcement: At the enforcement meeting OA March 3, 1977,
with Legal staff from DER and WMD's, it was decided to de!ette
enforcement of Ch. 373.333, F.S. on an individual basis at the
request of a WN. This was to be an interim procedure until
a delegation rule could be adopted. On March 4,-1977, NWFIMD
indicated that case by case delegation is not a satisfactory
solution to the problem.
The BUreau is in the process of developing a draft proposed
rule delegation and a proposed rule adoption schedule.
Bill White, DER Attorney, presented an enforcement example
at the March 3 meeting. Each WMD was to review and comment
on the handout.
17-21 F.A.C.:

This section is related to minisam statewide
well construction standards. These standards have been in
effect since October, 1974 and have prompted requests from
WMD's and the water well industry to revise and update the rule.
Rule Revision: A proposed schedule for a complete review
/ of 17-21 during 1977 is as follows:
1) Initial draft with previously suggested revisions -
April 18, 1977.

2) Conduct technical meetings with WMD personnel, evaluate
written comments from industry, and produce revised
draft June 6, 1977.

3) Conduct Public workshops (one in each WMD) and prepare
final draft July 9, 1977.











4) DER Review, Chapter u120 Noties, :and a Final Hearing
September 12, 17.

5) Rule Filing Late September/early October'

..It should be noted that -econoic ` lpaot statemeits are
required for each dafth anid aUy de1ay the aesedule ip W' three
months. -. Exact dates .isy ary de to UC 'viahedulDR.C

Completion IbAiportts ;A better 1ha bew tient it -1. t h4D
requesting that the procedure of sending completion reports
to Tallahassee be discontinued. DER will serid iti files to
the appropriate WMD So that each district may check the complet-
nes iSs itEt s files. .- '

i 4l, a te..rora T ::- The bureau iS currently assessing
the Piabapa a=-e7iuth waterr wit permitting, 4t&tdards,
anr.4 en r~rcw at at rtha ploal government level. 84W1MDh has -
undertaken di- adAilar study within thi district 4aft i scheduled
to report results by the June Quarterly meeting.



i -'


-( ~ I


*' -4


'* -


I
rr; .


~?~s :-:


" 'j ';0









ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE

STATE STANDARDS

SA meeting was heId February .24, 1977 with DER a6 MD to
continue-work on a.s.~atewide umbrella rule~tad specific b e-
standards. Comments are in the process of being incorporated'. 4
for a review draft. Progress has been delayed and a second
meeting in March was cancelled due to staff illness .

DER/SWFWMD AGREEMENT

This proposed agreement is to help both agencies respond
in a reasonable and timely fashion to applications for injection
wells and to improve communications on a staff level apepially
for review of grout applications for .sewage treatment p~ant;
which plan tp' ute injection wells to dispose of treated a wage
effluent. The March 10, 1977 draft is attached for .your
information.

EPA PL92-523

The EPA published Proposed Regulations on Grants for
State Underground Water Source Protection Programs and Regula-
tions on State Underground Injection Control Programs (two
separate rules) on August 31, 1,976. Following is a summary of
the requirements and pertinent points of those proposed rules.

I State Underground Water Source Protection Programs:
The initial grant application (for 1977) is due about
August 1, 1977. Those states named as requiring an injection
control program are eligible for a grant. The final list
designating states needing a program has no: been published,
however, Florida will most probably be on it because Florida
was on the preliminary listing distributed for comments in
January 1977.

Steps to apply: Submit an application and program plan
to EPA no later than about August 1, 1977. This first
application must include:

1) A letter from Governor stating whether Florida has
established, or intends to establish, an underground water
source protection program.

2) The letter "should" designate the one state agency
to administer the grants and serve as coordinator for dealing
with EPA. ,The agency. ay allocate funds among other state
agencies.' The letter must also:

3) Affirm the state's inteAt to assume, within two
years from approval of initial grant, primary enforcement
authority.









4) A program plan which shall relate the utilization
of available resources (both Federal and non-Federal) to the
achievement of expected accomplishments Program elements
can include the following:

,a) i Administration and .program deve'lopIent
b) Surveillance and technical assistance :
c) Plan, review and approval
d) 'Traiaing '

f} Data Management
9g) Surveillancsa and> investigation
h) Public Participation
i) Other

Schedule for accomplishing initial grant application:

Initial draft April 13. 1977
Review ..
Andrews May 1, 1977
Legal May 15,t 1977
Bottcher May) 30, 1977
Bureau of Geology June 1, 1977
Final Draft June 15, 1977
Submitted to Secretary Landers July 1, 1977

Submitted to Governor forQ
signature andr designation August t 1977

State Underground Injection Control Program:

EPA is required to list states needing such a program and
a state so listed must within 270 days submit a program to
control underground injectib i: If nose'dis mubuittid a program
will be prescribed by EPA. The states have not yet been listed,
However, all indications are that Florida will be on- the list.

The goal of the program insto prevent endangerment of
underground drinking water sources byqiderground injections.

Requirements include the followin-,g:

1) Permit underground injection by industrial and
municipal waste disposal wells, subsidence control wells,
barrier wells, recharge wells, mining wells, storage wells and
geothermal wells.

2) Review all existing underground injections within
five (5) years.
3) Detail information required on new applications.

4) Requirements for notice of preliminary determination;
30 days public notice of proposed action including notice to
other government agencies; public hearings on request and 30
days public notice of public hearings.









~5) Detailed permit liaitations.
6) MonitorAiBg and Reporting RequiLptgaA-
7) A complete inventory of injec. ,
injection we.4mla d drainagee wells.
program approva&X. a
8) An inventor of existing suri "|"'
an assessment of the extent they fung
underground and an evaluation of tbh
underground drinking Water supplies.
program approval.
9) Permits or regulation by rule

10) Detail requirements on oil an4.
or brine disposal wells. Note: These
DNR Bureau of Geology. Therefore, the "
for control bf these wells must be pr
must be included vin. any plans to apply
Items to -be accomplished:

1) Obtain initial grant as specific 97.
2) Initial draft of rule .2

3) Staff Review 31, 1i9.78r 0Lz
4) Technical Meetings :20,.

5) Revised Draft

6), Staff Review #4W 15, 1977
7) RePulicWorndatiop -7
8):,. Public: Workshop 1 1, 1 ; l,77 .
9) Final Draft 1, 1977
10) Hearing 1, 1977.








M .. a., li




24
.. .
'~~. t :;, ? .
2r--.


~n"dne~I~----ll~.~~"~*L~*~"l'~irraas~a
I






19 9

USGS Cooperative Agreement Program


The Bureau of WateL Resources Management analyzed and evaluated
the Department's cooperative agreement with tie U.. S Geological Survey

to investigate the water resources of the state, during 1976. As a re-

sult, three substantial measures are being incorporated in developing

the next fiscal year's agreement, which will increase the efficiency and

the cost effectiveness of the statewide program.
The major consideration involves decentralization of the data col-

lection efforts, currently maintained under the statewide program, to

the cooperative programs of the water management districts. The concept

was presented to District executive director and was viewed favorably,

contingent upon their technical and economic evaluation of the sites and

activities being transferred. The U.S.G.S. has provided maps and listings

of all data collection stations and activities in Florida, to assist in

the evaluation. Funds were made available fron this transfer will be

placed into new levels of investigations iith the U.S.G.S., involving

subjects of statewide significance.

Another consideration involves establishing each water management

district as an informational clearinghouse for U.S.G.S. cooperative agree-

ments with local public agencies. This would stritly nvolve in ov-iion

exchange as to the nature and scope of all new projects, and provide the

Department a systematicieans of keeping in o med o0 al water resource

investigations within the state. This arrangement would als provide

other agencies the opportunity to become aware of new projects, con-

tribute in the funding if interested, and avoid duplicative efforts.

The final measure involves the establishment of new programs of

statewide significance within the Depqrtment,'s agreement. The potential

investigations would reflect the requests of the water'management districts,

25









and tentatively include investigations involving wasteload allocations,

establishment of salt water barrier lines, various aspects of well

regulation. etc. Pilot studies are currently being conducte4 on the

state salt water barrier line,, and on the,probl, of. drainage wells.

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE u


Coordination with Districts on
economic/technical review of
data collection sites and
activities

Bureau of Water Resource
Management assumes stations
under FY-48 program for
three months.

Districts take over funding':
and responsibility

Receive district input re-
garding statewide investi-
gations


----------------To be completed by June, 1977.



S----------- To ssuia July to


------------- start 1977. 1977.
Q.- s ta rt 77


------ By July 30, 1977.


1.

I..


; q-~ l I[ituo i .,-?-- ^ IS k
i- ^ Ci ~ q -- *:.* :*. -
5f



"*!- S .r *^B ^s ..*AAA
^ w ^^^ 9 1^


__ __ 1_____~_


~a ~~c~


: ::






9 9 3/25/77




Drainage Districts Operating Un The Authority Of Chapter 298, F.S.


A complete list of active and inactive drainage districts has

been completed. There jre 92 districts definitely known to be active,

94 listed as inactive, and 6 districts thought to be active but from

which replies to our letters have notbeen received. At least 13 bf

the active districts are controlled, to at least some degree, by a

Board of County Commissioners and are possibly County entities and

not independent districts. The Department's legal staff is presently

researchingthe legal status ofthe County controlled districts and if

districts created by a special act of the legislature are required to

comply with the requirements of Chapter 298, F.S. When a legal opinion

is received an a finalized li&t ;is completed, the boundaries of the

districts will be plotted on County Highway maps.

Future action to be taken in relation to 298 districts include:

1) proposing legislation to change 298 district names from

"water management districts" to "water control districts;"


2) taking necessary steps to abolish inactive districts; and


3) conducting a case by case engineering review of active dis-

tricts water management plan.


27






S 3/25/77


Chapter 298 Drainage Districts
SScedule OPCompletion Dates



March. 28 to have legal opinion on d-istricts creited by I

S: a special act of the legislature.



April 11 to have-legal opinion of County controlled

districts. "



April to have received a reply from- evefj district

S :believed to be active and have completed

district list.



April :51 :: have district boundaries plotted on County

Highway maps.;



July 31 have reviewed all active district's water

management plans and have made recommendations.


28,


_I__ __ _





9 *



Interagency Agreements With DER

Northwet Floridk Water Management District
-Permitting procedures for Artificial Recharge Facil4ies and

Welt Construction" s ned November 29, 1976.'1:: -"i

Su4annee River Water Mangement District'
--Memorandum of understanding on boundary changes and consolidation
of permitting" signed March 9, 1977

St. Johns River Water Management District
'-'Memoranduim of unddrstanding on'boundary changes and consolida-
tion of permitting -signed December 23, 1976.

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Memorandum of understanding on collocation, boundary changes, and
consolidation of permitting -signed November 30,.1976.
SInterim procedure .on review of specifications and permitting
of injection wells pending

South' Florida Water Mknagement District
-'Memorandum of' understanding on Water use, artificial recharge,
non-discharge construction, and water quality delegation -pending.









Performance Audit Status Report


The statutory requirement; for conducting a performance audit was
created by 76-243 and Is ~bund in 373.507, which reads as follows:

373.5 Districts, basins, and taxngauthorities; budge and
expense report audits.. ac district and b.sin referred to in
Chapter 76-24Y, laws o fPorida, shall furnish a detailed copy of
its budget and past year's expenditures to the Governor, the
Legislature, and the governing bodyfo eaci cowPty ich tPh
district or basin has juris~iction or erives any funds for the
operations of the distriFt pr Passb,.Each district, .basin, and
taxing" au~Lhbrity shall iSce provisions for an annual post-audit and
performance audit of its financial accounts and activiies'irn ac-
cordance with the rules of the Auditor General promulgatdd pursuant
to ss. 166.241 and 11.47.

A performance audit is an objective examination of the financial
and operational performance Qf ,n organization, program, .~ivity,
or'unction. att is directed to:

A. Determining (I) whether financial operations are properly
conducted, (2) whether the financial reports of an audited
entity are presented fairly, and (.3) Jether the qaty fg as
compiled with applicable laws a-d regulations;

B. Determining whether the entity is managing or utilizing its
Trsources (personnel, property. space, and s!q forth) in an
economical and efficient manner and the causes of an ineffic-
iencies or uneconomical practices, inluig iiequacies in
Management in driatioi systems, administrative procedures, or
organizational structure; ,

C. Determining whether the desired results or benefits are being
achieved, whether the objectives esalishoe b oi~ legisla-
tive or other authorizing body are being met, and whether
the agency has consider# alternatives which might yield
:- 1< desired resultss at a lower cost.


Performance audit rules have been promulgated in Chapter 10.600
of the Rules of the Auditor General entitled "Annual Postaudit and
Performance Audit Requirements of Water Mangement Districts created
on Renamed Pursuant to the Provisions of 76-243, Laws of Florida."

In addition, 373.589 is still in effect, which reads as follows:

373.589 Audit by Auditor General. At the direction of the
Governor, audit of the District's accounts may be made from time to
time by the Auditor General, and such audit shall be within the
authority of said Auditor General, to make. Copy of such audit shall
be furnished the Governor and the governing board of the district and
a copy shall be filed with the clerks of the circuit courts of each
county within or partly within said district. The expense of said
audit shall be paid by the district upon a statement thereof rendered


-- -- I- I








to the district by the Auditor General. Payment of the amount thereof
shall be. sade to the Stite Department of Banking and Pinance to be
S entered in and to reimburse the account of the Auditor General so as
Snot to reduce the legislative approprieti for said Auditor General.

A rough chronology of recent events is as follows:

Prior to 1973 Auditor General conducts annual financial post
audits of SWFWMD and FCD.

1973 to 1976 Annual post audits conducted by CPA's employed
I by Districts as follows:

SWFWMD 2 audits by CPA FY 74 & 75, FY76
SOFW-D ,-,No audit 73-4; Annual since by CPA
NWFWMD Annual, CPA last two years
SRMD, Annual, CPA last pfwo years
SJRWMD Annual, CPAr last twq years

March 22, 1976 Concept of program Audit. agreed upon by Depart-
ment, WMD's during quarterly meeting.

June 15, 1976 Program audit initiated by Department.

July 1, 1976 Section 16 of 76-243 creating the requirement
for annual post audit and performance audit becomes
law.

September 22, 1976 Assistant Auditor General Veal sends "tenta-
tive and preliminary draft" of proposed rules to all
WMD's. Only SWFWMD responds.

October 21 1976 SWFWMD responds, cites cost impact, suggests
that subject be discussed @ next quarterly meeting.

December 21, 1976 Final rules promulgated by Auditor General.

January 12, 1977 Veal declines to attend quarterly meeting to
discuss rule as passed.

January 20, 21, 1977 Districts express concern at quarterly
meeting, Department agrees to take case to Auitor
General and/or Legislative Auditing Committee.

March 1, 1977 Department program audit published.

March 7, 1977 Secretary Landers presents Department's Program
Audit to Joint Legislative Audit Committee along with
the following estimates of the financial impact of
Performance audits on HMD's:

SWFWMD $80-100,000 plus staff costs
SOFWMD $250,000 plus staff costs
SJRWMD $24-28,000 (266% increase)
NWFWMD "Significant Increase"
SRWMD "Significant Increase"

Chairman Childers assigns Senator MacKay to meet with Auditor
General and Water Management Districts to try to reach
an acceptable compromise prior to next Committee meeting.






9

April 8, 19P77 Scheduled meeting wit Senator MacKay.

1 April 4,Z, JJR77 iNext sche Ld joint Legislative Audit Comn
mittee meeting.

The following are now under consideration as possible cost saving
alternatives:

a) rduct performance audit every few years, post-audit annually.

b) Conduct performance audit on a portion of 373 (Part I, II, etc.)
annually, post-audit annually.

c) Have Department improve its program audit to point it could
be used to w'~Af Jr efficiency and/or program performance por-
tions of performance audit and conduct such audits periodically
to complement amnual post audits y CPA firms.

Sd) Conduct performance audit of one WMID annually.

































,


q 9


_ ----- -.ii- ~rs~------a-- *-~l~b-





9


STATE OPI FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
/ ; 2 EXtCUTn1 C6R&t dJCliE. EASI

T'.% =33.11


SJOdEP W. LANADES JR.
SCcnETAtY


STATUS OVERVIEW

208 PLANNING IN FLORIDA
71j :. I


Bureau of Water Quality
March, 19 77


Printed on 100% Recycled Paper


3. ASKEW
econ


> *


(





9

STATUS DESIGNATEDD AREAS

The twelve 208 designated preas (see. attched figure) are funed r
with 10.4 million of 100%ereditAnl, u ng ,Work is progresing well
in each of the areas. All Plans of Study were submitted and approved
by the DER by mid-October, and the second phase of activities were
begun. Contracting for Phase II consultants was time-consuming, but
this too is nearly complete. In the meantime, water quality sampling
programs were begun and are nearly complete in some areas. Unfortunately,
due to a lack of rainfall in some parts of the state, wet weather
sampling was not entirely successful. Some agencies hope to repeat
their efforts in this area, time permitting.
Other data, such as existing land use, socio-economic characteristics
and data on institutional and management agencies are being gathered.
In each agency, public participation has increased as committees have
been organized.
The Bay County 208 Areawide Planning responsibility has been relin-
quished by the Northwest Florida Planning and Advisory Council, and will
be assumed by DER until another agency can be designated. However, the
program is on schedule and a smooth transition is forseen. There are no
major problems among the other agencies, but there is some apprehension
with regard to some areas meeting final planning deadlines. The attached
table shows the dates of designation, conditional certification, and
dates by which draft plans must be submitted to the state and the EPA.
The dates are staggered du& to the different dates on which the agencies
were designated. More detailed information about individual desig-
nated area programs can be furnished upon request.




34




















.''':'': O LmCsf," JACKSON





T .. EAT WAKULIA

4 VOLUSIA COUNCIL OF GO .FMENTS










SB CURRENTLY
DESIGNATED 208 AREAS
1. WEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
2, .,NORTHWEST FLORIDA PLANNING ANO ADVISORY COUNCIL
S3. TALLAHASSEE-LEONCOUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
', 4 VOLUSIA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
5 BREVARD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONMNG DEPARTMENT
1 6. EC FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
| 7. CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
8 TAMPA.BAY.REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
9 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
S10 AREA PLANNING BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
11 BROWARD COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL
12. METRO qAQf COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT


PROPOSED NEW DESIGNATIONS
S13. GAINESVILLE AND ADJOINING REGtONAL AREA (NCFRPC)
S 14 OCALA AND ADJOINING REGIONAL AREA (WRPC)
15. DUVAL COUNTY
16. MONROE COUNTY


I r PROPOSED EXTENSION OF
J CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AREAS
17 LAKE COUNTY IECFRPC)
18. HIGHLANDS AND OKEECHOPBE8 COUNTIES (CFRPC)








Figure


-z '.


IC~Te~l -- -- 1


rr
"
s~c~~ rr






ir


2/18/77


Degismatad 206 Aineclos

bll
Dlssipation 6 Wat"4w Comd-iaL
Si EP .Zq8m a4 j ic.*tcfft iio


bd of
Plaming
Pert"d


kaft plan to
be Imh.8te


West Florida "
Regional Planning 5/14/r- 6/26/76 5/14/U 2/14/78
Council
*.- *
*Ixorthvest Florida
Planning 6 Advisory 4/30/75 / 5/6 ) 7/8/76 4/30/78 1/30/78
Couacil

Talla'iasee-Leon Co.
Planning Department 6r 3/24/76 6/30/76 5/30/7J 2/30/78

Volusla County
Council of Govermenus 4/22/75 3/12/76 7/26/76 4/22/78 1/22178

Bravard Councy
Playing & Zonti 4/24/73 7/15/76 8/23/76 4/24/78 1/24/78
Department

East Centra4kt rMda
gtioel f1t + 3/21/75 7/1/76 7/16/76 3/27178 11/27/77
Council "

Central FIt 44q
RateginMl lan.ma 20S75 5/17/76 9/7/76 6/16 3/6/78
Council

Tamp Soay
Rga 1 ruinn. 5 12173. 7/2/76 716tJ 5/s27 r/7ll7
Council.
Southi. Firt1
eItometMm anwa 546/75 8/8/76 8/20/76 5/U6/71 /1/71
Council

l .-. -B -- 1-ty
Area P1 im 1/1/7/16/76 9/30/76 1/10/78 W0/I/,77
Board

Brovard cumty /
Planning CWv ll 5/22/75 7/13/76 9/27/76 J/3/M 2/2/78

Metro eld* Coa d
InPlanntn Pep~ie 6/275 5s20/76 1/26/n /30/17 13d/7


*PlMnalmg agency subject to chIag 3-77.


9


I I








1; STATUS 208 NONDESIGNATED AREAS

possiblee Designation of New 268 Areas:

At the present tiae, 41 Florida Counties are not included in areas
Designated under Section 208 of the Federal-Water Pollution Control
ct of 1972, PL 92-50%:as areawide. after quality management planning

areas (see the figure). While Section 208 planning for these counties
aust be considered the. responsibility off the state,/under present
endingg only a minimal level of planning can be provided.
It is anticipated thatt additional federal-funds will be released
for 208 planning shortly,. The department feels that the most efficient
6se of these funds would b- in the designation and funding of presently
non-designated areas. Our immediate goal is,, therefore, to complete
preliminary designation procedures for these areas prior to the release
of federal funds. Thus fra public hearings on, designation have been
held for the Duval County Regional Planning Council, the Monroe County

regional Planning Council, the North Central Florida Regional Planning
Council, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council. ;All but the
latter have al qcompleted "designation packages". Public .hearings
have also been held in Lake Okeechobee, and Highlands Counties for the
incorporation of those counties into presently designated areas. A
public hearings has been scheduled (March 24, 1977) for the Treasure
Coast Region which consists of Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin

Counties.
The department has initiated dialogues with Division of State
Planning, the Northwest and Northeast Florida Regional Planning Councils
and the Northwest Florida Water Management District in order to investi-
gate the options available for designating the 17 remaining counties.









Statewide Plan of Study:
The department is presently preparing a final draft of the State
Plan of Study for Section 208 Planning. While previous drafts
emphasized:alternate levels of planning detail based on predictions for
additional fedea~rJ funding to- tha state, the present draft considers
only the level Iof detail possible under the present grant alldcation to
the iState of $9119A89,. At this leveT of funding -it will not be possible
to address in detail the sixteenr planning elements -litted in 40 CFR
130.10(g) for .the non-designated areas~ of the state. The Plan of Study
will, therefore, be restricted to the statewide` pl-aning Iresponsibilities
listed in the State-EPA MeMorandum of Agreement (Sthte of Plorida
Continuing Planning' Process' for Water Qiality Management, April, 1976,
pp. 54-'_2). Thpse responsibilities are.: '
S1) planning-boundaries;
2,) water- qurdity.Rassessment and segment classification;
3) water"quility' standards; '
f:, 4) .totat- maximaa daily loads; and' "
5) poidt source allocations.
These .eleetits iAst be addressed by the state it bot' designated and
non-designated areas.,"i














38




-'m -r_ *F-'~. -r -., -


I


S, .


REPORT O THE STATE OF LORCOA

DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL R WULATION

IN RESPONSE TO HM. 4251 (7


U


2tL4 ..: -
'- I -.;i'C:;' -t


*'-' F -
4.. I' -


-ai,-l .'. ,..--_ ..
_' : '* '{. '*f '. .. *. '...
*.iA- -. ;. 'aJ'& aci. 'A.'. ..


I


4. '


':a~ ;:u:i
:1
..y
: :'p!
;7'
L
.F
I:
L: I':h;~
;~.=: ~'"
~; ;kz~
i;,
-~
:-;"~C
j' -] 'T.i;


} '


/It


II


- :


I
?
r; ...I
c
c,Q


~a
--~~t~
"' 5~~s,~
r :;i
i:
-u, ~Y;


r
.i-.

,,
.;. .


- r:


.1


c I -


Lla


C i*
'''


17 rl


~i~i~rslrrr~















rMUiN 0D. AM
GOVemR







Hi
Sb
F:
T3
Ti

DI

I]
El

i
t:

d





I
ri







^


~El


I I I I ---


9*

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
S252 EXECUnE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST
MONTGOMERY BULDMNG
TAtUAASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
tWW JOSEPH W. LINERS, JR
SECRETARY


February 23, 1977



honorable Donald L. Tucker
speaker
lorida House of Representatives
be Capitol
allahassee, Florida 32304

ear Mr. Speaker:

n response to House Bill 4251 requesting the Department of
environmental Regulation to review the state environmental
ertzittiag process and make reca mendations relative to
proving and consolidating environmental permitting, I am
ransmitting to you this report.

te- report recoiends statutory changes designed to eliminate
duplicative permitting in some areas and create additional
xemptions in other areas.

n addition, administrative actions taken by the department
o facilitate permitting and future action contemplated by
he department are outlined in the report.

am hopeful the Legislature will seriously consider the
ecoaemndations in this report. W* would be pleased to be
f assistance to you in this regard.

Sincerely


oeph W. Landers, Jr.
Secretary


closure






0) 0



State of Florida
Environmental Permitting System
i
Introduction

The increased demand placed on our natural resources by
modern technological society, joined by the reawakening of our
sensitivity towards life-giving processes has resulted in
recent years in the proliferation of institutionalized regulation
of "use" of the environment. Although the commitment to environ-
mental quality has remained high, it is becoming increasingly
apparent that the systems we have enacted to carry out this
commitment have from time to time caused unnecessary overlapping
of permitting requirements and delay in responses to applicants.
The environmental regulatory process has evolved into four
phases: planning, standard setting, permitting and enforcement.
These phases are inextricably linked.
Environmental planning is required for the long-term manage-
ment of resources. To the business community, well executed and
coordinated environmental planning efforts represent ai way out of
the current lack of predictability in environmental regulation.
At the present time, there.are at least eight statewide environ-
mentally oriented plans bsaing prepared, required either by state
or federal law, all with different empb4ses.and different completion
dates. It is therefore of some concern that these plans may not
fit together, and their value as predictive tools will therefore
be lost.

The standard-setting phase is that portion of the regulatory
process in which the goals and problems identified in the planning
phase are addressed by the adoption of general, minimum criteria
and standards by rule in accordance with Chapter 120.

The permitting phase has as its purpose the implementation of
planning by the application of standards to specific activities.
The permitting process is based on the premise that the public ought
to have assurances that a proposed activity which will impact our
natural resources is designed to meet applicable standards before
those natural resourpes are impacted and before a vast commitment
of private or public' financial resources has been made.
The fourth phase of the regulatory process is enforcement.
This phase Inolves theluQnitoring of activities to dtermine com-
pliance with standards ahd permit conditions and the initiation of
corrective measures where violations are determined.. The enforce-
ment phase is the critical one in terms of assuring that the public
goals of resource management are achieved.



1


-- ~~I~L~,,,.I-4 .j~; _, ~: _~,~ ~~ 2;kJ4*br










Despite the recognized necessity for the permitting process,
questions have arisen as to whether the number of agencies and
reviews presently involved at the local, regional, state and
federal levels are really the most efficient and effective means
to carry out environmental regulation. This has become increasingly
important during this period when the state is attempting to locate
new industry in Florida to broaden the economic base of the state.

The 1976 Florida House of Representatives passed a resolution
(HB 4251) requesting the State of Florida Department of Enironmental
Regulation to evaluate the state environmental permitting process
and to submit a report by March 1, 1977 to the Legislature addressing
the following factors:

(a) Permit Review Criteria
ib) Processing Procedures
(c) Necessary Transfers of Personnel, Property,
Moneys, etc.
(d) Funding
(e) Necessary Statutory and Rule Revisions, Including,
But Not Limited to Chapters 161, 253, 373, 381 and 403
(f) Any Other Matters Which the Secretary Deems
Appropriate for the Establishment of a Consolidated
State Environmental Permit System

In response to HB 4251, the Department of Environmental Regu-
lation published a notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly on
July 16, 1976. Copies of the notice were also mailed to the depart-
ment's mailing list of approximately 2,000 persons and to 'he Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, the Department of Administration, the Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the Water Management Districts, the
Senate Natural Resources and Conservation Committee and the House
Natural Resources Committee.

The notice described the subject factors in HB 4251 and solicited
written comments by August 14, 1976. A public workshop was held in
Orlando, Florida on September 8, 1976 at which a summary of the
written comments received by DER were discussed. On October 5, 1976,
a summary of comments received at the September 8, 1976 workshop and
a questionnaire were distributed for discussion. A second workshop
was held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on November 17, 1976. In the
meantime, further comments were received and discussions had With
various members of the public.

This report addresses three broad categories of topics: con-
solidation and streamlining of the permitting process which can be
accomplished through administrative means, recommendations for sub-
stantive statutory changes and recommended subjects for future con-
sideration. Below 4as table of contents:






e o



I. The Environmental Reorganization -Act of 1975

IX. Current Efforts to Eliminate Overlapping Through
Administrative Means

III. Recommendations for Action by the Legislature

IV. Recommended Subjects for Future Consideration

I. The Environmental Reorganization Act of 1975
In 1975, the Florida Legislature enacted the Environmental Re-
organization Act of 1975, Chapter 75-22 (Laws of Florida), for the
express purpose of promoting

"the efficient, effective and economical operation
of certain environmental agencies by centralizing
authority over, and pinpointing responsibility for
the management of the environment by authorizing
the delegation of substantial decision-making
authority to the district level and by consolidating
compatible administrative, planning, permitting,
enforcement and operational activities" (Section
403.802, Florida Statutes).

The act took effect on July 1, 1975.

Prior to -July 1, 1975, state environmental permitting rested with-
in the jurisdiction of nine state and regional agencies: the De-
partment of Pollution Control, the Department of Natural Resources,
the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servites, the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Pund a&the.% then six
water management districts. Subsequent to July 1, 1975, and environ-
mental reorganization, the pollution control and public drinking
water programs were merged administratively into one agency, the
Department of Environmental Regulation. Also, located within the
department are the no. five water management districts with their
independent permitting functions.

The 1975 Environmental Reorganization Act was a major first step
in consolidation of the environmental permitting process as it
brought together under one administrative roof most of the state
personnel and authorities involved in permitting. However, with
the excepties of exemptions and short-form projects relating to
regulation of manpr dredge and fill projects, nc dbanges in
substantive law. vre made. Thus, the effort to consolidate
permitting is continuing at the administrative level, as outlined
below, and could also be further advanced at the legislative level
as discussed in the last two sections of this report.



3


,. j-iifcfia*^










IX. Current Efforts to Eliminate Overlapping Through Administrative
Means

A. District Offices .

,As mandated by the reorganization act, and in an effort to pro-
,vide efficient service at the local level, the department has
established four district and two subdistrict offices, with
boundaries as coterminous with the water management districts
as possible, and six additional branch offices, Over ninety-
five percent of DER's permits are handled solely from the
district offices, wih'bh nly technical support as necessary from
the central office provided as needed. DER's South Florida Sub-
district is located in the, sam. building as is the South Florida
Water Management District (formerly the Central and Southern
Flood Control District). By this spring, the DER Southwst -
District will be located with regulatory personnel of the
Southwest Florida Water Management District in Tampa.

B. Dredge and Fill Permitting

It is widely recognized that the need for reorganization of the
state's environmental agencies came in part from the complexity
of dredge and fill permitting procedures, both at the state
and federal levels. tehe Trustees permitting jurisdiction (Chapter
253, Florida Statutes), Water Quality Certification under
Section 401 of PL 92-500, and the Water Quality Dredge and Fill
Rule (Chapter 403) weae merged into DER, Procedures for pro-
cessing these permits were consolidated with most of -them being
handled at the district or subdistrict level. The average time
an applicant has to wait .for final agency action from receipt
of a completed application is now one-fourth of the time required
prior to reorganization. This is in part duevto the elimination
of a number of agencies commenting on applications as a result
of reorganization. -. .

Since reorganization, the only dredge and fill permitting com-
pletely handled at the district has been for those projects
qualifying for short-form -application procedures. WThse ~ew
short-form proedus ,are working vemxwell. and the department
is now preparing to delegate much. fathe standard dredge and
fill permitting to district offices, in ord t to further
implement the intent of the Reorganization Act.
Recent changes in the regulatory jurisdiction of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers have resulted in a federal
program which parallels that of the state. Since much of
the dredge and fill.2pea~ait4ing is therefore duplicative in
nature, a Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix 1)* was signed
last spring to establish a general approach for streamlining
this process by eliminating duplicative permitting where
possible and coordinating permit processing where dual permits










are still required. In addition, many projects exempted from
DER permitting requirements will also be exempted from Corps
permits,~ or will be eligible for abbreviated federal processing.
Application will bae made on a joint application form to depart-
ment district offices. Where federal permits are also required,
.a copy :ill be: forwarded to the appropriate Corps office for
processing. Public notices will be issued jointly, saving the
applicant time and expense. Hearings, "if necessary, will be
carried out jointly or consecutively, depending on legal con-
straints .

In Section IV of this report are additional recommendations
for streamlining the dredge and fill permitting process which
S will require legislative action.

C. Water Management District Permitting

Under Chapter 3-3, Florida Statutes, the water management dis-
tricts have broad permitting authority, much of it delegated
by the department, over projects involving artificial recharge,
wells, surface water management, consumptive use, and use of
works of the districts.- Many projects requiring water quality
permits: under Chapter 403 also require water use or water
management permits from the water management districts. Rec-
ognizing that in many of these cases the criteria being evaluated
in these peits~ are quite different and that neither DER dis-
triots nor the water management districts contain the expertise
to evaluate both sets of :criteria, :DER has ont.red into per-
mitting agreements with the water management districts which
will allow applicants .to deal with one contact agency, while
-mantain;ig the present evaluation and decision-making structures.
Joint application forms will be utilised, and the applicant may
aeubmit them ato t)~water management district br to the DER dis-
trict office, whichever is.more convenient. If either agency
anticipates requiring modification or denial of the project,
a meeting will be held so that the applicant can be provided
with a uniform.response consistent with statutory responsibili-
ties.: Agreements of this nature have been executed with the
Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Northwest
Florida Water Management District and-the St. Johns Water Manage-
ment District (Appendix 2). The agreement with the South Florida
Water Management district is scheduled for execution at the March
District Governing Board.meeting, and the Suwannee River Water
Management district agreement will be completed-shortly there-
after. .

Below are three examples of "overlaps" between DER and the
Swater- management districts showing statutory responsibilities,
where.the expertise lies for evaluating the projects and some
suggestions for handling the permitting for these types of pro-
,jeets.










1. Permits for Projects Involving the Intentional Introduction
of Wastewater into Underground Aquifers

Disposal of industrial and more importantly, domestic
wastewater, through deep wells or spray irrigation, into
underground strata is becoming increasingly attractive
to industries and municipalities as the ability of sur-
-oface waters to accept any additionaI wast ldad decreases.
Under the present permitting system, permission from the
governing board of the appropriate water management district
must be obtained prior to any construction of any facility
"involving artificial recharge or the intentional intro-
duction of water.into any underground aquifer" (section
373.106). The water management districts have different
methods of handling this requirement, but nost require
permits for a deep well project and some for a spray irri-
gation project. A permit also must be obtained under
section 403.087 and 403,088, from the Department of Environ-
mental Regulation to ensure that the proposed facility meets
-all applicable effluent and water quality standards.

These projects represent some of the most complex effluent
disposal systems to evaluate, and it can be anticipated
that in the future the state is goint to be required to
make decisions on many more of these. Additionally, the
planning and construction of many of these waste disposal
projects, also involving artificial recharge, are financially
based on planning and grants administered by the Department
of Environmental Regulation for the U. S, Environmental
Protection Agency. Thus, the method of regulating these
projects should be technically the best the state has to
offer and must be closely allied with the planning and
grants program as well as the drinking water program. This
involves staff work by.both the department and the water
management distrigtL.tbheg, state is to meet all the require-
ments for an undeigtound injection control program as re-
quired by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Department of Environmental Regulation and the water
management districts will continue to t d a m
coordina' raviw of artificial recharge permit appi -
cationsj lnumizs the total review time. This should
include th holding of joint hearings under Chapter 120,
Florida Statutes, where necessary and practical.

2. Permits for Projects Involving Discharges and/or Dredging
and Filling Activities and Surface Water Management Permits

Certain projects involving dredging or filling, such as
dam or canal construction or discharges, also involve manage-
ment of surface waters. Under part IV of Chapter 373, the


I I I -----~-ra -------- ---










D.... department of Environmental Regulation or the water manage-
S ment district is authorized to require permits for construc-
tion of any dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work
or works. -his Chapter 373 authority was delegated to the
water management districts by the Department of Natural
Resources and this delegation was continued by the DER.
... er Mh ga gesture rn afn.a "anrngfn orkV" of the dis-
trbt a permit for-crossing these works is also required
uhder Part I of Chapter 373, Permits required by the de-
'p rtment itself for these projects may include dredging or
filling permits under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes,
o: -o`a discharge permit under Chapter 403, and water quality'
certification to the federal government, either the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency or the U. S. Army Corps of'
Engineers under PL 92-500.

Both the applicant and the state would benefit from a single
review encompassing water quantity, water ,quality and
biological standards. A procedure whereby DER or its
O ideleaxte:.ua-a- the soIA final aan cton on such
Projects after rece ving technical comments from the water
management district staff on the standards contained in
SChapter-373, Parts I and IV ii under consideration.
3. :Permits Required for Public Water Supply Wells

SThe water management districts have been delegated the
responsibility for permitting water wells, under Chapter
173, -ar IV, Florida StatUtes. PLesently, all the
Water management districts with the exception of the
': South Florida Water Management District require well per-
mits. Under Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter
S-17-22, Florida Administrative Code, DER has had the re-
sponsibility-: I permitting public water supply systems,
Including a separate permit for public water supply wells.

S Since- -th water management districts have the prime re-
sponsibility for regulating consumptive use and since well
permitting does rnt involve interaction with the federal
gQv9rn~A nt, or water quality modeling, it seems reasonable
for the water menagetent dietricL' te- p 1teo all well
permitting; An oh-site inspection is requi ed prior to.
the is-pance of- a public water hBpply wall permit. Since
this function is normally undertaken by the local county
health units, this procedure should not place an additional
burden on the water management districts. UMever, the
-districts b*ould naed a trainer Manitarian to perform in-
spections as necessary, '

Being placed under the purview of the water management
districts. This would require that responsibility for


- .--.- -- m-----.------ ---- ----L--- I; i ili---5-:










portions of Chapter 391 be delegable to the water management
districts, that local county health units cooperate in this
delegation, and, finally, that the watar management districts
-have trai"i' 4 niB .r to assist the loca counties in
function as required.

D. Local Pollution Control Programs and Local County Health Units

Locally funded pollution control programs also play an important
role in the state environmental permitting process. Although
certain counties have regulations governing activities not
otherwise permitted by the department, permitting procedures
worked out in interagency agreements for projects regulated
jointly by the department and the local programs provide for
a single contact point and evaluation at the local level, with
DER only reviewing the permit. Without the assistance of local
programs in permitting, monitoring and enforcement, the depart-
ment would be unable to meet its statutory commitments. The
department currently has permitting agreements executed with
four of the fifteen local pollution control programs, all
providing for a merger of state and local permitting require-
ments, with substantial decision making being delegated to
local governmental agencies for efficient service

Nine local county health units provide a similar function in
the drinking water program.


III. Recommendations Requiring Action by the Legislature

A. Proposed Statutory Changes to Eliminate Overlapping Permits

The multitude of environmental permits required for some pro-
jects is perceived by many as constituting an overlap. As
described before, many times entirely different environmental
factors are being evaluated, as, for example, in the require-
ments for an air emission permit and a water discharge permit
prior to construction of a paper plant. However, the subjects
addressed below represent categories of permits or approvals
which should be simplified and consolidated, both from the
applicant's point of view and in order to enable the state to
make more comprehensive analyses of the factors involved prior
to making a decision.

1. Local Government

a. Local Approval Under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes

Currently under Chaptaer253, Florida Statutes, local
government approval is required before DER can issue
a peJait to fill in navigable waters of the state
(see section 253.124). Such prior local approval is
not required before DER issues a permit to dredge in
navigable waters of the state (see section 253.123).


L II











Frequently, a person applies to DER for a permit under
Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, at the same time or
before he or she applies for the requisite local approval.
,Often DER completes its review of the permit application
prior to the applicant's receipt of local approval,
thereby subjecting the permit applicant to delay ih a
final decision on the proposed project. Local govern-
ment is not under any time constraints to act on a
permit application such as those found in section
120.60 (2), Florida Statutes. Additionally, certain
local governments may not have the expertise necessary
to evaluate adequately the environmental impacts of a
proposed project.

Recommendation 1:

It is recommended that for purposes of Chapter 253,
Florida Statutes, the requirement to obtain separate
local approval prior to the issuance of a permit by
DER be eliminated. However, local government should
be given an opportunity to comment on each proposed
project within a specified period of time, for example
within 30 days of'receipt by DER of a complete applica-
tion.

b. Developments of Regional Impact and Regional Planning
Council

Pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, developments
of regional impact (DRI's) are evaluated by regional
planning councils who make recommendations to the appro-
priate local government on the issuance or denial of
the subject development order. In evaluating a DRI,
the regional planning council considers a wide range
of potential impacts including air and water quality
and water quantity. As part of the evaluation pro-
cess, the council may seek the comments of DER and
the water management districts. Such comments may
be based on the less detailed, conceptual information
provided by the applicant for the DRI review process,
than the, omprehensive, technical information supplied
to regulatory agencies for permit reviews., In either
case, the regional planning council is not bound by
the comments of DER or the water management districts,
and in some instances may disregard or modify such
comments. For example, an applicant having received
an environmental permit signifying compliance with
state water quality standards, may, to satisfy a second
review by the regional planning council staff, have to
modify his design to meet their evaluation of the water
quality aspects of a project before receiving a develop-
meat order.


II I r










The development of recommendationson air and water
quality and water quantity by the council separate
from those of DER and the water management districts
requires.duplicative expertise within the staffs of the
council qad sometimes results-in conflicting responses
to applicants. :-

Recommendation 2:

It is recommended that an applicant for a development
order for a DRI be given the option of filing simulta-
neously on a consolidated aE tion form for necessary
permits under Chapters 253 T 3,37 381 and 403, Florida
Statutes, Where such an optO is exercised, the
determinations and conditions made ion the permit appli-
cations by DER and the water management districts would
be binding oni he regional planning council and preempt
it from exercising independent judgment and examination
of those factors.

2. State Government

a. Permits Required Under Subsection 161.041, Florida
Statutes

Prior to undertaking coastal construction or reconstruc-
tion involving groins, jetties, seawalls, artificial
nourishment or, any other,;shoreline protection structure
upon state-owned tidal lands below mean high water,
permits must ,P qbtaia afrom the Department of Natural
Resources under section 161 041, Florida Statutes. These
activities also require dredging and filling permits
under Chapter .253, and 403 from the Department of Environ-
mental Regulation. In addition, many of these projects
require water quality certification from the Department
of Environmental Regulation under section 401, PL 92-500,
before the J, S. Corps of Engineers can issue a federal
permit under ;section 404, :PLT 92-500. This water quality
certification is currently consolidated into DER's pro-
cedures for state permits.

Since regulation of dredging and filling activities in-
cluding biological, ecological and hydrographic reviews
and responsibility for water quality certification are
currently placed within DER, it would be more efficient
to consolidate ipto DER. the permit requirements of
section.161.041. Then a single coastal dredging and
filling permit could be issued to cover, in a single
review, w*ter quality, biological ecological, hydro-
graphic and coastal protection factors.










Recommendation 3

SIt is recommended that the function of issuing and
denying permits under subsection 161.041, Florida Statu
be. transferred to the Department of Environmental Regu-
lation by a type four transfer.

b. Easements, Leases and Dredge Material Fees as Required
by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
TrustL .ad ftor fro.etsa Rquiing Permits under Chapter
253, 'lou'da gtatu-es-" -

Under the Environmental Reorganization Act of 1975,
the Department of Environmental Regulation was given
the responsibility for issuing and denying permits
under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, whereas the
responsibility for making decisions relating to state-
owned lands was transferred to the Department of
Natural Resources. For example, a person wishing to
construct a marina on a state-owned land must apply
to DER for an environmental permit and to DNR for a
lease for the use of the land. Thus, the one-step
"permit-ownership approval" process has been bifurcated.
In general, the substantive review which the state makes
to determine whether the use of state lands is not con-
trary to the public interest, as required by the con-
stitution, is\the biological, ecological and hydrographic!
review. made by the Department 'ofaEnvironmental Regulations
prior to issuance of the environmental permit. Recent
legislation has reversed this process, and there is some
question as to what information the Trustees are current-
ly using prior to rendering their land use decisions. j
Thus, in a majority of cases where a dredge and fill per-
ait is involved, the granting of the appropriate ease-
ment, license or lease really becomes a ministerial act
which could be delegated to the De~prtment of Environ-
Smantal Regulation. Sale of state lands requiring the |
additional burden that it -be in the public interest, |
should remain vested in the Trustees.

Recommendation A; j

,It .i recommended that Chapter 253 be amended to authorize
the Board of Trustees to delegate the issuance of ease-
ments, licenses and collection of dredge material fees
t thle Department of Environental Regulation for pro-
jects requiring permits untms Chapter 253, Florida
Statutes, and tat the appropriate personnel, equip- I
ment and funds to administer this program be transferred
to the Department of Environmental Regulation. All pro-
ceeds would continue to be deposited in the Land Aquisi-
tion Trust Fund.











c. Public Drinking Water Supply Regulatory Program


As described in the excellent Senate staff report on
"An Evaluation of Florida's Drinking Water Supply Pro-
gram," Section 9of the Environmental Reorganization
Act needs to be amplified and clarified to pinpoint
responsibilities for the efficient, effective adminis-
tration of the state's drinking water program.

Furthermore, regardless of whether primacy is sought
under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the state
needs a comprehensive act on the state drinking water
program. The current provisions of Chapter 381, Florida
Statutes are entirely too vague and inadequate for pre-
sent needs. It does not delineate clearly an' intended
scope of drinking water program responsibilities.

Recommendation 5:

It is recommended that a state drinking water act be
enacted to clarify the scope of program responsibilities
for the state drinking water program.

d. Processing of Regulatory Permits for Projects which
are a Part of Developments of Regional Impact

Section 403.85, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Sec-
retary to delegate all his authority for action on permit
applications to district managers except for projects
which are part of a Development of Regional Impact
under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. This has not
proven a practical means of separating out complex pro-
jects for consideration by the Secretary as there is
nothing intrin-ically more significant about a project
requiring a regulatory permit associated with a DRI than
any other project. For example, a shopping center which
is a DRI may have a small sewage treatment plant associ-
ated with it. There is not a logical reason why an
applicant for this small plant should have the burden
of dealing with the main office, when an applicant for
a major sewage treatment plant can deal directly with
the local office.

Recommendation 6:

It is recoreinded that the language relating to Develop-
ments of Regional Impact be deleted from section 403.805,
so that permitting of these projects can be decentra-
lized at the Secretary's discretion.

e. Merger of Statutes Relating to the Regulation of
Dredging and Filling Activities

As described previously, reorganization brought together


I ___ ___ ___~_






6 Q


the agencies responsible for permitting dredging and
filling activities under Chapters 253 and 403.
However, these authorities have not been merged statu-
torily. As a result, applicants are subject to
different evaluation criteria located in different
statutes depending on the location of the proposed
work.

Recommendation 7:

That the regulation of dredging and filling activities
be placed into one statute.
3. Federal

a. NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Eliminating
System)

Under section 402 of PL 92-500, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments, federal permits
are required for discharges to waters of the United
States. Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, requires
similar state permits for the same discharges. Con-
sequently, a permitting overlap exists between the
federal and state laws on discharge to waters.

Section 402 of PL 92-500:provides a mechanism to
eliminate this overlap. Specifically, section 402
authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to delegate to the states his authority
to issue and deny NPDES permits. Delegation depends
upon the state having the necessary statutory authority,
implementing legislation and program capabilities. To
date, 38 states have bee. delegated the responsibility
for the NPDES program.i e The necessary state legisla-
tion was drafted by EPA and one of DBR's predecessors,
the Department of Pollution Control, for the 1975 leg-
islative session, bAt ~es not acted upon by the Florida
Legislature. It is estimated by DER that assumption
of NPDES authority would require an additional
$129,000.
Recommendation 8:

It is recommended that Florida appropriate funds and
enact the minimum legislatUon necessary to receive
delegation of NPDES authority from the federal govern-
ment, thereby eliminating a significant state-federal
permitting overlap.


_M










b. Delegation of Permitting Under Section 404, PL 92-500

Presently an applicant engaging in a dredging or filling
project m-stt obtain (at the minimum) water quality
certification under section 401, PL 92L500 and environ-
mental permits from the state under Chapters 253 and
403, Florida Statutes, (this is accomplished under one
procedure at the Department of Environmental Regulation)
and permits from the Corps of Engineers under the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 and/or section 404 of PL 92-500.

The Corps of Engineers currently lacks the authority
to delegate this permitting authority to the states
in order to facilitate permitting of smaller projects.
The Corps has, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding
signed with DER, begun issuing general permits. Gen-
eral permits authorize the public at large to perform
a certain type of project in a specified geographic
area, in accordance with certain conditions, without
going through normal Corps permitting procedures. Thus,
in certain instances, applicants will only need state
permits, or no permits at all.

Last year the U.. S. Senate Public Works Committee
considered amendments to section 404 which would trans-
fer the wetland permitting responsibility to EPA, who
in turn could delegate permitting authority to states
having adequate regulatory programs. Section 404
permitting should be delegated to the state.

(Recommendation 9:

The legislature should adopt a state wetlands bill to
parallel federal authority. This coupled with a Joint
Resolution requesting delegation from the federal govern-
ment of permitting under section 404 of PL 92-500 would
be a major step towards consolidation of the state and
federal permitting process.
B. Recommendations for Additions to Statutory Exemptions

Recommendation 10:

The department feels the following projects should no
longer require state environmental permits, due to the
minimal adverse effects to be expected from such pro-
jects. In addition, DER is requesting authority
to exempt by rule additional projects from permitting
requirements.
1. Amend Subsection 403.813(2), Florida Statutes

(2) No permit under this Chapter, Chapter 373 or Chapter






9 A


253 shall be required for activities associated with the
following types of projects; however, nothing in this sub-
section shall ,ekieve an aapplicant from complying with
applicable local-pollution control programs authorized
under this Chapter or other requirements of county or
municipal governments. ;The Department ma exempt by
rule additional activIti froM 't ChapteaRand apter

2. Amend Suseotc .8403.813(2)(c):
(c) The installation of public-boat ramps en-artifieial
odesme-Lf-water-whoee-iwraste ig ena aeeeseae-tehe-prepesed
rasp-emis*te ijn waters of the state where navigational access
to the prooaS amp.ests alnait w re ~-' construction of
S proposed. IEMpw be lesIs th 30"TOFeiet wide and wilT
inlve the removal of less -Ethan 2 bic ards oTmaterial
S m te waters of tEe s-tae; proviTde- however that the
mater riemved shall be placed on a self-contained upand
S Sghb a prevent the es e of the spoil material
into watea. of the sta 7 TheDepartmen of Natural
Resources as ;aaiWlstrator for-the Trustees of the Internal
ImprovementfIrust Fnd, may fiR 5E recover from the permitted
an appropriate aou for state owned materiaremoved
3. Amend Subsection 403.813(2)(f):
(f) The performance e-ae-9yeaS-fiem-the-Asseanee-ef-the
originaa-peea -graat-prer-be- -Ty-47-9957 of maintenance
dredging of existing manmade canals, ehanneisy intake and
discharge structures where the spoil material is to be
removed and deposited on a self-contained,, upland spoil
site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material
into the waters of. the state; (however,) no more dredging
is to be performed than ie necessary to restore the canal,
ehannke&7 intake and discharge structures to original design
specification., and provided that eoentrol devices are
utilized to count urbidAty -A deleterious substances
from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance
dredging.. .. : -=#i tMiot.n ly dMi to oag~nals
construte prior to April 3, 1970 and to canals constructed
after April 3, 1970 pursuant to all neces -rstate permits.
This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural
or- mngdbrier searating a'eanal or canal system from
adJamt^ wate ,-*e-wre no preVIots permit has been issued
by t-0e eeo of Sthe Internal improvement Trust
Wund Qp be -dF inedts o r construction or
maintaqW dtM olf the ,itJr gnae canal or
intake ow discharge structure, .h. maintenance dredging
shall be lited to a depth of no more than -5 ft. MLW.
The Trustees of the Internal 2qrovement Trust- und


15










may fix and recover from the permitted an amount equal
to the difference between the fair market value and the
actual cost of maintenance dredging for material removed
during such maintenance dredging by a public port authority.
The removing party may subsequently sell such material;
however, proceeds from such sale that exceed the costs
of maintenance dredging shall be remitted to the state
and deposited in the (Land Acquisition) Traust Fund.

4. Amend Subsection 403.813(2) by adding:

(k) The installation of aids to navigation and buoys
associated with such aids; providedi however, that the
device is marked pursuant to subsection 371.521, Florida
Statutes.

(1) The replacement or repair of existing open trestle
foot bridges and vehicular bridges that are less than 100
feet in length and two lanes or less in wi th; provided,
however, that no mope dredging or fillg in submerged
lands is necessary other than that required to replace
or r repair piling -that the replaced or repaired
structure Is the sam length, the configuration and
in the same location as the origin. bridge. No debris .
from the original bridge shall be allowed to remain in
the waters of the state.

(m) The installation of subaqueous transmission and
distribution lines laA .onqr embedded i& the"bottoms of
artificially Created waterways, irrigatJOn and drainage
ditches; provided, however, that no dredging or filling
is necessary.

(n) The replacement or repair of subaqueouss transmission
and distribution lines laid on, or wabedded in, the bottoms
of waters of the state.

5. The' following amendments should also be made for consistency:

a. Amend subsection 403.813(l1)(d):

(d) The installation of buoys, signs, fences and ski
ramps.

b. Amend subsection 403.81-3(1) (e):

(e) The' installation of subaqueous transmission and
distribution lines laid oi. or embedded in, the bottoms
of waters f. the state carrying vawter, electricity,
ooamniucatio n cables,, oil and gas, except as exempted
Jin subsection- (21) n) of this seetioi7; an


__










C. Recommended Statutory Changes Concerning Appeals and Public
Notices

1. Appeals

As a result of the EnvirOnmental Reorganization Act of
1975, Chapter 75-12, Laws of Florida, an administrative
process was established whereby certain final actions of
DER, including permit decisions, are appealable to the
Environmental Regulation Cdmmission and the Governor and
Cabinet. However, sections 253.76 and 403.804(1), Florida
Statutes, d' not indicate whether such appeals are a
prerequisite-'to exhaustion of administrative remedies,
are optional, or are subject t6 being pursued simultaneously
with appeals to the district courts of appeal. Additional
uncertainty is created with regard to activities requiring
a dredge and fill permit under both Chapters 253 and 403,
Florida Statutes.

Section 253.76 provides for an administrative appeal to
the Governoreand Cabinet on the Chapter 253 aspects of
such activities, and section 403.804(1) provides for a
similar appeal on the Chapter 403 aspects to the Environ-
mental-s regulation Conmission,

Recommendation 11

It is reromaended that sections 253.276 and 403.804(1),
Florida Statutes, be amended to provide specifically that
appeals to the Governor and Cabinet and the Environmental
Regulation Commission are optional and may not be pursued
simultaneously with appeals to the district courts of
appeal. Furthermore,'selection of the option to pursue
a judicial appeal rather than an administrative one should
preclude Wte dcouft .trm remanding the 'matter to the Governor
and Cabinet or the EnvironMantal Regulattio Commission fo I
review. Those sections should also be amended to provide
that notices of appeal must be filed within fifteen days
of the rendition (reduced to writing) of the order being
appealed..
2. Public Notice

Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, does not require that public
notice be given of odnstructiofnor operation permit appli-
catione, but does require such notice with regard to tempo-
rary. peation. permits. However, federal law requires
that pubM notice be given of tSpplications for air source
permits an s permits.n InaSmuch as public awareness
of permit applications is essential to effective public
paxticipatiom in the enVirXonamJ etal regulatory process,
public notice on all permit applications should be required.










Recommendation 12:


It is recommended that Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, be
amended to require that public notice be given of all per-
mit applications with permit applicants being required to
pay for the notices.

D. Recommended Legislative Action Concerning Staffing, Budget and
Personnel Classification

1. Permit Information Center

Prospective applicants have trouble sorting out the environ-
mental permits which may be required by local, regional,
state and federal entities. A central contact in the
Tallahassee DER office with a toll free number could be
established to provide information on what permits are
required at all levels of governmentt, where. to obtain
additional information on each one, and which ordinances,
rules and legislation are applicable for a particular
activity.

Recommendation 13:

It is recommended that DER be provided appropriate personnel
and funds to establish and uan an Environmental Permitting
Information Center.

2. DER Staffing and Salary Structures

House Bill 4251 is concerned with improving the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of the state's e-nvironmental
permitting process. Effective, rational and intelligent
decision-making in the environmental atena requires ex-
pertise in many emerging professional and scientific
disciplines and individuals possessing such skills are in
great demand in the professional market. Experience has
clearly demonstrated that both private industry and the
federal government have a significant competitive edge over
the State of Florida in this market since state salary rates
are lower in many job categories.

Consequently, many positions are vacant for excessive periods
of time or there is a rapid turnover both.of which result
in reduced efficiency. Several specific examples bear this
out. Ra- ctly, i-a district atyager position 'iLth a base
salary of 18,Oj75 became .vant. It was advertised and
there w an .nly .three appiodantM.. Oftle the applicants
learned what the duties and sponsibilities of the district
manager position entailed, two -of the -three applicants
withdrew ifrm consideration. ,The district manager
is responsible for issuing virtually all types of permits


_1___ i __~II_ _~ _






e



for the Department of Environmental Regulation within his
or her respective district. This can be anything from a
small project only affecting one individual to a project
easily costing $100 million and affecting many people. Con-
cern about the. lack of interest in the vacant district manage:
position prompted a salary study (Appendix 3) by the
Division of Environmental Permitting. This study indicated
that similar positions in the local, regional and state
levels ( of other states) were making anywhere between
$5,000 to $10,000 more.
Another example is the classification of field inspector
(base salary $10,377). This is a position that reviews
major multi-million dollar dredge and fill projects such
as Cape Coral or Marco Island. This position is required
to assess the project and recommend approval, denial or
modifications that would make, it environmentally acceptable
and capable of meeting state water quality standards.
Historically) incumbents remain in this position for one
or two years and then either go to the federal government
or private industry for a higher salary to perform the
same basic functions.
One more important area of expertise that this agency has
traditionally had extreme difficulty in filling positions
is the engineering positions assigned to the air program.
One district office has had a. Professional Engineer II
(base salary $15,612) in its air permitting section vacant
for over 12 months and as of this date, still has not
been able to fill it even though it has been advertised in
lo.al newspapers around the state. The same district
also recently lost ittatop air Engineer IV (base salary
$14,700) toqprivate industry and is expecting to have the
same difficulty in filling this positioA as well. It is
inrterteti ng to note that ,the -incumbent that left the En-
gineer 3V position was given a raise in excess of $3,000
above what he .was making with the state. While these
positions are vacant,.DER cannot stop the processing of
air permits for the power company, phosphate industry, etc.
Cons~eeqtly, the DER has to respond with less experienced
people, which can cause problems for the State of Florida
and its industries.

Recommendation 14:
Because AL this inability to fill.certain types of key
environmental positions and the turnover of others, it is
reco meqd that.the Legislature support .a 44apetitive
salary study to be.conducted Jo~ntly with the Department
of E.viropmental Regulation im identifying what positions
should ba upgraded in the environmental field.






*



3. Enforcement Capabilities

The review and issuance or denial of permit applications is
only the preliminary stage of the authorization of activities
process. Construction and operation permits are issued
pursuant to explicit design specifications, construction
safeguards, operation criteria and environmental monitoring
requirements. Effective environmental control hinges upon
the ability of the regulatory agency to conduct adequate
surveillance to ensure compliance with standards and permit
conditions. Without adequate enforcement capabilities,
the permitting process easily can become an illusionary
source of environmental control creating a false sense of
public confidence in the implementation of environmental
laws enacted by Florida's elected representatives.
Since air and water have certain finite assimilative capaci-
ties, the level of emissions and discharges of pollutants
from existing sources affects the ability to authorize new
emissions and discharges. Consequently, the ability of the
state to expand its economy with businesses which emit and
discharge wastes is directly related to its capability to
ensure compliance by existing sources with standards and
permit conditions.
The State of Florida has approximately 26,000 permitted water
and air pollution discharge sources, water supply sources,
landfills and dredge and fill activities. The Department
of Environmental Regulation has 32 professional field en-
forcement personnel with additional assistance being
provided by local programs. Consequently, this means for
the department to inspect major sources and activities at
least once a year, many sources are not inspected at all
during the course of several years (Appendix 4). This level
of enforcement capability is not sufficient to establish
professional or public confidence that Florida's environ-
mental standards are, in fact, being met1 or to ensure that
maximum reserves of air and water are available for con-
tinued economic expansion.
With the enactment of the Environmental Reorganization Act
of 1975, Chapter 75-22 (Laws of Florida), responsibility
for the enforcement of requirements for dredging and filling
under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, pollution
control and resource recovery and management under Chapter
403, Florida Statutes, and drinking water under Chapter
381, Florida Statutes, was assigned to the Department
of Environmental Regulation. However, the enforcement
mechanisms of those chapters of the Florida Statutes vary
greatly, For example, Chapter 403 provides administrative
and judicial remedies, Chapter 253 provides only judicial
remedies, but in a very unclear manner. Furthermore, the





various administrative and judicial remedies are not con-
sistent with each other despite a similarity in the types
of enforcementtproblems addressed, (i.e., violations of
standards and permit conditions).

This disparity in remedies is the result or the historical
development of the statutes involved. They were enacted
at different times over a wide apan of time*. Recent environ-
mental,-enactments coming within the purview of DER's respon-
sibility, such as the Resource Recovery and Management Act-
and the Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, have been made
enforceable through the remedies in Chapter 403, Florida
Statutes. .

It would serve to simplify the administration of Florida's
environmental laws for the public and DERj if all those acts
for which DER is responsible were enforced by the provisions
of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes! ."

Recommendation 15:, -

It is recommended that DER be provided with the resources to
inspect major sources in the solid waste, air, waste water
and drinking water at least twice per year, minor sources
in those categories at least once per year, and permitted
dredge and -fill projects at least once (not per year) to
determine compliance with permit limits and Conditions.
Recommendation 16:

it.i Becommended that Chapters 253 and 381, Florida Statutes,
be amended ;o provide for enforcement through the provisions
of sections 40-.121, 403.131, 403.141, 403.151 and 403.161,
Florida Statutes.

Recommendations for Further Consideration -

Current state law (Chapters .33 and 403, Florida Statutes) has
placed the regulatory responsibilities-for the utilization of
the states water resources with the DER and the water management
districts. The problems associated with the uses of water for
recreational,-:drinking, industrial, agricultural and waste dis-
posal purposes are inextricably interwoven. Such uses cannot
be dealt with effectively as- if theyware-independent, unrelated
activities. As-the State-of Florida grows in population the com-
petition between uses will heighten and result in iftreased con-
flicts between such uses. Current efforts of the
state to expand its economic base-by attracting new business to
Florida could :be adversely affected ,f 'ater resources are in-
efficiently managed., Water resourceS are finite in nature as


21


V1.






9



a result of total volume and physical availability at specific
locations. The use of waters for the disposal of wastes affects
their viability for various consumptive uses.

Consequently, in order for Florida to maintain its economically
valuable environmental quality and provide a reservoir of water
resources to accommodate the demands of an expanding economy,
the DER is evaluating present and proposed uses of water for
consumption and waste disposal. To do otherwise will result in
a degraded environment to the detriment of those economic in-
terests which depend on a high quality environment, or will re-
tard or preclude the location of certain new industries in Florida.

One problem with providing necessary long-range management of water
resources is that management responsibility remains dispersed
among several state and regional agencies. Such division of
responsibility creates duplication, inefficient delivery of
services, conflicting goals and uncertainty for persons who
desire to utilize water resources and who must obtain permits
to do so.

When considering the consolidation of the various functions of
the management of water resources, it is important to separate con-
ceptually the goal of regional delivery of services (i.e., permitting,
compliance surveillance and public complaint investigation) from
the goal of effective management of programs, personnel, property
and funds. The Florida Legislature recognized the separate nature
of these goals-when it expressed its intent in the Environmental
Reorganization Act of 1975 by stating that it was the purpose of
the Act
to promote the efficient, effective and economical
operation of certain environmental agencies by cen-
tralizing authority over, and pinpointing resposility
for the management of the environment by authorizing
the delegation of substantial decision-making authority
to the district level and by consblidating compatible
i~ministrative, planning, permitting, enforcement and
operation activities. Section 403.802, Florida Statutes,'
(emphasis supplied).

The existence of district and subdistrict offices are inherent in
the first goal. However, the second goal requires a direct central
control to ensure coordination, consistency and quality of planning
and permitting programs, responsiveness of personnel, non-duplica-
tion of administrative services and cost-effective allocation of
resources.

There are two general approaches to achieving a more consolidated
control at the state level of water resource utilization; (1) en-
hanced administrative coordination between DER and the water
management districts, or (2) the organizational merger by Chapter









20, Florida Statutes, of DER and water management district
functions related to water resources.

Any proposed statutory transfer of functions between DER and the
water management districts should beapproached cautiously by
weighing the impacts on permit applicants, on the development
of sound state resource management systems and policies, and on
relationships with the federal government.

Furthermore, the state environmental agencies have just completed
a massive and complex structural reorganization. Another extensive
reorganization, so close in time to the previous one, of agency
personnel and facilities would carry with it a disruption of
services to the public and a negative impact on agency personnel
morale through Job uncertainty and relocation of families. Three
of the water management districts are in very formative stages
of development, while the other two districts are in the early
stages of implementing two very complex programs, surface water
management and consumptive use control. DER and the water manage-
ment districts need a reasonable period of time to allow their
programs to settle down into a normal operational state, so that
the private sector can proceed with its business in an atmosphere
of reasonable predictability and free of unnecessary government
turmoil.

As described in section II above, DER has entered into permitting
agreements with three water management districts and is pursuing
similar agreements with the other districts. In addition, during
the coming year the department, working with the water management
districts, will be examining the feasibility of delegation of water
quality evaluations and other mechanisms for coordinating water use
reviews.

Recommendation 17:

It is recommended that no statutory changes in Chapte 37 affecting
the relationship between the DER and the water manage districts
be undertaken by the 1977 Florida Legislature. Rather, DER and
the water management districts should continue during FY 1977-78
their efforts at interagency coordination. By March 1, 1978, DER
should submit to the Florida Legislature a progress report of such
efforts along with any needed legislative action to accomplish the
consolidation of water resources management responsibilities.








A endix 1





MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ON PERMIT PROCESSING AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE WATERS OF THE STATE



1. Introduction: The expanding federal and state regulatory

program for protecting water resources has from time to time

resulted in delayed responses (to applicants) which might have

been avoided with a better coordinated state-federal program.

The duplication of permitting, overlapping notice requirements

and independent enforcement efforts have all added to these

unnecessary delays. The purpose of this memorandum is to es-

tablish general understandings of the manner in which the state

and federal programs will interact in order to correct the

above problems.

2. State Contact: The Department of Environmental Regulation

(DER) is the state agency responsible for providing water

quality certification pursuant to Section 401, PL 92-500; state

water quality permits, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes

(FS); and permits pursuant to Chapter 253, FS, encompassing

broad environmental and conservation considerations. Exhibit

A (attached) shows the projects for which state water quality

certification or waiver is required. The Florida Department

of Natural Resources (DNR), on behalf of the Trustees of the

Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF), manages the lands

of the State of Florida. That agency is responsible for leasing

or selling lands owned by the state and has the ultimate re-

sponsibility in this area should a permit applicant request

the use of state lands for the purposes of the construction

project. DER cannot act on behalf of DNR, but will coordinate

activities to the greatest extent possible. Issuance of a


L









SAppendix 1
Page 2




DER permit will be held in abeyance pending TIITF consent for

use of state lands where applicable. The DER will continue

the procedures established in the past with the Florida Game

and Fresh Water Fish Commission and will accept and act on

recommendations of the Comission in formulating a state position

prior to the issuance or denial of a Department of Environmental

Regulation certification or permit. DER will provide the

coordinated official State position on permit matters.

3. Corps General Permits: The Corps will consider general

permits for activities that are similar in nature, have only

minimal adverse environmental impact when performed separately,

and are autlcipatedi to have only minimal. adverse cumulative

effect on the environment. The Corps will not consider a general

permit for projects that require DER standard form application.

The Corps will first consider those activities for which there

is adequate local control and/or which are exempt from DER

regulations under Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code.

The Corps will then consider other activities that are either

similar in nature or located in specific geographical areas,

possible candidates are noted on Exhibit A attached. In those

cases where certification is required under PL 92-500, DER

will either issue certification with appropriate conditions,

or advise why certification should not be issued. In all cases,

the Corps will not issue a general permit until all substantive

objections by DER are resolved and all issued permits (unless

exempt under Florida Administrative Code) will be conditioned

to require a State permit from DER.

4. Joint Public Notices for Corps Permits apartment of

Environmental Regulation Certification: In those cases where

a DER certification/waiver and Corps permit are required for





2









e0pendir 1
PAge 3




a project, the Corps and DE agree to establish procedures

for utilizing joint public notices required under Section 401

of Public Law 92-500.

5. Joint Public Sarinas: The Corps and DER will develop

procedures for eliminating duplicated public hearings.

6. limits of Jurtedictiqn ER and the Corps will attempt

to delineate their jurisdiction by the establishment of similar

vegetative indices or other appropriate designations within

their respective jurisdictions. However, the Jacksonville

and Mobile Districts cannot limit nor expand their jurisdiction

unless authorized by Federal Statute or Corps Regulations.

7. Coordination on aijor Permites The Corps and DER will

cooperate with each other on major permit applications to insure

a timely response to applicants. Where the state requires

a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) report, the Corps will,

where legal restraints permit, use the DRI to prepare an

environmental assessment and to aid in avoiding the delays

of an Environmental Impact Statement. Joint meetings will

be held with applicants and copies of correspondence will

be exchanged.

8. Corps Iasuance in Advance of DER Issuance:

a. In order to maintain the processing times called for

by Corps regulations, the Corps will issue permits even though

DER may not have issued the state permit in accordance with

the following:

(1) Will not be done where certification required.

(2) Will not be done if DER advises by separate letter

(form letters will not be used) during public notice period

of a valid reason for Corps not issuing in advance (title dispute,

etc.).









Appendix 1
Page 4




(3) Permits issued l advwene will clearly indicate the

need foi a DER permit pe"lo to commeacing work.

(4) Monthly lists of permits issued will be furnished DIR,

so that, if necessary, DZI could request a suspension or modi-

ficato ......

b.: Corps peoitt,awil .be itsed 'as aiscsed abo e, anls

the others will be autoestically held until DW has Issued.

9-. Co aic~rsertloa The Corps, and DR will establish effective

lines of compmnication so that each agency will be thoroughly

familiar with the other's permit requiremasts. This will enable

the accurate dissemination of information on permit requirements

to prospective applicants,, Each agency will prepare application

packets and excbhae sufficient copies so that inquirers of

either agency can be furnished necessary data for making ap-

plications to both agencies. Personnel will continue to be

exchanged in training assalnments to stay abreast of the re-

spective enforcementt and permit systems. In appropriate in-

stances, Joint field inspections will. -held. Where suitable,

reports will be exchanged.

10. Enforcement The Corps and DER agree to coordinate their

enforcement efforts. This will include Joint restoration orders,

exchange of comments on enforcement actions to be taken uni-

laterally, and reporting of violations.

11. Future Goals: The Corps and DER will start immediatelyy

to establish procedures for joint permit processing, including

joint application forms, Ia-tandek process times and unified

positions, wherever possible.



















I


12. Mhis agreed nt my be t- eated by aay party upon 30 days


written notde.
amoused this day9 of
Colonel, Corp. of EngKMWuB
District Ibagieer
Jackmsou tlie Ditrict


Executed this / day of
,_____, 1976
CIfIE OCK
Co1el, OsCar of Engolaers
District Engiteer
Mobile District


Executed this day of
4, ,, .1976
JOSEPtlm. oBBRS, JR., Sretary
Departumt of EnvirCOsntal Regulation


0


~L


0
Appendix 1
P&ge 5









Appendix 1
Page 6






P MI XBIT LAI
PlaJT ACMIVITf LIST


PMEIT TYPE


Barricades (Fences)
Beach Restoration
Boat Basins
Boat Ramps
Boat Slips
Bridges
Bulkheads at Shoreline
Cables, Overhead
Cables, Subaqueous
Canal Connections
Dams & Weirs
Dikes
Dredging, Borrow
Dredging, Channels & Berths
Dredging, Maintenance
Drill Rigs
Fills, Site Development
Gages
Groins, Jetties, Breakwaters
Intake Structures
Mariculture
Marinas
Marine Platforms
Marine Railroads
Mining
Mooring Buoys and Piles
Navigation Aids
outfall Pipes
)pen Water Spoiling
Piers, Commercial
?iers, Multi-family
'iers, Private, 500 sq. ft. 1
'lers, Private, over 500 sq.
pipelines Overhead
pipelines Subaqueous
':ofs, Artificial
LIprap (Shore Protection)
:oad Fills
;igns
;ki Ramps
;tilt Houses
raps for Harvest of Marine I


laxin (
ft.








,ife


COPS aIR

Yes Yes
Yea Yes .
Yes Yes
Yes Yes (1)
Yes Yes
1o (2) Yes
GYes (4) Yes (4)
Yes Wo (5)
Yes EYes
Yes Yes (6)
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
GYes Ees
Yes, Yes
Yes Yes
CYes EYes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
GYes EYes
.Yes (8) EYes
CYes (9) Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
GYes No
Yes Yes
No (2) EYes
Yes EYes
Yes Yes (10)
GYes EYes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
.Yes Yes


HIS LIST WILL BE UPDATED AS REQUIRED.

- Possible candidates for Corps General Permits.

- DER exemption applies tn certain cases.


DER CERTIFCaISMM OR



Yes
Yes
No (7)
No (7)
(3)
No (7)
No
No (7)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No (7)
No (7)
No (7)
No (7)
Yes
No
Yes
No (7)
Yes
Yes
No (7)
No (71
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No (7)
Yes (10)
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No









Appendix 1





(1) Itf An arIttfltt wrawy

t) related bty r.&L guet Giard


4) 4) lfhd 'eplaciirts in kiad do not require paramit

(S) "e" t .. f ol i water
6) "' If sat of -e.el4ateal type mnd sot ia Clau I users
(7) "~Ie" It ts activityr.. reut In ,a eh. n of drdped
vr MiU msaertal iSate uavfalm Imats

(8) Also requaiTs Ca-mt Guard *mpv sl

M). WA + Mhcbae pteLtt l, o required
(eU) "' f Us aef yoad territarial etars










EMOORUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEP
REGULATION AND THE SOUTHEST FLORIDA WATER HANASEME

I. INTRODUCTION
The Declaration of Policy contained in Chapter
Florida, known as The Environmental Reorganization
State of Florida in 1975, establishes the intent of
promote the efficient, effective and economical ope
environmental agencies.' Section 4 of the Act manda
of department district offices and boundaries with
management districts to the maximum extent practice
this instrument is to clearly set out the intent of
of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter referred 1
Southwest Florida Water Management District (herein
SWFWMD) to accomplish the intent of the Reorganizat
ment shall not extend or enlarge the rights of eit
hereto over the other party as provided under the 1


II. COLLOCATION
A. In order to carry out the intent of the le

in response to the Sub-District Office Study perform
Cody and Associates (hereafter referred to as Cody
commenced construction of a facility in the Tampa
SWFWMD personnel and Southwest Iistrict office stall
the successful negotiation of a lease, DER will rel
office staff to the lamita facility for which a reao
will be paid to SWFNtlI), the specific tennis of whicl
separate agreement between DER and SWIWM)D. It is 1
will be completed and personnel will be relocated


U. An employee of SIFWtID is to be assigned tA
office of )ER adK will be supplied by DER, at no ci
adequate office space in which to work. The primal
said employee will be to help coordinate permitting
SWMFMU and the South Florida District of DER as ap|
C. A laboratory for use by DER will be inclu
facility.


I


Appeudix 2

'ARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
NT DISTRICr



75-22 Laws of
Act, enacted by the
the,legislatere "to
ration f the state
tes the ClIlocation
those of .the water
ble. The purpose of
the Florida Department
to as DER) and the
after referred to as
:ion Act. This agree-
er of the parties
laws of the state.




,glslature; and further,
rmed for SWFMHD by
Report) SWFMMD has
irea to house certain
ff of DER. Subject to
locate its district
sonable rate -f rent
h will be set out In a
Intended that construction
In the facility by :lay 1.


o the Punta .orda '
ost to SWFIIM, with
ry responsibility of
Smatters between
propriate.
ded In the Tampa





Page 2

2

III. BOUMARY CHANGES
DER Intends to realign the boundaries of the Southwest District to
be coterminous with these of SWMFMD (with the exception of Charlotte
County where the boundary will remain as presently exists on the date of
this agreement .
IV. CONSOLIDATION OF PERMITTING
The following general procedures apply only for projects requiring
a DER and a SWFIMD permit. It is agreed that a coordinated permitting
system will be developed so that DER and SWFWMD can accelerate the time
for processing applications. DER and SMFMHl will incorporate procedures
wherever appropriate so that responses can be combined and needless
duplication can be eliminated. Differences in recommendations between
the two agencies will be resolved to the greatest extent possible by
'early coordination and prior to issuance or denial of the permit.
A. A joint application fore will be devised within the shortest
time practicable that consists of, but not be limited to, a cover sheet
clearly specifying what information is required of the applicant by both
agencies and explaining the types of permits required by each agency;
and, attaching information peculiar to each permit.
B. In order to expedite permit processing DER and SWFWMD mutually
agree to jointly develop a system whereby:
(1) The office receiving the application will mail to the other
agency any portion pertaining to the other agency no later than the end
of the working day following receipt of the application. Processing
time for permits will commence after the relevant portion of the application
has been received by the appropriate agency.
(2) Any additional information needed from the applicant will
be requested separately by the agency needing the information within
thirty days of receipt of the application.






appendix 2
3 page 3

(3) Each week both agencies will prepare a list of those
applications received during the week immediately prior; as well-as a
list of those applications .thathave been in their respective possession
for sixty days from the date of receipt of a complete application Including:
thesapplicant's ne type- of project, project location and, if the application
has beda In hand -y either agency for sixty days, whether the application
is to be mdifed- o if. dental is anticipated.
(4) DER will be rMeponslble for obtaning-the ap;oprprate
information from .ts local prograsi-foa the cobdW tfoon sheet.
4 b) When a iiofdflcatlOwlbpostie recommendation of denial
Is Indicated on either list, .ieti~ i between the two agencies will be
heT~ witWin one mek to Psolve eany ~conficts unless otherwise mutually
agreed upon. ,
(t) After collocation both agencies will continue to work
toward adopting mutually acceptable methods of permit processing in the
interest of more efficient service to the public. This effort will
include examination of possible delegation of authority to con.ol~fate
various categories of penuits.
C. When SWFWHD conducts a hearing on a pennit application, O'En
will be notified as early as possible in advance of the hearing in order
to allow !UR time to notify SWFWMI within fourteen days, of any I'ER
applicable permitting requirements and possible problems with the project.
A representative of 'ER will attend all SWr Ftr hearings on projects also
requiring a OLi permit. Likewise, i)R will notify SMFWr)ln s early as
possible in advance of a scheduled heaoril for the salme purpose and
SWFWMD will also respond promptly. A' representative of SWFL.ID) will
attend all DER hearings on projects also requiring SUFWti) renrait.
i). To the greatest extent possible, hearings wlll be held jointly
or on the sam day and immediately following the other when a DER hearinqn
and SWFWOD hearing are required.








'1

LI









4
IN WfINESS MHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
lNmwornd of Uindrstauding thi st day of ecaber 19.._.
Sied, Sealed and PDlivered STATE OF FLtOR~tMAMPARIM ENT OF
itn the preem of: E"IWIWIEI AL IREULATION

^Ctf j^av BY:



ATTEST-


SOUTHMEST PFLORID A WTEPi MWI ENT DISTRICT




ATTEST:
Mtage t iMstrlct





POd |









Appendix 2
Pa.ge 5
Agreement Between
The Northwest Florida vater Management District
And
* The Department of Environmental Regulation
Concerning


This agreement establishes a single application form and

submission point for artificial recharge. system permit appli- I

cations required by the Department of Environmental Regulation
and the Northwest Florida Water Management District, and requires

Department of Environmental Regulation approval concerning appli-
cations for public water supply wells submitted to the Water

Management District.
Artificial Recharge Systems

The applicant for construction and operation of any facility

for the purpose of intentionally introducing any fluid substance q

into any underground formation will utilize a single &ppl.cation

with necessary enclosures and submit them tn quintuplicate to
the Northwest District Office, Department of Environmental regu-

lation, 3191 Shoreline Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32551 (here-

after, the Department). Application fees for construction or
operation permits will be as prescribed in Chapter 16G-5, Florida

Administrative Code, payable to the Northwest Florida Water
Management District; and as prescribed in Chapter 17-4, Florida

Administrative Code, made payable to the Department of Environ-
mental Regulation.
Upon receipt of an application for the construction or

operation of an artificial recharge facility, the Department will

forward a copy of the application, all enclosures and the appro-

priate fee to the Water Management District no later than the
first working day following receipt of the application.
The Department will immediately review all applications and

will request additional information as necessary from the appli-
cants, providing copies of such requests to the Water Management
District. The Department will coordinate its final review of

application completeness with the Water Management Dist:.ict and





Appendix 2
Page 6

shall notify applicants eo deficiencies within thirty (30) days of

reeipt of_ t application. The Department shall forward a copy

of additional received materials to the Water Management District
upon receipt, and shall inform the Water Management District when

each application is complete.
After receipt of the-completed application, the Water Manage-

ment District will deal directly with the applicant providing copies
of all correspondence to the Department. The Water Management Dis-

trict will take final agency action:on all applications within sixty

(60) days of receipt-of the complete application by the Department

and shall notify the Department of such action. The Department

shall not take final agency action on such applications within this

time frame without receipt of final action of the Water Management
District.
Water Well Construction

Any landowner or licensed water well contractor desiring to

construct a public water supply well will submit a joint application

with the appropriate fees in accordance with the provisions of

Chapters 16G-3 and 17-22.10, Florida Administrative Code, to the

Northwest Florida Water Management District, 325 John Knox Road,

Suite 135-C, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. A copy of applications

for the construction of any public water supply well wll be

forwarded to the Department no later than the first working day

following the day of receipt by the Water Management District.
The Water Management District shall coordinate its review of
public water supply well application completeness with the De-

partment and shall notify the applicant of any deficiencies with-
in thirty (30) days of receipt of each application. The Wrter

Management District shall forward copies of additional materials

received concerning public water supply wells to the Department

and shall inform the Department Office when each application is
complete.

The Department shall inform the applicant of public water

supply systems application requirements pursuant to Chapter 17-22.04,
Florida Administrative Code. The Department may deal directly


__


I








Appendiy 2
Page7

with the applicant pqpocering any objections related to the public
supply well application providing copies of any correspondence to
the Water Management District.
The Department shall take final agency action within forty-
five (45) days of the date of receipt of the completed application.
The Department may disapprove the application by serving
notice on the applicant providing a copy to the Water Management
District. If the Department approves the application, the Depart-
ment shall forward the permit to the Water Management District
who shall notify the applicant of final agency actiori concerning
both permits.


Executed this .' day of Executed thisVday of
|). 1976 y p esttces.' 1976



assar V
Chairman Secretary
Northwest Florida Water Department of Environmental
Management District Regulation
















i 3^1,










Appendix 2
Page 8

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


I. INTRODUCTION

The Declaration of Policy contained, in Chapter 75-22, Laws of

Florida, known as the Environmental Reorganization Act., enacted by

the State of Florida in 1975, establishes the intent of the legis- ,."

lature "to promote the efficient, effective and economical operation

of the state environmental agencies." Section 4 of the Act mandates

the collocation of department district boundaries with those of the-

water management districts to the maximum extent practicable. The .

purpose of this instrument is to clearly set out the intent of the

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter referred

to as DER) and the St. Johns River Water Management District

(hereinafter referred to as SJRWMD) to accomplish the intent of the

Reorganization Act. This agreement shall not extend or enlarge the

rights of either of the parties hereto over the other party as pro-

vided under the laws of the state.

II. BOUNDARY CHANGES

DER has realigned the boundaries of the St. Johns River District


to be coterminous with those of SJRWMD where applicable, except within

Orange, Osceola and St. Lucie.Counties,,which boundaries will be

reevaluated in the future.

III. CONSOLIDATION OF PERMITTING

The following general procedures apply only for projects re-

quiring a DER and SJRWMD permit. It is agreed that a coordinated

permitting system will be developed so that DER and SJRWMD can

accelerate the time for processing applications. DER and SJRWMD

will incorporate procedures wherever appropriate so that responses

can be combined and needless duplication can be eliminated.

Differences in recommendations between the two agencies will be

resolved to the greatest extent possible by early coordination and

prior to issuance or denial of the permit.

A. A joint application form will be devised within the

shortest time practicable that consists of, but not be limited to, a

cover sheet clearly specifying what information is required of the


.' *
''^..'I
-^t&

%^1

*


''




"






:I
i


;








Appendix 2
Page 9

applicant by both agencies and explaining the types of permits re-
quired by each agency iand, attaching information peculiar to each
permit.
B. In order to expedite permit processing DER and SJRWMD
mutually agree to jointly develop a system whereby:
(1) The office receiving the application will mail to the other
agency any portion pertaining to the other agency no later than the
end of the working day following receipt of the application. Pro-
ceasing time for permits will commence after the relevant portion
of the application has beeh received by the appropriate agency.
(2) Any additional information needed from the applicant

will be requested separately by the agency needing the information I
within thirty days of receipt of the application.
(3) Each week both agencies will prepare a list uf those
applications received during the week immediately prior; as well as
a list of those applications that have been in their respective
possession for sixty days from the date of receipt of a complete
application including: the applicant's name, type of project,

project location and, if the application has been in hand by either
agency for sixty days, whether the application is to be modified
or if denial is anticipated.
(4) DER will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate in-
formation from its local programs for the coordination sheet.

(5) When a modification or possible recommendation of denial

is indicated on either list, a meeting between the two agencies will

be held within one week to resolve any conflicts unless otherwise

mutually agreed upon.









C. When SJRWMD conducts a hearing on a permit application,
DER will be notified as early as possible in advance of the hearing
in order to allow DER time to notify SJRIMD, within fourteen days,
of any DER applicable permitting requirements and possible problems









Appendix 2
Page 10

with the project. A representative of DER will attend all SJRWMD
hearings on projects also requiring a DER permit. Likewise, DER
will notify SJRMID as early as possible in advance of a scheduled
hearing for the same purpose and SJRIOD will also respond promptly.
A representative of SJRMND will attend all DER hearings on projects
also requiring SJRWMD permits.
D. To the greatest extent possible, hearings will be held
jointly or on the same day and immediately following the other when
a DER hearing and SJRM4D'hearing are required.

Executed this .- aLy, of Executed this .' day of

r"er 1976 ', ,1976



JosepW. Landers,. Jr, cretar Thomas Clay, Chairman
Department of Environmental St. Johns River Water
Regulation Management District






C>


Appendix 3



Salary comparison between Department of Environmental
Regulation district and subdistrict managers and similar
jobs in other states and local governments.

A. Other state environmental agencies reviewed

a. Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources
b. Missouri, Department of Natural Resources
c. Ohio, Environmental Protection Agency
d. New York, Department of Environmental Conservation
e. Minnesota, Department of Environmental Conservation
f. Washington, Department of Ecology

Summary of other State Environmental Agencies:
Regional Ad8 nistrator

Of the six state agencies that are set up and operate

similarly to the Department of Environmental Regulation,

four issue all or almost all of the permits in the districts

or regions. They are Washington, Ohio, New York, and

Wisconsin. Virtually the same type of permits were issued

by all of the agencies reviewed (i.e., air, sewage, industrial

wastewater, wells, etc.). The number of persons managed in

the district offices ranged from a low of four (Washington)

to a high of 160 (New York). Ohio and Wisconsin have about

the same number of employees per district as the Department

of Environmental Regulation (25-60). All agencies had from

four to six districts. The lowest paid regional administra-

tor/district manager was in the State of Ohio, $18,300. The

highest paid was the State of New York, $32,000. Washington

starts their administrator at $19,500, and Wisconsin starts

theirs at $23,100. The State of Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation starts a subdistrict manager and a

District Manager I at $17,707, District Manager II at

$18,875, and a District Manager III at $20,124. (See Chart i)


_ I ___ ___ _n~___~



















Out-of-State Agencies
September 27, 1976


Number
Number of Employees Salary Permitting
Agency Districts Per District Information Information other torments

Department of N/A 0-60 $1925-2695/mor it work Partial decentralization, not nearly as muoh All eaforcep nt done at central
Natural Resources load is exceedingly high, as bim; mare detail in work papers mwter obfici. Problem with moving toward
,Madiason Wisconsin range can go as high as regulation some field permitting; air and more dcentralia4tion is need for
$3304/mo. solid waste permitting dooe ftra central legaL-. sistance at district level.
office. More tformation in Organization
Sandbook.


Department of N/A 90-95 District Administrator No decentralization of permitting; district Organizational/Pay Grade chart
Natural Reloutric, total field 41,000-$22,000 only has input in water/Solid waste nowt available.
Division of Environ- 978 Environmental Engineer IV wil add air in 1978.
mental Quality
Jefferson City,
Missouri

Environmental Protection 5 20-55 $18,300-$23,900 can go Total decentralization of permitting. Brochures available.
Agency higher with longevity,
Columbus, Ohio must be an engineer

Department of Ecology N/A 4-30 Regional Managers $1625- Regional Managers sign almost all perisit
Olyapia, Washington $2073/mo. must be *" (UPos8, Domestic Waste, Dredge/Fill Wells)
professional engineer ,.


Department of Environ- 9 150-160 Regional Director $32,000 Regions issue all permit larger prbjectl Organizational/Functional Chart
mental Conservation, does not have to'be an are reviewed by program people in state available. According to Mr. Rays,
Region engineer; each region has headquarters, but region issues permit this is an average region even
Avon, NWe York a regional engineer. though largest geographically,
but not in population. Budget of
$475,000 (excluding salaries) -
could not compare budgets with
other regions.

Department of Environ- 6 5 Regional Director Regions serve in capacity of compliance Report available.
mental Conservation 14,000 to $18,500 monitoring. All permits are issued
St. Paul/Minneapolis, through Central Office (225-250 employees)
Minnesota


(i)


-~L~L~-pL~i~ --.r~__-- .~^~uL~


i
c
-j~






Appendix 3
Page 2

B State of. Florida local county program

a. Alachua County ..
b. Brevard County
c. Broward County
d. Dade County
e. Iuval County
f. Hillsborough County
g. Lake County
h. Manatee County
i. Orange County
j. -Palm Pe-ach County
k* Pinellas County
1. ":eedy Creek District
m. Sarasota County
n. Seminole County
o. St. Petersburg (City)
p. Volusia County

Summary of Local Programs Directors

A total of 16 local pollution control programs were.

studied. This included 14 county programs, one city program

(St. Peterburg.., and one drainage district (Reedy Creek).

The staffing ranged from a low of four (Volusia County) to a

high of 83 (Dade County). The larger programs such as Dade,

Duval, and PaiP"Beach have about the same responsibilities

as our districts. However, they do not have final authority

to issue permits. This is done by their commission or board

which can be denied by district manager.

Tie range of the salaries was from low of $12,600
(Lake County only seven on the staff and limited responsi-

bilities) to a -ih of $27,916 (Dade County 83 in staff

and similar responsibilities). The top of the range for the

Dade County Director is $34,242. In fact, all of the programs

pay over. $9,,(.0o except four. (see Chart ii)











Local Programs
sumry of r-poesibilities
pyptemabr 34, IM ,Sampling 6
Complaint Analysis Inspections,
Local Ptfqraw IWater Program Air & Solid Waste Other Inve.tigation Capabilities STP/IN Other Studies
Alaco a Cotaty County respons- County responsi- County responsi- County responsi- County responsi- County responsi- County responsi-
bility ability. bility. ability. ability, PN.,IW,STP abilities.
read County County responsi- County responsi- County respons- County rsponsi- No county rspon- County responsi- US Sludge Water
ability. ability. ability. ability except oil sibility except ability. 208-
spillS. STP, 1W -- -- ,

SrahM u C o Conty respU i-s County responsi- Subdivision reviw
bilit' eum pt bulity. only.
wee4 control. -, ," "
Dade County County reponsi- County reaponsi- ubdivision review county reponsi- C upty responsi- */A
Sbilty ea pt ability except only. ility. bility in ait,
Sagricultul wast oppen burning. PVS,STP,&W.
and week control.: ______ _
Duval County County repponsi- County responsi- No county respon- County responsi- No county respon- So county respon- No county respon-
bility .betic ability solA sibility. ability potable sibility. sibility. ability.
waste a p0able waste. water only.
voter.
wilahOM" (tn ,/A _.______________ ______________ __ __ _
illsboreug unty N/A /A /A N/A /A /A
.Lake .,, Count r oni- ub division revIe- County responsi- 0Conty responi-- County responsi-
Lake bity rxeopt only. ability. ability to PMS, STP, ability.
Spotable water. II only.
Nanatee County N/A N/A R/A */A NA N/A N/A
S "rang county codaty rebponsi- County reson- Bubdivison review onty reeponsi- County eepao;s- Cony responsi- County responsi-
Orangbility except ability except only. ability except bliity prticulate ability. ability research.
potable water. Stat. air sources. potable water. PuS, 8TP, ZW.
palm Beach County. County responsi- County responsi- Subdivision review County responsi- County responsi- i/A No county rspor.-
bility exCept weed ability. only. ability. ability air, PNS, sibility.
control. I s TP.
Pinellras Couty /A /A V/A N/A N/A /A N/A
Raedy Cies Ditict County rebponsi- ty rey responsi- yo re.ponsi- County re.ponsi- County reponsi- p7A county responsi-
bility. ability. ability. ability. ability ait, PNS, ability.
STP, IW.

arasota County COpnty resppni- County responsi- Subdivision review County responsi- County responsi- N/A N/A
ability. ability nly. ability. ability air & IW
only.

Seminole County N/a N/A /A /A AN/A N/A R/A
St. Per -/A /A N/A
us i 'a County County reponSi- County responsi- ub vision review county reonsi- county responsi- county reponsi- o county respon-
bility except ability except ly. ability except ability. ability. sibility.
agricultural open burning. open burning and
waste, dg p well potable water.
Injection, potable
water.


(ii)


- ~ -- --- .- sr~-- r;m~iaaZL.





*This information was taken fitr questioemaire
submitted by the local pO6gra9 las etall. A-
copy of each e~ the quei#aneiees- ei tteehed-.

Key<
a. Indicates responsibility to county
b. Indicates county permitting
N/A not available
S yes .. ..
a an
There are no. questionaJa. aor the following
counties Pinellas, St. Petersborg, Hillsborough,
I'Amateew S.maol*e


(ij.)


Pal Reedy
Alachua Brevard Broward Dade Duval Lake Orange Beach Creek Sarasota Volusia
Program a b a b a I a b .b A a b b .a-b.
Water Program
DoZestic Waste y Y n y N/A y y y y y y n y a y n y y y n
Industrial Waste y y y n y /A y y n n y y n y n y n y y y n
Agricultural Waste y y y y N/A n n n y n y n y n n y y n
Drainage Projects y y 7y N/A y y n n y y y n y n y a y y y n
Storwater Runoff y y i n y N/A y n a a y y y n n y n y y n
Deep Well Injection 7y y N/A y y n n y y n y n y n y y n
Potable Water y y n N/A y y y n n y n y n y y n n
Dredge 6 Fill y y n y N/A y n n y Y y- y y n y y y y n
Weed Control y y n. M/A n n n y na a. y n y y y n
Air & Solid Waste i *
Stationary Air Sources y y f y y y n ., y y y y y a
Open Burni ng y y n L y n n a n y y n y ny y n n
Solid Waste y y 7 n y' y y y y n y n y y y n
Other
County Noise Ordinance y y y n n n n n a nl y n y y n a
County Odor Ordinance y y : n n n n n n nn y a y y n n
Subdivision Review y y y y y y n y y y n y Y y y y n
Complaint Investigation .
Water Pollution y y y N/A n n y : y n y N/A y /A y N/A y n
Air Polltition y y y y /A n f a i a y M N/A Y N/A y M/A y A
Open euntin y y Y N/A n ; y y 7 y y N/A y M/A y N/A A n
Potable Water y 7 y y N/A y y y n y N/A y N/A y /A a n
Pish Kills y y y N/A n n y y n y N/A y N/A y N/&A
Oil Spills y y n n y y n y N/A y N/A y N/A y n
Sampling & Analysis
Capabilities
Air .
NO5 y y n y N/A n n n n y N/A y N/Ay M/A a
Si a y y n y N/A n n n -n y- N/A y N/A y N/A n
articulate y y /A n y y /A y /A y /A nn n yy N/A y X/A
Water
Pesticides a........ '. n n y n
Herbicides n n y n
Oil Spills y Y a n y n
PNS Sapling y y y N/A n n y y n y -/A y N/A n 1/A
STP Samping y y y /A n n y y n y N/A y /A y N/A
IV Saa la y- y y y N/A n n y y n y N/A y N/A y M/A
Inspections
STP y y y N/A N/A n n y y n N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A y
IW y y 1y M/A a/ a n y y n /A /A N/A /A N/A N/A N/A
Other Studies.. ( S udge
Research 7 y y Yells 0) n n y n nn M/A y N/A N/A N/A n
Hydrological Studies y y I n n n n n /A y N/A N/A N/A n
Geological Studies y y a n n n n N/A y N/A N/A N/A n
--- -m -m


- 1 ffwpwcl^ ^ J T I


La C II rlo -I


I I a I --


5~11~a -- I' I Irar -a rr~a~- Ir II


"''3~~I-1P~rp





appendix 3 ,
C. Water ana at Districts i a Pag 3

a. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District
b. St. Johns River Water Manageiant District
a;e Swurnee River Water ahnagiment District
I "Southwest Florida Water Manlimumnt District
e. ~orthet~ Florida Wmbar Managemamt District
Summary of ate.jr Managemaat Districts Executive Director
A... five of the water management districts were reviewed.

They all have regulatory responsibility pursuant to Chapter 373,
Florida Statutes. This responsibility is much more limited
than thi Bepartment of Environental Regulation tin fact,

pursuant to Chapter 75-22, Laws of Florida, the Department

of Environmental Regulation reviews water management district
activities), as it only pertains to water resource management.

Permits generally cover such areas as impoundments, deep
well injection, canals, etc. Permits are approved by the

Water Management District Board, which is appointed by the
Governor.

The salaries for the Executive Director (similar to
district manager of the Department of Environmental Regulation),
range from a low of $21,500 (NW~MW)) to a high greater than
$30,000 for C&SFFCD and SWFWMD. Staffing ranged from a low
of 23 (NWFMMD) to 847 (C&SPFCD). It should be noted that

the C&SFFCD and SWFWID has large maintenance oriented (low

pay) staffs. The maintenance activities include weed control,
lock operations, etc*

It should also be noted that the Executive Director of
Northwest Florida Water Management District starting salary
is $3,800 greater than the Department of Environmental
Regulation district manger for that same region yet the
Department of Environmental Regulation district manager has
more staff and greater statutory responsibility. This trend
holds true in every area of the state. (See Chart iii)













Water Managment Districts
septembt 27, 1976
Total Executive
Agency Director's Population total OLer
-D Jjtrit ._ PloYee: Salary a S ed (1) adget rndr mtion

Central and Southe~ n 847 In excess 2,474,374 23,170,534 total 1. Ra 7 fiAld stations concerned with maintenance.
PLorida riod Control of $30,000 Lncluding land, 2. Bas 14 pump stations
Lstriot (to be called and constrution 3. Bas 4 directors Dept. of Administration; Dept. of Resources ManagemMnt
, South Florida water 19i,93,537 Dept. of AReources Planning; Dept. of Field Services.
Management District perations/aminte- 4. Organisation Chartvand functions available.
effective 12/31/76) ance of D$htrict
works, Dept. of
Field Services
9. 'ohn ativer 92 025,200 1,527,354 #2,360,201 ; 1. Info taken from FY 74-77 Draft aet
Water Management 2. -ployee information nitio Adi traton 9.5 employees General Servicep -
Distriet 15.5 emplo yme Legal 2 employees; Planning 3 employees Environmental
Science &ad Regulation 9 aploysee; Water Resoaroes 18 wployqesa
Field Services 35 employee
SWaanee Riter water 24 $25,000 172,944 $591,000 No field office
Management Distriot


Southwest florida 250 In excess of 1,594,152 *13.8million 1. Relatively new districts organization chart and functions chart availableI
Water Management $30,000 (estimated by 2. Two field offices, plus two more in planning stages.
Distrit Scott Wimberly) 3. Field offices mall 4 and 7 employees.
4. Also have survey crew and drill rigging crew.
5. field Supervisors Salary 1 I $7072-99009 F8 II $9068-12.688;
S. III Il1,i06-16,244.
Northwest Florida ,23 $21,500 660,341 $76,000
water management 1. No field offices everyone work out of Tallhassee.
District 2. Organisation/runotions Chart available.
Lidt91:


(1) Taken from 1970 censusi boundaries determining
population based on abange. effective 12/31/76.


($ii),


A


I.


.


LLL


~F-luFe ''--"L-~-:-'-"~' I hl~PI~IFI~R ~






Appendix 3
SPago 4

D. Department of Environmental Regulation

aa. Bureau of Water Resources Management
b. Bureau of Water Management ard Grants
c. Bureau o6 Drinking Water and Special Programs
d. Bureau of Air Quality Managem nt
ee. Bureau of Water Quality
f. Office of Enforcement
g. DiviSion of Permitting
h. Division of Administrative Services Office of
Programs and Data Analysis

Summary of positions in Department of Environmental Regulation

Generally, the management positions that exist in the
Department of Environmental Regulation and that compare with

the district/subdistrict managers are the office directors
(i.e., enforcement administrator, Director of Program Develop-

ment and Integration), and the bureau chiefs. Almost all of

these positions are set at pay grade 27 or 28, which is from

$18,875 to $20,128. Presently, the subdistrict managers and

District Manager I are set at pay grade 26, ($17,700). The

District Manager II is at pay grade 27 ($18,900) and District

Manager iII is at pay grade 28, ($20,100).

As a rule, the district/subdistrict managers supervise

more people than any of the other management positions in

the Department of Environmental Regulation. The smallest

district has 53 people (Northwest District), while the small

subdistrict has 46 (St. Johns River Subdistrict). In addition,

it is these positions that must ]inure the policies in all

program areas (air, water, solid waste, etc.) of this agency

are implemented in the form of the permits they ilue. Over

95 percent (2500+ annually) of the permits are issued by the

district/subdi orict menaers. (mee Chatt iv)


_ _1 __ ____ __I__












Department of environmental Regulation riela8 Operations

October 15, t976


existing INumbr 6otal al tProgram Vel a IIm ave
District Title oSuprvisor Pay Grade Salary of of Population Population' n U e i s er
Si Inumbent mployes Served Served Pplation Ser
St -ohh Ri er- D. -- ^


'. rr *: '** I fl l *
!: ** i r '

;-


St. Jobhn R ye Sub4J ptriot


Ih o
i '? ? '



'


iLptaot


i;\ **.'
*fi '- '


South FlMrida District


Sout .1lut :a0o 1


-4


Subdistrict Mager









Pistrict. NMaiger



Diutriot ManHger













Ribdistrict "nor


27
r .




















28;


S26
26







i


$22,359






$19,059







$3,706





$23,570






$21,101 '


iv)
t. ,


1,2 l,700






1,037,200






2,264,040

















3,21,000


1,16 ,100


719,300





ai As*
a J A *.'i


2,875,700


1A,4 0 5,893


230,4%0






245,3N
'n r]44, H




r! V !







1, 7
*,499.












\,'/4


1,263
1,449





PI -


1.604


r

r
~

J






?I


'4I


Northwest D


I;i~*n*llpClu~l--Y~;-s~*r*l------~-- ,--~-~--------mmas


'


Ma. .


I --- ,,,,, -- "


7a"~-~ I-"""- -.; -*~"` .' ~n~lT : '"r"ls`


14.295





7,242






-U.337






58.10


I*-.. -v


r;*


- :


I














Depart-nt of Unvironmental Regulation
October 15, 1976
SExisting of
Title of Salary of Pay Imployee
Department Supervisor lancumbet Grae6 SuervMsed Fefgffi

Bureau of Water
ksouarces Mana t Chiet $18,978 27 19 (1) Stat coordination and assistance to Water Management Distriots. (2) Regulates consump-
tive use of water. (3) Develops and maintains state water use plan. (4) Develops programs for
ooservation of underground water supplies. () Acquires and develops water surface water
store and distribution facilities. (6) Investigates possibilities of converting brackish
sater into drinking water.

Bureau of Water Qualit Chief 422,201 27 38 (1) Deign water quality management programs (2) Prepares asteload allocations for water
WanagmeMnt lasin areas. (3) Drafts coopliance schedules for HPDNS permits and for domestic and indus-
trial moues. (4) Reviews environmental impact statements.

Bureau of Wastewater Chief $25,08 28 22 (1) Reviews and prtitifes wastwater treatment projects to X>A which afe eligible for grants.
Management and Grants 2) Assists local governments in ebtaiping state/federal funding (grantS for wastewater
retmeWnt protects). (3) Coordinates t &chio al aects of State Pollution Control Bond
rograal and Seage Treatment Revolving Loan ProgrC .

Bureau of Air Quality Chief $24,967 27 18 1) Dvelope and reviews air quality control strategies. (2) Coordinates statewide air
Management aitoring equipment (operation, aalntenance, oalibration. quality assurance). (3) Develops
ar quality maintenance plan.. (4) Review *mbientd air qually data and source emission.
(5) Perform eai pion tests on air pollution sources. (6) Plpares applicatipos for air
pollution granp from XPA and coordinates submission of data for O)A reports.

Bureau of Potable Chief $27,834 2 19 (1) Surveillano of all pubic water to in e compliance with Federal regulations. (2)
Water and Special rtity laboratory apabilities W0 analyze dtiaking water samples. (3) Rview engineering
Projects lans or Atting and conltruction of public waterupply sys teo. 44) dise Area: .a)
minister lord4a Motor Vehicle Noise. PreveAtion Control Act of 1974; (b) technical
cnultant to Florida highway Patrol for on4-he-red standards (4) noise control .research
sevelacmnt. (5) SolU* Wast Areas (a) planning, gidance, ad technical as itand to
hers (b) liaison with XPA and other federal/state agencies. (6) Treatment VProcef
Technology (a) expert guidance to DIR staff regarding wasteater and Wxter treatment
technology; (b) .oordinate activities of DIr related to engipeerii~ and scieatif. i aspects
of collection, tratn disposal of wastewater and treatiewt of potable water, ead
coordinates research for saMe (c) diatesinates info to organizations and individuals.


office of Progras Prograa i 21,735 27 6 (1) Activity/resouroe analysis and coordination of department's data system. Coordinates
and Data Analysis Data Analyai flow of manpower information to state/federal government. (2), Collocts/udit* time and
Administrator effort reports. (3) Coordinites flow of air and water quality data and permitting data into
i mputr systems (state and federal). (4) Coordiniat development of environmental con-
servatio program with federal computers.

Oftite of anforcemmet B"afoge*.-t 02,4 3 23 17 (1) Coordinates iAaiistrative enforcement cases. (2) Insure that deadlines for pollution
A1listrawr abateiant adtions are met. (3) Works with Office of General Counsel on litigated enforcement
Scase. (4) Coor~diates fish kill rad freshwater spills.

........ .... .. Tmi.I...nmin


(iv)


_ -- -- --- I- ~~-LLUi=----~P


_11_1 __ ~ _____Y~







Appendix 3
Page 5


E. Other Florida State Agencies

a. Department of Insurance Division of Inaurance/
Consumer Services
b. Department of Transportation Division of Operations
c. Department of Natural Resources Division of Law
fEforcement/Division of Recreation and Parks-
d. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
Regional Offices
e. Departnt of Commerce- Division of Employment
Security
f. Department of Agriculture Division of Chemistry,
Division of Forestry
g. Department of Business Regulation Division of
Hotels and Restaurants
h. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles -
Bureau of Field Operations, Uniformed Division

Summary of other State of Florida Agencies;

Probably the most difficult area to compare with the

district managers was other Florida agencies' regional

administrators. 'In looking at the number of staff and scope

of responsibilities, it was extremely difficult to establish

any kind of trend on what various regional administrators in

state government make. It did appear that the number of

staff was not singularly the most important. For example,

in the Department of Commerce, the field supervisors for

Unemployment Services supervise anywhere from 131-251 people

yet his/her pay is set at $13,822 per year (pay, grade 22),

The functions performed seem tb be quite specific and routine

in nature.

The Department of Insurance on the other hand has

regional administrators who are in charge of from 30-90

people yet the salaries are set at $15,000 (pay grade 25).

However, the duties do seem to be more cPplex (investigative

insurance complaints, agency licensing, etc.).


_ ___ __







Appendix 3
Page 6


The Department of Transportation District Engineer is

in total charge of the district. The size of the staff
ranges from 1,300 up to 1,687. It should be noted though
that a lot of these positions are maintenance oriented, non-
professional. The salaries are set at $21,500 (pay grade
29). The Health and Rehabilitative Services regional ad-
ministrator is much like the district engineer of the
Department of Transportation as far as responsibility and
staffing. However, their salaries range from $30,000/$32,000-
year.
In conclusion, it seems that the complexity of the job
(laws to administer and degree of responsibility) has the
greatest bearing on what the regional administrator is
making. Staff size seems to be secondary, With this premise
in mind, it appears that the district and subdistrict managers
have probably the most far reaching responsibilities as any
I state regional administrator. He or she is responsible for
issuing permits (in air, water, solid waste) that must
comply with federal, state and local environmental standards.
This can range from a very small incinerator behind a
supermarket to a permit for a.multi-million dollar paper
mill. (See Chart v)





Sa. ~ -


"1-010 snuff -b av r- bmed.
State of Florida
Other Agencies
September 27, 1970


Department of Natural
Resources,
Division of Law
Xaforcement


Rave 11 districts, almost all
employees are marine patrol officers.


Captain


23


14-25 per district


Accept applications for commercial<
boat licenses and forward to
Tallahassee; accept applications for
wholesale/retail licenses and forward
to Tallahassee; register marinas that
hold gasoline or who puap gas over
water enforcement division.


__ r


Title .,./
Dof Pay Grade/ ` 9yployees Other
Department Bakground Xnformation Supervisor Ran.e Supervised Comments

Dept. of Comenrc, two basic field sq vic operations Pi. 2 131-251i 5-13 offices
Division of (1) Unemployment 6irvices (I areas)* Supervior (13,800- per area
Employant Security (2) UneployMnt OCmpensation (4 (supervise $10,080)
areas ) one area)

Dept. of Agriculture. Have only 3 field offices working Bureau 19,332 5 in field Part of larger lab in Tallahassee.
and Consumer ServiLces, uerPesticide Review. Lab.. Chief of
Division of Chemistry Pesticide
Residue
Dept. of business aRve 6 field office run by a District $16.000 Total of113 (20 of Respomnible for enforcement, building
Regulation, district supervisor who reports to Supervisor thee aie in Tallahassee pernitai licensing all public lodging,
Divisiona of Botels S Bateau Chief of Rnforcemont. food service, etc. Recently cut back
Restaurant 38 positions heavy workloads.


Dept. of Lighway Safety
and Motor Vehicles,
Bureau of Fie d Operations
Uniforbed Division There are 12 troops ranging in si*e. Troop Varies from 51-152 uniformed Bnforcement of traffic laws, etc.
Commander 23-24 plus clerical, janitorial.
Mobile Homs Const. There are 6 districts with 3 distrit Dis trict 18 Approximately 10 per district< Concerned with standards for mobile
supervisors (wrk n mobil ho pervisor (wrk in mobile hom plants home eoaltruction.
manufacturing plants) out of state car).

Bureau of Licensing & There are 10 district offices. District 14-15 7-15 per district. Concerned with licensing car dealers,
Enforcement Supertisor mobile home dealers.

Drivers License There are 110 offices 12-15 districts District 17-19 00 total position Concerned with iasuing drivers
4 areas. Supervisor licenses.

Dept. of Agriculture and There are 17 distri ct ofies. District 10,899- Respohsible for issuing permits for
Consumer Services, orester $14,b70 burning; fire control; forest
Division of Forestgr ma nagement, monitoring, education.


Dept. of Isurance, has three bureaus all into shown Rgional 24 Five regions haid service Investigate insurance complaints
Division of Insurance concerns Bureau of Field Operatien. Director operations (6,4,4,4,3). administer agency liCanses and
Consumer Services Comprised of 5 regions with 21 service le of service operations examinations; investigate agents
operations range from 2-15. when a complaint is made.



Dept. of Transportation mwee 5 districts District 29 Sise of districts 1202; Each district office is responsible
Engineer 1,3001 1,30b1 1,5001 1619. totally for all functions of DOT in
its district.


-T1"~ ~--"-- ~3~C1)



















State of Florida
Other Agencies
epteAmer 27, 1976
Page 2 of 2
Title
of Pay Grade/ Employees Other
Department background Information Supervisor Range Suporvised Comments

Dept. of Natural Has 8 districts. There are 70. District 19 60-70 per district Reaponsible for operation of state parks.
Resources, state parks in operation with a Supervisor
Division of superintendent in charge of
Recreation and each. The superintendents report
Parks tO the District Supervisor.


Dept. of Health &
Rehabilitative
Services


Has 11 districts with some sub-
districts. The state hospital .
at Chattahoochee is included.
Each district has different
operations and responsibilities.


District
Administrator


$30,000-
$31,000


11 Districts -
870; 1200; 1700;
1900; 2500; 25001
29001 3200; 3300;
3500; 5400.


0


(V)


~_~~~_ ~~~~_~~~ ~~~~~~_~ ~~~_~~~~ ~~




'--------------


Appendix 3
Page 7
'L7
Conclusions:
It appears that the most immediate problems exist in
the Northwest District (salary $17,700), pay grade 26;
Southwest District ($18,875), pay grade 27; South Florida
Subdistrict ($17,700), pay grade 26; and the St. Johns River
Subdistrict ($17,700), pay grade 26. In trying to fill the
Northwest District (District Manager I) position recently,
all applicants except one withdrew when they compared the
responsibilities with the salary. The incumbent in the
Southwest District is making $19,059. The incumbent in the
South Florida Subdistrict is making $21,108 and the incumbent
in the St. Johns River district is making $22,356.
Based on the fact that the Southwest District has the
largest number of sources and serves a large population, it
is evident that the salary should be adjusted a minimum of
$3,000. Although this is in my opinion not enough, I feel
it is all the agency can endure and it will help in bringing
this position in line with other states' environmental
administrators, local pollution control program directors,
water management district executive directors, etc. I also
recommend that the salary be adjusted for the Northwest
District Manager to $19,707 ($2,000). It was certainly
obvious in trying to fill this position that the salary
needs to be higher. Especially, if it is compared with the
Northwest Florida Water Management District and the local
pollution control programs over the state. I also recommend
that the subdistrict managers pay grade be changed from a 26





*
Appendix 3
Page 8

to 27 (presently they are supervising a Professional
Engineer III which is at the same pay grade.) If this is
done-, it should include a four percent increase per Department
of Environmental Regulation policy (cost $1,738). This
would necessitate a change in the pay grade of the St. Johns
District Manager from a 27 to a 28 and also cost $1,046.
Lastly, I would recommend a pay adjustment for the
South Florida District Manager. It is obvious that in
comparison to the scope of responsibilities with the water
management districts ($30,000) and local programs ($25,000-
28,000) that the district manager for that region is woefully
underpaid. I would recommend an adjustment to $25,000
(@$1,432). The total cost of making all adjustments would
be $9,216.






Appendix


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Enforcement Capabilities




1976 Projected 1977*



Total Sources 25,989 28,587
Minus Non-Point -11,168 -12,284


Sources Requiring
Inspections 14,841 16,303

Plus Major Sources
Requiring 2 Insps. 1,356 1,492


Total Inspections
Required 16,196 17,795





Present Enf.
Personnel 32 124

Source/per Enf.
Per. 507 372

Inspection Capability
year/DER employee
@ 3 x 48 week 144 144

Capability to
make Inspections
per year 4,608 17,795

Years required to
complete inspections 3.5 1




* Projection based on a 10% growth factor as exhibited over
the past 3 year trend.

* 3 inspections per week this includes time spent reviewing
the file before the actual field inspection, going through
the correspondence and permits to see exactly what the
design or process is and to better understand it, field
inspection, and time spent after the field inspection writing
up reports, etc. This also includes travel time and answer-
ing of complaints.


1___~__ _




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