Budget Recqommendations FY 1977-78
All ~D budget submissions for FY 77-78 have been received and reviewed
by the Bureau of Water Resources Management. Our recor~mndations by WIO
are as follows:
SJ-%sD 575,600 4,250,800
SWEt~i 240,450 10,757,520
SFWMD 240,450 5,044,940
A detailed breakdown of the methodology and calculations for each district,
along with the original 1D submissions, is attached for your information.
Also attached are the Budget sunrary pages (forms) required by your office.
A rough sunmary of our approach is as shown below.
Review of operating budgets was undertaken with the following assumptions
1) IzMD funding should be based on need, ability to pay for each
2) Programs of overall state concern or imposed by the Department
should be financed "substantially from general revenue" per Ch. 373.
3) Legislative intent is that WMD's be funded as much as possible
front ad valorem taxation rather than general revenue.
1 4) It is also the intent of 373 and the tIgislature to continue to
Provide "seed" money as rqciuired to the newer districts until their
water nunagement programs nuturc to a satisfactory degree.
5) An increase over last Year's level of funding is unlikely
given state budgetary constraints and district ad valorem
6) New expenditures for programs would be especially difficult
to justify, both to DOA and the Legislature.
Program audit results were also taken into account, as was the de-
tailed back-up information provided with each I0D submission.
Given the above, WMD operating budgets were constructed in the following
1) Both program audits and a working knowledge of ?rD operations
indicated strong permitting and water resources investigation
programs in the two older districts; less strength in the
three northern districts. It was accordingly felt that SWFmD
and SF~MD should be "self-sufficient" in these areas while
SJ3WM, NWMEID, AND SJERMD needed further state guidance and
corresponding general revenue support.
"" I ,
2) The program audit and review of WID water se planning
programs revealed a number of deficiencies in each district.
Corrective action has I-been taken by the Department in the
form of additional requirements imposed upon the district.
These additional ,requirements should be funded substantially
from general revenue.
3) The three newer districts will require a number of legal ser-
vices in the development of rules to implement the regula-
ting provisions of 373. Development of these rules in a man-
ner consistent with Departrment regulatory activities is of
statewide benefit. General revenue cost sharing was therefore
4) The WMD budgets were constructed by taking the overall amount
appropriated for TD operating accounts for last year ($2,063,000)
and adjusting by 10% for price increases and inflation. This,
coupled with the assumption of no expected increase over last
year, resulted in an overall funding "ceiling" of $2,269,300.
The SRID, SJ-MD, and NWFBJ D budgets were constructed by
providing 50% of the general revenue cost sharing for per-
mitting, water resources data collection, and legal services.
Water use planning was funded entirely from general revenue
with additional funding recmarmnded in some instances (see de-
tailed calculations) to accelerate planning efforts. This
resulted in the following District budgets:
SFt. S D 545,400
This total was subtracted from the overall ceiling leaving
$480,900 which rwas divided equally between SWI;D and SUMD
to fund the additional planning requirements recently imposed
by the Department.
WRDA budget requests were reviewed considering the following:
SWIFMD, FCD projects have been traditionally funded from general
It has been Department policy to encourage completion of these
projects (consistent with environmental constraints) at the
earliest possible date to. minimize construction and land ac-
A substantial investment of general revenue funds has been made
in these t projects (74,000,000 for FCD and $19,000,000 for
St. Johns River WMD .
Construction 100, 0000
Water Storage Land Acquisition 4,150,800
Total Requested $20,053,260
It is further reconrended that a set village be specified for land
acquisition of natural water storage areas in each district as follows:
Millage Est. Annual Amount
SW FWMD 0.i' 2,000,000
SFWMD 0.1 4,800,000
SJR~AD 0,1 1,700,000 "
SRMDD 0.2 230,000.
Millage coirmittments to land acquisition are justified by the
Larnd acquisition of natural water storage areas .(such as
floodplains, swamps, or lake littoral zones are of both water
quantity and quality benefit. i ,
land acquisition is a fully recoverable investment and provides
the capacity for water management without the energy and dollar
maintenance costs associated with structural vater manage-
Land acquisition will likely be necessary in order to co n-
plement existing lake and river restoratioh programs and to
otherwise correct environmental damage in areas such as the
Upper St. Johns and the Kissitmee/Okeechobte basins.
A set-aside millage provides the capability to finance land over
a long time period which is consistent with MSD objectives.
State land acquisition will likely be necessary to supplement
either existing or planned Federal Agency (EPA, OCE) programs in
Legislation in the form of amendments to Chapter 373, establishing the
above villages, should be drafted and sponsored by the Department. If
passed, the revenue generated from specified millage should be used to
either reduce the 1977-78 WRDA requests for land acquisition or to es-
tablish a district: land acquisition truat fund for the purpose of ac-
quiring, over the lon; term, natural water storage areas such as flood-
plains, swamps, and lake littoral zones.
C, (E -
WRDA projects are for the benefit of the district, not the state,
and therefore should be financed from ad valorem taxation.
Each district exceptt NWEZMD) now has the authority to levy ad
valorem taxes and therefore the capability of locally financing
public works programs.
Water management programs are biased toward construction alter-
natives because of the availability of COE matching funds.
Structua water management solutions tend to degrade water
quality and alter the prevailing hydroperiod, decreasing biologi-
Water ianagerentr projects have mot been fully integrated with the
regulatory powers of 373.
The above problems notwithstanding, is was recoanended that SWEIMD and
SFWnD funding requests for existing projects be fully supported.
The South Florida Project is in an advanced stage of completion and most
of the environmental costs have already been absorbed. Completion of the
existing works, including sorce restoration where past environmental
damage has been excessive, should be a priority objective.
The Four River Basins Project is much less environmentally damaging, with
the major portion of funding to go for acquisition of natural flood
storage and detention areas in the Green Swamp. CoHpletion of this pro-
ject should also be a priority objective.
The SJ3EWD requests for WRDA funds should also be fully supported.
The $100,000 construction request is for completion of the L-73 levee
and the remaining 4.2 million is -fr acquisition of St. John's flood-
plain. Both requests are consistent with SJRtiD Resolution 75-11 which
was fully supported by the Department..
A summary of WRDA requests is as follows:
South Florida WD .
Construction $ 2,544,940
Water Storage Land Acquisition 2,500,000
Southwest Florida W~D
Water Storage Land Acquisition 7,633,820