Title: Environmental Efficiency Study Commission: Managing Florida's Environmental Assets
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002866/00001
 Material Information
Title: Environmental Efficiency Study Commission: Managing Florida's Environmental Assets
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Environmental Efficiency Study Commission: Managing Florida's Environmental Assets, Feb 1, 1988
General Note: Box 11, Folder 4 ( Environmental Efficiency Study Commission - 1988 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002866
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

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY STUDY COMMISSION


Managing Florida' s Environmental Assets




A Final Report

To The Legislature Of Florida

And The People Of Florida


February 1, 1988


-U


I I C~- -~1--- ---ii---~- I










ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY STUDY COMMISSION


Jay Landers, Chairman
David Gluckman, Vice-Chairman
L. M. Buddy Blain
Leslie G. Bromwell
Marilyn E. Crotty
John M. DeGrove
Frank X. Friedmann
James L. Lafrenz
Susan R. Lubitz
Jack Maloy HOI
Frederick C. Prior Pr
Carol Rist Se
Theodore C. Taub
Peter Rudy Wallace Ta
Warren Viessman


LAURA L. ALLEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
122 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
Telephone (904) 487-3733

February 1, 1988


notable John Vogt
resident, Florida Senate
nate Office Building
llahassee, Florida


Honorable Jon Mills
Speaker, Florida House
of Representatives
House Office Building
Tallahassee, Florida


Dear Mr. President and Mr. Speaker:

As chairman of the Environmental Efficiency Study
Commission I am pleased tb present to you on behalf of
my fellow Commissioners this final report of our
findings and recommendations.

Our charge was to study the existing environmental
regulatory system and to propose solutions to the
problems we found. We were not charged with preparing
a massive reorganization of the state's environmental
agencies and programs; although we would have
recommended such had we thought it necessary. It
isn't. In spite of the system's problems, which we
enumerate, we find that it is basically sound. There
are areas where functional reorganization is
recommended and where legislative clarification is
needed. There is a need for increased funding,
especially in the areas of permitting and enforcement.

The Commission was always aware of the need to improve
the system without doing damage to the state's ability
to protect the environment. If implemented, we
believe these recommendations will make the system
function better, and actually enhance the ability of
the state and local governments to protect the
environment.













Finally I want to commend to the legislature the work of
the Comission members. The tenacious and dedicated
intensity of the Comissioners was rare and invigorating.
In twenty meetings that spanned a year and a half we
heard testimony, debated issues, and slowly came to
agreement on the nature of the problems and our proposed
solutions. Our debate was often spirited but we did forge
a consensus which we are proud to present herein to the
people of Florida.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve our state.


Sincerely,



Joseph W. Landers, Jr.
Chairman

















MANAGING FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS


A FINAL REPORT

BY

THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY STUDY COMMISSION

TO THE LEGISLATURE OF FLORIDA

AND THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA


February 1, 1988


II
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


AN OVERVIEW


MANAGING FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS ................ 2

THE INTERLOCK OF FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES ...... 3

SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7

Funding & Enforcement .............................. 11
Water Permitting ................................ 11
Developments of Regional Impact ................... 13
Department of Environmental Regulation ............ 14
Checks and Balances: A Final Comment .............. 15
To Summarize: ..................................... 16



FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT: THE GREATEST CHALLENGE FOR
FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS ....................... 18

State Funding .................................... 19
Water Management District Funding ............... 20
Funding and Environmental Agency Personnel ........ 20
Monitoring and Enforcement ........................ 22

WATER PROGRAMS TRANSFERRED TO THE WMD'S

Dredge and Fill in Wetlands ..................... 24
Dredge and Fill on Sovereign Submerged Lands ...... 25
Non-Point Sources (Stormwater) ................. 26


~_













DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI), CHAPTER 380 .... 28

PROGRAMS TO BE STRENGTHENED

Department of Environmental Regulation ............ 32
Point Source Discharge into Surface Waters ... 32
Landfills .................................... 33
Drinking Water ............................... 33
Water Reuse .................................. 34
Well Construction and Water Well Contractors.. 35
Environmental Data Management and Research ... 36
Department of Natural Resources .................. 38
Coastal Construction ......................... 38
Beach Restoration ............................ 39
Mining in Wetlands ........................... 40
Oil and Gas .................................. 41
Local Government: The Front Line of Environmental
Protection ...................................... 42
Delegation.................................... 42
Fee Schedule and Funding...................... 43

AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. 44



APPENDIX I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF EESC, 1986-88 ...... 46

APPENDIX II. EESC MEMBERS .......................... 50

APPENDIX III. MEETINGS OF EESC, 1986-88 ............. 54


CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS ...... 56


APPENDIX IV.
































AN OVERVIEW


Page 1


II
















MANAGING FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS


The citizens of Florida have told their public officials
that they want to protect the unique environment and natural
resources of this state. And public officials have responded,
first with ever-stronger environmental laws and regulations, and
most recently with a growth management planning process that,
when implemented, will be as advanced as any in the nation.

The Florida growth phenomenon has continued to roll,
doubling our population every twenty;years since the end of the
Civil War. Late in 1987 this growth made us the fourth largest
state in the nation. Only California, Texas and New York now
have more citizens than Florida. This continuing growth, and
the millions of tourists we host each year, put ever-increasing
and intense pressure on the natural environment we wish to
protect.

The only alternative is to manage our environment and our
growth. As we get bigger we have to get better. At the very
least we have to maintain a balance between man and the natural
systems that maintain us. .That means hard, realistic decisions
on a daily basis by many people. We don't want to see our
environment ruined for a quick profit that leaves ecological
time bombs for future generations. In other words, the frontier
ethic of using up our land and Water resources as if they were
expendable commodities will no longer work in Florida.

The new environmental ethic that we Floridians are helping
to pioneer calls.for a stewardship of our land and water
resources. The body of laws, the agencies we have,created, the
dedicated personnel who act to protectsthe broad environmental
interests of all Floridians represent a twenty-year investment
in that stewardship. For all of its problems, and certainly
they are there, this Commission would be greatly remiss if we
did not begin by saying that Florida's present environmental
protection system is a legacy that does credit to all who have
helped to create it. It is an asset that this Commission seeks
to enhance and make better.


Page 2
















THE INTERLOCK OF FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES


Florida's regulation of the environment occurs at three
levels: statewide, local, and regional.

The State Level

First, there is the statewide perspective, the point at
which we are all tied together. Like it or not the pollution of
south Florida's water supply, or the ecological degradation of
the Keys, or Appalachicola Bay are not just the problems of the
people who live in those areas. The degradation of any part of
Florida affects all of us. Such ruin directly affects our
taxes, our economy and very quickly our own quality of life
regardless of which section of Florida we live in. And so there
are statewide agencies that look after those particular aspects
of each local environment that affect all of us.

There are five departments of state government and two
commissions directly concerned with regulation of the
environment. As might be expected there are areas of overlap
between these different units of state government. The overall
goals and duties of each is quite broad, and each is designed to
protect and enhance a particular facet of state concern.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is headed by
Florida's unique elected collegial body, the governor and
cabinet. The governor and cabinet also comprise the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and hold title to, and
serve as, the custodians of state lands. DNR guards the overall
state interest in the marine fisheries and beaches, regulating
mineral extraction and protecting the sovereign lands of the
state.

The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), under an
appointed secretary serving at the pleasure of the governor,
enforces the state's environmental protection laws that guard
the quality of the state's air, water and land. Duties include
groundwater protection, dredge and fill projects, sewage and
industrial plant discharges, storm water, air pollution sources,
hazardous wastes, landfills and wetlands protection. DER has
extensive permitting responsibilities and enforcement authority.


Page 3











The Environmental Regulation Commision (ERC) is a seven-
member commission appointed by the governor to exercise the
exclusive standard-setting authority of DER relating to air and
water quality, noise, hazardous and solid-waste management. The
ERC has no staff, but relies upon the technical staff of the DER
and is a part of that agency by statute.

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is headed by a
secretary serving at the pleasure of the governor. It is the
state's planning agency, bearing the overall responsibility to
see that the state's new growth management laws are implemented
and watching the state's interest in appropriate land use
throughout the state. Duties include review of large
development plans called Developments of Regional Impact (DRI),
review of local government planning documents and regulation of
planning in special "Areas of Critical State Concern."

The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFWFC) is a five-
member constitutionally established commission appointed by the
governor. It exercises the regulatory and executive powers of
the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water
aquatic life.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)
is headed by a secretary serving at the pleasure of the
governor. Although environmental regulation can be said to have
begun as a public health issue in Florida in 1916 with the
creation of a Sanitary Engineering Branch concerned with sewage,
water and sanitation, the role of public health in this area has
been eclipsed in the reorganizations of the '70's and '80's.
Still, epidemiological concerns of the environment are a part of
the programs of HRS. Today environmental health personnel in
state and local health agencies monitor drinking water, septic
tanks and smaller sewage disposal programs.

The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS)
is headed by the elected Commissioner of Agriculture. It
regulates and monitors the use and effects of pesticides and
protects endangered and threatened native plant species from
unlawful exploitation. It also coordinates aquaculture
activities and regulation.


Page 4


1 ~_













The Local Level


From a constitutional viewpoint cities and counties are the
the next level of government. The officials of cities and
counties are locally elected but cities and counties themselves
are creatures of the state, deriving all of their powers from
the state constitution. Except where specifically chartered by
constitutional amendment cities and counties may be enlarged,
shrunk, merged or abolished by the state legislature.

At the environmental level cities and counties through
their powers of zoning, building permitting and land use
regulation, as well as their provision of such infrastructure
services as water, sewer, solid-waste disposal, roads and
recreational facilities, are truly on the front-line of both
environmental protection and degradation. In some areas local
governments are so protective that their restrictions are
tougher than the minimal regulations of the state. At the other
end of the scale some areas of the state are so environmentally
sensitive that their,potential ruination transcends the local
interest and they have been declared "Areas of Critical State
Concern." The local planning and development decisions in such
areas are reviewed by the state so as to protect the larger
statewide interest.

The Regional Level

In between the state and local levels are two types of
regional body that combine both state and local interests.

Water Management Districts (WMDs) are special multi-county
districts with limited ad.valorem taxing authority headed by
nine-member governing boards appointed by the governor. The
first district began as a flood control district in south
Florida where a vast and shallow inland sea'of interlocking
fresh water wetlands and lakes overwhelmed the ability of
counties to regulate or control their water resource. Today the
WMDs are sculpted from the natural drainage and floodplain
patterns of the state, following hydrologic lines rather than
the political boundaries of counties.


Page 5











The five WMDS are responsible for a broad array of water
management activities including construction and operation of
flood control projects, acquisition of water management lands,
and various water regulatory activities. They have been
delegated the exclusive authority for requiring permits for
consumptive use of water and directed to implement such
programs. They also have delegated authority to regulate
management and storage of surface water and well construction.
Most districts also have been delegated stormwater protection
programs and regulation of activities in wetlands. Last year
they were given responsibility for surface water.quality
improvement programs (The 1987 SWIM, or Surface Water
Improvement and Management Act) and have been delegated other
water quality programs. The governing boards are independent
units of government, but each is under the:general supervisory
authority of the secretary of DER. They are subject to the
standards set by the ERC, and may be reversed by the governor
and cabinet sitting as the Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission.

The other regional bodies with environmental concerns, the
eleven Regional Planning Councils (RPCs), are quite different.
They are formed around groupings of nearby cities and contiguous
counties with overlapping interests and problems. Geography
makes them neighbors, neighbors whose assets and drawbacks often
spill over county lines, forcing them (sometimes reluctantly) to
become concerned with what goes on beyond their own local
borders.

Created by state law in each "comprehensive planning
district" of the state, and jointly funded-by the legislature
and local governments, the RPCs have members representing each
local government as well as representatives appointed by the
governor. Duties include preparation of comprehensive regional
plans, review of local government planning for conformance with
regional plans, review of DRIs, and special long-range studies.
As creatures of state government with a preponderance of
locally-elected officials on their boards, the RPCs represent a
statewide effort to encourage local officials to look beyond
their own borders at the opportunities for concerted action, as
well as the regional implications of what each unit is doing to
the other in the daily process of running its own business.


Page 6












A SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Our charge was to: "...submit to the legislature a final
report that clearly identifies duplication and inefficiencies in
the administration of state and local environmental and public
health laws and rules and to make specific recommendations that
would eliminate the duplication and inefficiencies and promote
the efficient enforcement and administration of environmental
and public health laws."

Environmental Efficiency Act of 1986, Ch. 86-186,
Laws of Florida, as amended by Chs. 87-297 and 87-374.


FINDINGS

In establishing the Environmental Efficiency Study
Commission, the Legislature expressed concern that the state's
environmental permitting process has become inefficient,
confusing and overly complex. In addressing this concern, the
Commission sought to recommend appropriate steps for making the
process more efficient, dependable and equitable.

The Commission entered into its study a year and a half ago
with a large background of experience and many different ideas.
We reviewed the current environmental laws and regulations. We
heard the testimony of everyone: developers, agency personnel,
environmentalists and concerned citizens. We listened to the
complaints and suggestions, formed a consensus on the problems
and debated potential solutions.

This Commission believes that although complex, Florida's
multi-level environmental regulation system is basically sound.
But it can be made to work more efficiently.


Page 7










It should come as no surprise that the system has shown
weaknesses and inefficiencies. In the first place, it was not
designed as a system. Instead there was rapid enactment of new
environmental solutions as two decades of legislatures and
governors tried to deal with a growing awareness of what was at
stake for Florida. Many sound and comprehensive environmental
bills have been passed. But the environmental regulatory system
itself has grown up on an ad-hoc basis as problems have arisen
and officials have sought to hammer out solutions in the forge
of legislative debate amid a host of competing interests.

Considering that Florida has, in effect, continued to build
and redesign the airplane as it flies, it is a testament to the
many dedicated people in the agencies that the system works as
well as it does.

As was concluded in last year's interim report, the
concerns expressed by the Legislature in the creation of the
Commission are justified. We have heard testimony that the
environmental process as it currently works is inefficient,
sometimes inequitable, frequently duplicative and expensive to
both taxpayers and property owners.

Unless the regulatory system is improved, we are convinced
that the State's goal of protecting its environmental assets may
not be fully realized, and resources will be wasted.

The history of environmental regulation in Florida reveals
two recurring conditions that have created many of the
environmental management problems detailed in our report. Those
conditions are continual expansion of programs and consistent
underfunding.

Through the '70's and '80's programs expanded as the
state's environmental concerns grew. New programs were
sometimes fitted into, and on top of, other programs.
Responsibilities would be switched and personnel juggled.
Organizational confusion and inefficiency were often the
understandable byproducts. Programs often grew rapidly because
legislative mandates were written so broadly that several
agencies legitimately wrote differing rules governing the same
area.


Page 8










The second condition that has afflicted state environmental
agencies has been consistent underfunding. Not only have
agencies been understaffed because of budget restraints, but
salaries and career opportunities have been much lower than in
the private sector. Recent legislatures have begun to upgrade
environmental funding, especially salaries, but there is still a
long way to go.

Lack of adequate funding leads directly to an inability to
attract and keep experienced people on the job. Experienced
people mean consistent service. They act to preserve the
institutional memory of the agency and to train new people.
Most important, from the wellsprings of their experience and
wisdom, they can often prevent the duplication and work out the
glitches between agencies that form the basis of so many of the
problems that we have examined.

Competent, experienced personnel are the vital key to
making any operation go smoothly and to do what it is supposed
to do intelligently and efficiently. Someone once said, "Good
people can make a bad system work. Incompetent people can't
make anything work."

Consequently there was a feeling among some of the
commissioners that adequate funding and some stability might, in
themselves, do much to make the present environmental regulatory
system work smoothly. Certainly it was the consensus of all
commissioners that adopting the reorganizational changes we
recommend without adequate funding would ensure that many of the
same problems would continue.

What kind of problems are we talking about? A few
examples:

- Public access to a county park is held up for 18 months
because two state agencies can't agree where to put the ferry
landing.

- An agency's planning staff signs off on a DRI, but the same
agency's permitting staff knows nothing about it, forcing
another "permitting DRI" all over again.

- Taxpayers money is caught up in legal squabbles between public
agencies when a city sewage treatment permit is the subject of a
multi-million dollar dispute between DER and a WMD.


Page 9


r ___











- A developer under a DRI is required to set aside 20 acres of
land for gopher tortoises when, if the development were not a
DRI, no such requirement could have been imposed.

- One agency requires a high level of chlorine in sewage
treatment while another agency won't allow that much chlorine to
be discharged into a body of water.

- Six independent environmental agency reviews are required for
one project, with four reviews for hydrologic concerns alone.
When one agency requires minor changes, revised engineering
drawings must be resubmitted to all agencies which then review
and request more information.

The list could go on and on. Florida's environmental
permitting system may not be "broke," but it needs a serious
"tune up."


Page 10













RECOMMENDATIONS


FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT

We cannot stress too strongly the need for both adequate
funding and vigorous enforcement of environmental permitting
regulationsk. QBth.the general public and the applicant will
benefit. Permitting activities can never be adequate where
staff turnover is a major problem,, But there is more to
environmental regulation than permitting. We currently have a
"front loaded" slytem where most of the attention is paid to
permitting, and little follow-up is devoted to compliance with
the permits.
It is the strong belief of this Commission that permitting
and enforcement should be supported by fees paid by applicants
wherever practical.

We also recommend that adequate professional career ladders
for technical and other personnel be created in order to attract
and hold good people.

WATER PERMITTING.

The major problem area for duplication and conflicting
authority is surface water management, The confusion develops in
the many areas where authority for stormwater, dredge & fill,
isolated wetlands, connected wetlands, surface water storage,
and WMD projects overlap.
After lengthy testimony and analysis, the Commission
reached an early consensus that all surface water permitting and
management should be in one agency: either in DER or the WMDs.
But which one It isa important to realize that there was much
debate within the Commission over which agency should handle it,
with some commissioners favoring one and some the other.


Page 11











Finally at the December, 1987 meeting the argument that
proved conclusive was that Water Management Districts must have
control over the amount of water that goes into the flood
control system, and thiis s not possible if DER has the
authority for management and storage of surface water and
stormwater permitting. The Commission then reached the
consensus that except for point source permitting, which should
remain with DER, all other water permitting activities should be
consolidated in the WMDs.

Therefore the two major organizational changes that we
recommend to the legislature will serve to consolidate most water
permitting activity in the Water Management Districts.

The first recommendation is to transfer all Henderson
Wetlands Act and other dredge-and-fill permitting authority now
under the Department of Environmental egIlxation in Chapter 403
to the Water Management Districts under Chapter 373.

The second recommendation is that administration of the
sovereign submerged lands and aquatic preserve rules of the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement rust xif hd also be placed
under the WMDs with rulemaking, appeal rights and review
authority retained in the governor and'cabinet.

In making these organizational shifts of authority from DER
and DNR to the WMDs, the Commission also recognizes the need to
make the Water Management Districts financially capable of
carrying out their new responsibilities. This means an
equalization of the constitutional village cap on WMD levies by
a constitutional amendrzent raising the constitutional millage
cap for northwest.Florida t6the one mill level- of the other
districts. It also means general revenue funding should go with
the program transfer to the WMDs, and that authority to levy
fees that will cover the costs of processing and enforcement be
granted to the WMDs.

The state should not expect the WMDs to fund these new
permitting and enforcement activities through ad valorem taxes.


Page 12









DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT

The Commission also took a long look at the Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) permitting system under chapter 380. The
DRI involves a special review of large projects that have
impacts on the citizens of more than one county. Generally the
resulting planned developments have benefitted, as has the
public, from the scrutiny attendant to the DRI process.

The problem is not with the DRI concept, but with its
administration. Developers offered testimony that the DRI
process is a frustrating experience, often producing conflicting
requirements. It is not uncommon for DRI approval to take over
a year and to cost the developer as much as a million dollars.
Almost unanimously, developers said they would avoid the DRI
process wherever possible.

With that problem in mind, the Commission has made several
recommendations for change that are intended to integrate the
agency permitting process into the DRI review and to prevent the
DRI review from overlapping on issues dealt with by the
permitting agencies. These changes, which were adopted by
consensus, deal with making the pre-application conference and
the conceptual review process more attractive, and to provide
incentives for a developer to utilize rather than avoid the DRI
process. Where the conceptual review process is utilized,
Regional Planning Councils would continue to comment on the
regional implications of an agency's conceptual approval, but
would not be allowed to make conflicting tecoamendations or
findings regarding conceptual or regular permits in their report
to local government. Likewise the local government's
development order would have to be consistent with the
conceptual approval unless it would conflict with its adopted
comprehensive plan or land development regulations.

Another recommendation designed to achieve equity between
DRI and non-DRI developments was adopted by a close vote. It
would prohibit local governments from placing conditions in a
development order that are not based upon the adopted local
comprehensive plan or local land development regulations, and
would further prohibit local governments from placing conditions
on a DRI development that could not be placed on a non-DRI
development.


Page 13











The Commission also recommends that the Department of
Community Affairs be directed to revise the procedural rules for
DRI review and, in consultation with the appropriate agencies,
to revise the Application for Development Approval. We further
recommend increasing use of downtown and area-wide DRI review as
a planning tool, and adequate funding mechanisms to assist this
process. Also, the Florida Quality Development statute should
be revised to make the process more broadly available.


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

DER should retain authority over all point source
discharges, which includes industrial and domestic waste, as
well as hazardous waste, air quality and solid waste. This
includes giving DER exclusive authority over effluent
limitations and reuse requirements for point source discharges.
By 1992 the legislature should again examine the areas of water
permitting, evaluate how the WMDs have fared and whether any
further changes are proper to further consolidate all water
permitting. DER should be responsible for drinking water
programs. Permitting and regulation of septic tanks and sewage
disposal systems should remain unchanged.

DER should truly become the state center for water data
management and research as presently mandated by statute.
Reliable and accurate data is crucial to competent standard
setting and decision making. There is a great deal of
information in the universities, the water management districts,
private reports and other state agencies that is currently not
being collected and made accessible. DER should also be
provided the resources to conduct major environmental research.
A vital key to Florida's ability to produce and use the best
water information is a reliable source of recurring funds for
water research.


Page 14


_I~r_











CHECKS AND BALANCES: A FINAL COMMENT


There has been comment that keeping water permitting
,authority splintered among several agencies has created a form
of checks and balances that would be eliminated by a
consolidation of permitting. In fact some have even offered
this rationale as a reason to oppose any change. We disagree.
This duplication is merely duplication. But if it were in fact
being used as a tool to check development, it would be nothing
more than a frustrating and expensive shell game that wasted
public money and resources as well as the money and time of the
private sector. Controlling development in this manner is
basically dishonest. It builds bad will for governmental
regulators and eventually results in higher costs for the
consumer and lessened protection for the environment.

True checks and balances lie in strong, clear laws and
regulations fairly administered by knowledgeable public
employees. True checks and balances lie in complete public
access to proceedings, and in a strong appeals process.


Page 15











TO SUMMARIZE:


This Commission could have recommended a massive
reorganization of environmental regulation. This was not our
charge and we do not believe it is necessary. We began our work
with an examination of the full scope of Florida's environmental
regulation activities. We considered a proposal to totally
restructure the system. And although interesting, we decided to
bypass a global approach and agreed to address the specific
problems of the existing system.

It is also important to note that after extensive study
there were a number of areas where we have recommended only
funding support, modest change, or no change at all. Many of
the changes that we discussed at length, such as combining the
Marine Patrol and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission into
one big "critter agency" would not hold up under close
examination. The efficiencies would be small, the costs large,
and the problems created would be greater than the ones solved.

In summary, this Commission feels our specific
recommendations will accomplish five broad, general goals.
Those goals are to:

- Reduce duplication and inefficiency by making program
assignments more rational and give the assigned agencies the
people and money to do the job.

- Strengthen the enforcement of environmental permitting.

- Initiate closer communication and cooperation between
governmental agencies.

- Make better information more accessible to all parties.

- Clarify who does what by statute, thereby eliminating so much
delegation, and; where there is delegation, to make it by rule
rather than memoranda of understanding.


The Environmental Efficiency Study Commission offers this
report to the Legislature and to the People of Florida in the
belief that what we propose here will eliminate the major
problems in an otherwise good system.


Page 16


















FTN.JI ;IN .&3' 2,F'7NFTAEM IEr.


rv{. p r. r .-:NGiE F" C pD. *10c7. S ENV' RO;k 'IAL !ROGRAMS




T-' '. ,'. .- i- 1-u L iciency ...'
. '."s .' and in' ..c.-tn sses an:. n -ds -
tI1UB tGs ar6a rCQEI ANDATIONS

.- .' ~L. l r ie 1.: 1Cil..-nry Act of 19.: Ch. S -,6
..w .or :3 :- i ,.c:A d.r d by ,% '-7~ 9" .Qu.d 8:- .74.




S .r C o .. ...i ..;: :-,..,e ..,;,,,. ... .7: t : at .i :,.' ,.
*r.nd ... '.iw 't .ranc .c i '.. cida : .' .nnta
r rl -...- a.j :r- n i .-.:.It. a nn c ra e _h L
S .'l --; .*- vma o ra i d'e -*. :. '' : i:t / .-'.:L:: t ,he
::.-J : a r,'. i 'runent. 'WZ 'mrs,, ,;.-: "4uate fi .....: ;' ..,



S'J. ) .r e ..;. j
',.'t ,A ;., _'c y'; ..:, **,.-o i --c t." '-ri .3 '., "t- : L ..*'' .U ; i.
- ... i '. S'1. he i orcerner-i 01 -i l .ur,- ,,t. >errr t. j
. '. .-.. 5- -tth .!n gact -' ...- -r an *.' dd a ,equ .--E- w r ir
L,-':i' *'" .. .... L act.. .t-' Er i -.. ': ..dfq l~ t. *r.-'r c
e -f t.3: ;...* major p ot : n. : L he. e i mnre to
.,run.":. rerl..laticn thi rcr mi'.tin t. cur .- r l-.' have
"t.int : ...a.;'d t;t: m whL:e to :t of '-he *tt t o. Le. p- i4d -oc
per.iT.. -t:.r r. !e fE l w'- p 1.. e'.ot .'- ': comrt; ance Wit..
P, -'e por"-". .


PagJ718
















FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT:


THE GREATEST CHALLENGE FOR FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS



Our charge was to: "...address the sufficiency of
enforcement programs and point out weaknesses and needs, as well
as inefficiencies in enforcement practices..."

Environmental Efficiency Act of 1986, Ch. 86-186,
Laws of Florida, as amended by Chs. 87-297 and 87-374.



This Commission spent a great deal of time taking testimony
and analyzing the financing of Florida's environmental
regulation and permitting activities. If it can be said that
there is one overall deficiency that most greatly affects the
quality of all environmental programs, inadequate funding is
that problem.

We cannot stress too strongly the need for both adequate
funding and full enforcement of environmental permitting
activities. Both the general public and.the applicant will
benefit. Permitting activities can never be adequate where
staff turnover is a major problem. But there is more to
environmental regulation, than permitting. We currently have a
"front loaded" system where most of the attention is paid to
permitting and little follow-up is devoted to compliance with
the permits.


Page 18














State Funding


Findings:

The Commission finds that not only have environmental
agencies been understaffed because of budget restraints, but
salaries and career opportunities have been much lower than in
the private sector. Recent legislatures have begun to upgrade
environmental funding, especially salaries, but there is still a
long way to go.

All of the Commission's recommendations to transfer
permitting duties to the WMDs are contingent upon continual
adequate state funding, and no decrease in general revenue
funding for environmental regulation.


Recomendations:

This Commission recommends that a very high priority be
given to providing the agencies adequate resources, personnel,
salary levels," and equipment.

New program assignments should be conditioned on adequate
funding, which should include general revenue. There is strong
Commission sentiment that support for the state's environmental
programs should not be shifted from the state general revenue
fund to local ad valorem taxes.

The Commission also recommends that if a local government
or a regional government agency chooses to be more restrictive
than the minimum state standard, they should assume financial
responsibility for the more restrictive portion of the program.


Page 19













Water Management District Funding


Findings:

For WMDs to undertake a broader mission in environmental
management companion issues arise concerning funding inequities
among the WIND,; -particularly ;~at of the Northwest Florida WMD
whose millage levy is constitutionally limited to 0.05.

Permit and user fees do not bear a reasonable share of
the permit evaluation and enforcement costs.-.

Recommendations:

The commission recommends an amendment to the
constitution to "eqtulize the constitutional citationion on ad
valorem taxes by-authorizing and limiting the same amomat for
northwest Florida for water management purposes as exists for
the remainder of the state".

It is the strong belief of this Commission that
permitting and enforcement should be supported by fees paid by
the applicant wherever practical.



Funding and Environmental Agency Personnel

Findings:

This commission finds that there can be no efficient or
predictable level of quality in the environmental proceessntil
personnel issues, are addressed. The need for adequate funding
is essential. Funding needs include both the number of
personnel needed to-do a job and adequate compensation for doing
it.


Page 20


I I I











Adequate and motivated staff is fundamental to the
efficient operation of state environmental agencies. The often
technical process of regulating and enforcing environmental
affairs requires well trained managers, scientists and
administrative personnel.

The Commission has reviewed abundant testimony identifying
personnel problems. There is every evidence that the high
turnover rate, inadequate compensation of talented individuals
and a lack of career opportunity severely compromise the
efficiency of these agencies.

State personnel policies do not adequately address career
development for employees involved in the environmental process
particularly those whose major field of emphasis is scientific
or technical.

The wage scale earned by both scientists and managers does
not reflect the value of the service the individual performs as
determined by the open marketplace. As a consequence staff
shortages and turnovers occur because valuable employees choose
to move into the private sector.

Tenures are so short in some areas that process time for a
permit or enforcement decision outlasts the period of employment
of not just one, but sometimes a series of employees assigned to
handle the matter. The result is that issues that could be
effectively handled by one scientist or manager are passed from
employee to employee.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that legislative appropriations
committees, acting with the appropriate agency committees,
identify the costs necessaryto fund enough well-paid personnel
to execute Florida's environmental regulation programs and,
through an appropriate blending of fees and general revenue,
provide the necessary funding.

The legislature should establish attractive career ladder
opportunities for non-managerial professionals within the
permitting programs.


Page 21


_ ..__ _


I~












Monitoring and Enforcement


i 'J -i %... r l % : k".: S L"


Flin4.tapu:


konltortiag ea eoaosro- require
by trained and owledgnble personel. uch
k s a-r an a~LinmmIaY mri e data


A V ZS : t.j t ac Ij istcrat cc-,.


an reject a on that author to levy l ratrtive



ttonesr y et a ofi e is dezi a nit to train f
, g a. ,. rag dur carry


Agencies often require ixtenaive monitoring by the
applicant, and then pay little attention or give an inconsitent
review of the data.


,-Rge222


~r--. ---~.--~- ~---l-~----rl-r~.~?.l~p~


. ,i .L .,- .. ,-C Ir 1 '. *- -.


* t -L^. 5












Recommendations:


The preservation of Florida's unique environment requires
that the state's environmental permitting laws be strictly
enforced. Careful site monitoring and data analysis is
necessary to assure compliance with permits. Where this means
additional staffing of the agencies charged with these
responsibilities such staffing should be assured by appropriate
state funding.

The recommendations for adequate compensation of
personnel stated earlier under the funding section bear
repeating here in the enforcement section. We recommend that
environmental agency personnel be compensated at sufficient
levels to make public service attractive. Attorneys prosecuting
permit violators should be given a pay grade for trial lawyers.

The drain of experienced and dedicated people to the
private sector must also be slowed by insuring adequate salary
and career paths for qualified environmental professionals. The
insights of qualified scientific and enforcement personnel also
may be retained by insuring satisfactory career ladders that do
not force ambitious experts to abandon their expertise in order
to pursue advancement as administrators.

Where fines are used as a method of enforcement, rules
should be written and procedures established.

Permit application fees should be increased to cover
costs of enforcing permit conditions.

Incentives should be given to encourage the reporting of
violations.

The attorney general's environmental litigation unit
should be adequately funded.


Page 23














WATER PROGRAMS TRANSFERRED TO THE WMDs


Dredge and Fill in Wetlands

Findings:

Testimony to the Commission established that permitting
activities affecting wetlands have created the greatest number
of problems for permit applicants. DER, DNR, WMDs, RPCs, the
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and local governments all consider,
permit or make recommendations about wetlands use.

DER issues dredge and fill permits. All except one WMD
issue surface water management permits and consider isolated
wetlands. RPCs issue recommendations for wetlands protection in
DRIs. DNR conducts its own biological assessment in considering
impacts on vegetation, submerged grasses, fisheries and
endangered species when deciding to lease or allow the use of
sovereign submerged lands. The ACOE issues dredge and fill
permits and permits for filling in isolated wetlands.

Three major areas relating to wetlands were identified that
were considered duplicative or conflicting: 1) jurisdiction,
2) standards for approval and 3) mitigation requirements. Each
agency has a different jurisdiction, often requiring the
establishment of a different boundary line for the same project.
The standards for approving and denying permits appear to be
different for each agency, with little interagency coordination.
DER, WMDs, and RPCs accept or require different mitigation
proposals, each of which may conflict with the other or with a
permitting requirement of another agency. DER examines the
water quality impacts of developments in "waters of the state"
which includes their associated wetlands. WMDs permit
development impact on all "waters in the state" including
isolated wetlands though their primary concern is surface water
management RPCs consider wetlands as one part of a large
planning process that protects natural resources. DNR regulates
wetlands below the mean and ordinary high water line on state
sovereign submerged land.


Page 24


C











Recommendations:


The Commission recommends transfer of DER statutory
dredge and fill permitting authority to the WMDs effective
January 1, 1990. Policy conflicts arise in attempting to
consolidate the diverse authorities of Henderson Wetlands Act
and other dredge and fill legislation. These policy issues
include jurisdiction, mitigation, grandfathering, cumulative
impacts, etc. These conflicts should be reviewed and resolved
by the legislature since they are inherent in the legislative
grants of authority.

The Commission also recommends the transfer legislation
require that between July 1, 1989 and November 15, 1989 the
WMDs, operating under the guidance of DER and pursuant to
authority in Chapter 373, adopt rules governing dredge and fill
in wetlands and waters of the state. The rules shall strive to
achieve statewide uniformity and consistency but allow for
regional variations. The DER secretary shall review the rules
using his general supervisory authority and consistency review
authority pursuant to Chapter 17-40 F.A.C.


Dredge and Fill on Sovereign Submerged Lands

Findings:

The state exercises a dual supervisory role over state
owned uplands and sovereign submerged lands. One is "regulatory"
and is based on jurisdiction, the other is "proprietary" and is
based on ownership. DER protects waters of the state and
associated wetlands. TIITF, through DNR, also consider impacts
on wetland areas another natural resources when deciding
whether to allow the use of sovereign submerged lands. Field
inspectors of both DER and DNR review proposed activities
involving sovereign submerged lands, particularly in Aquatic
Preserves. In some cases DER has recommended approval of an
activity and DNR has recommended denial of a lease.

DNR can, and has, applied different standards than DER in
interpreting its responsibility to protect the public trust.
This duplicative review and application of different standards
has led to serious misunderstandings and dissatisfaction.


Page 25











DNR can require an easement, dedication, lease and/or
consent of use approval for sovereignty lands. As a part of its
regulation of sovereign submerged lands DNR imposes specific
criteria for the construction of residential, single-family
docks and for marina docks.

Construction of a dock is permitted by DER as a dredge and
fill activity. DER requires reasonable assurance that water
quality standards will be met. By statute docks are exempted
from DER permit when smaller than a size thought to have a "de
minimus" impact.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that the TIITF continue to
adopt rules pertaining to sovereign submerged lands and the
management of aquatic preserves. Except for the sale of fee
title to submerged land these rules should be administered by
the WMDs effective January 1, 1990. The decisions of the WMDs
pursuant to these rules should be final unless within 30 days
there is an appeal pursuant to s. 373.114, F.S., or unless
review is initiated by the TIITF pursuant to rules adopted by
the TIITF.



Non-Point Sources (Stormwater)


Findings:

DER, WMDs and local governments have statutory authority to
issue stormwater management permits. RPCs evaluate stormwater
systems that are part of a DRI. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulates stormwater discharges into its
rights of way. DER has delegated stormwater permitting to four
of the WMDs (excluding the Northwest Florida WMD) but continues
to require permits for those stormwater systems that would
require a dredge and fill permit in waters of the state.

The Commission also discussed the adoption of minimum
statewide standards for non-point source programs under which
the WMDs may set more stringent standards subject to review and
approval by the ERC.


Page 26













Recommendations:


Original jurisdiction' for non-point source programs
should be placed in the WMDs effective January 1, 1990. DOT
should work with other agencies toward reducing the duplication
in its regulation program for stormwater in rights of way.


Page 27


~1













DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI), CHAPTER 380


Findings:


In its preliminary report to the legislature in April,
1987, the Commission noted that there is redundancy in the
review of Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). Under existing
law the local government and regional planning council review
all activities for which a developer must also obtain a permit
from a state agency or water management district. In order to
decrease redundancy and to make the DRI process more efficient
and attractive to developers the Commission developed
recommendations to integrate agency reviews with DRI reviews
through modification to the conceptual agency review found in
Section 380.06, Florida Statutes.

To make the DRI process more attractive the Commission
established several objectives: (1) better define the
relationship among permitting agencies, the RPCs and local
governments engaged in DRI review; (2) require greater
coordination between the RPCs, applicants, the local governments
and agencies reviewing a DRI; (3) ensure that DRI developers are
treated fairly in comparison to other developers, and (4)
encourage use of conceptual agency review to eliminate
duplication.

The secretary of DCA is developing a revision to the
Florida Quality Development (FQD) section which will make the
FQD process more workable and practical while not detracting
from its overall intent of insuring maximum protection for the
environment and for well planned developments. The Commission
agrees that this is necessary.


Page 28












Recommendations:


Conceptual Agency Review

All DRI reviews begin with a pre-application conference
attended by representatives of all affected agencies. The
Commission recommends that the RPC be charged with
responsibility to coordinate this joint conference and to notify
all agencies that may issue a permit to be present at this
conference. The developer is given the opportunity to withdraw
from conceptual agency review by giving written notice to the
RPC no later than 90 days after the pre-application conference.
If the developer chooses to continue with conceptual review the
Commission also recommends at least one additional mandatory
meeting of all reviewing agencies between 45 and,60 days after
the application is filed.

The Commission recommends that conceptual review continue
to be a licensing action subject to Chapter 120. In order to
expedite conceptual review the Commission recommends that the 90
day review specified in Section 120.60 (2) shall not be delayed
by an agency request for additional information. This
limitation will not handicap a reviewing agency because the
extent of conceptual agency review depends entirely upon the
amount of information provided by the developer. A review based
on scant information will have little or no value to the
developer and could even result in denial.

The Commission considered the weight that should be given
to conceptual agency approval by the RPC;and.the local
government that issues the DRI development order. In order to
encourage developers to pursue conceptual review and to reduce
overlap and duplication in the review process the Commission
recoppends that the RPC be allowed to comment on the regional
implications of the conceptual approval but not be allowed to
make conflicting recommendations or findings regarding
conceptual or regular permits in its report to the local
government. This limitation parallels the existing law in
Section 380.06(12)(b) relating to Chapter 373 and 403 permits.
Further, the local government is directed to consider the agency
report on issues within the agency's jurisdiction and to issue a
development order consistent with the conceptual agency approval
or permit unless the development order would conflict with the


Page 29


II










local government's adopted comprehensive plan or land
development regulations.

To be entitled to these benefits a developer must obtain
conceptual approval as part Of the coordinated review process.
If the conceptual approval 1is obtained before tRI review
commences, or outside the Chapter ~80 conceptual review process,
the developer should not be entitled to these benefits. 'The
Commission agreed, however that a conceptual approval or a
permit obtained pbir to, or outside, DRI review should remain
valid and should not be adversely affected by a developer's
decision not to undergo conceptual review under Chapter 380.

Equity
The Commission considered and thoroughly debated the
issue of equity between DRI and non-DRf developments. The
Commission discussed the impact of stronger and-more
comprehensive local government plans and land development
regulations which apply to all developments and must now be
reviewed and approved by the state land planning agency. The
Commission discussed whether a local government should be
allowed to impose conditions on a DRI development based on
Chapter '38 tiat the local government could not impose on a
similar non-DRI project. A majority of the Commission
recommended that'limiting language be added -to Chapter 380
specifying that all development order conditions shall be based
upon the r lal government s adopted local comprehensive plan and
land development regulations. Once a local comprehensive plan
is found to be in compliance with the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of
1985 the local government may not impose 'deveI ent otder
conditions on a s DRI development that could not be imposed on a
similar non-DR1- development. A minority b6f 'the Commission is of
the opinion that such provisions ignore the vety nature and,
purpose of the bRi process, eliminate Ok reduce the role of the
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans and unnecessarily restrict
the discretion of a local government in its effort to mitigate
the impacts of a DRI.









Page 30











Application for Development Approval

The Commission recommends that the Department of
Community Affairs be directed to revise the Application for
Development Approval (ADA) and the procedural rules for DRI
review under guidelines designed to update the types and level
of information mxrguimed in the ADA, thereby eliminating
unnecessary information submittals. Representatives from all
regional and state agencies which participate in the DRI review
process should attend all rule workshops and public hearings
held pursuant to these rule revisions.

The ADA and the procedural rules for DRI review should be
substantially revamped as soon as possible. DCA should initiate
rule-making by October 1, 1988. The Commission believes that
such a reform ia long overdue. If done in a comparenqive way,
with input from all appliable state permitting and commenting
agencies, industry, and public, this should serve to eliminate
or lessen the lack of coordination among DCA, RPCs and
permitting and commenting agencies.

Downtown & Area-Wide DRIs

The Commission believes that increasing the use of
downtown and area-wide DRIs is an important tool for
strengthening DRI review as a planning rather than a quasi-
permitting process.

The Legislature should develop adequate funding
mechanisms, possibly including a revolving trust fund, to
promote more extensive use of downtown and areawide DRIs. The
Commission feels that without further incentives local
government and others may continue to avoid availing themselves
of these worthwhile planning mechanisms.

The Florida Quality Development Process

The Commission recommends revision to the statute which
will make the Florida Quality Development process more widely
available for quality projects in our State.


Page 31













PROGRAMS TO BE STRENGTHENED



Department of Environmental Regulation


Point Source Discharge into Surface Waters

Findings:

Although DER sets wasteload allocation for effluent
discharge into surface waters this allocation process is also
'reviewed by some WMDs in connection with their management of
surface water permits.

DER classifies surface waters by their most beneficial
present and future use. DER district offices issue a discharge
permit requiring use of the best technology and compliance with
water quality standards based upon the classification of the
receiving water body. An EPA permit is issued upon review for
compliance and certification.
Local governments regulate the extent of pretreatment
required of industrial effluent prior to its discharge into
public systems.

Recommendations:

Point source discharge programs should remain in the
Department of Environmental Regulation; however, by October 1,
1992 an interim study should be conducted to determine the
extent and efficacy, if any, of transferring additional water
quality programs to the WMDs.

DER shall have the exclusive jurisdiction in determining
the degree of effluent treatment required by point source
discharges.


Page 32













Landfills


Findings:

DER regulates surface and ground water quality and the
impact on wetlands, while the WMDs review surface water
management for flooding, thereby also examining ground water
quality and wetlands degradation.

S Recommendations:

Landfill programs should remain in the Department of
Environmental Regulation; however, by October 1, 1992 an interim
study should be conducted to determine the extent and efficacy,
if any, of transferring additional water quality programs to the
WMDs.



Drinking Water


Findings:
I-
Most public water systems draw ground water from wells and
are permitted by DER if they have at least 15 service
connections or regularly serve at least 25 persons daily at
least 60 days a year. DER certifies operators for public water
systems. DER has delegated to some counties the regulation of
public water systems. HRS regulates smaller systems with
administration by county public health units.

Any well to be used for public purposes must also comply
with the DER rule which implements the Florida Safe Drinking
Water Act. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(DACS) regulates the use of pesticides and is responsible for
monitoringipesticide residues in the ground water in areas where
targeted pesticides are in volume use.


Page 33











In May, 1987 the Auditor General's office conducted an
audit of the Safe Drinking Water Program and found its
administration to be inadequate. Problems included delayed
enforcement of violations, lack of standardized sampling
criteria, irregular engineering inspections, lack of
standardized, comprehensive chemical testing, non-integrated
data management syatemsabetween DER and HRS as well as
noncohesive budget and cost procedures.

The Auditor General recommended either that HRS assume full
responsibility for the Safe Drinking Water Program or there be a
division of program responsibility by function between DER and
HRS. Drawbacks in the first recommendation include the need for
HRS to hire engineers to conduct/plan reviews and sanitary
surveys as environmental expertise would be- lost. HRS would
also need to achieve eligibility to administer the United States
Environmental Protection Act Program grant. The disadvantage
cited for the alternative recommendation was the potential for
continued fragmentation.

Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that the responsibility for the
entire drinking water program be placed in DER, with the
authority to delegate to county public health units or local
environmental agencies as appropriate.



Water Reuse

Findings:

DER does not presently consider water reuse in making
determinations regarding the discharge of treated effluent,
although it is in the early stages of formulating a reuse rule.
Conflicts have developed where WMDs have, in exercising their
consumptive use of deep well injection permitting authority,
imposed water reuse conditions that require a different method
of disposal than that authorized by DER.


Page 34












RECOMMENDATIONS:


The Commission recommends DER be required to adopt a
statewide reuse rule for point sources and in so doing be
required to consider each WMD's individual needs. DER should
also consult with the appropriate district on each individual
reuse case. DER's reuse decision should be final. The WMDs
should have final authority and responsibility for water
reuse/supply decisions for non-point sources._



Well Construction and Water Well Contractors

Findings:

DER has delegated to the WMDs the authority to issue
permits for the construction, modification and abandonment of
wells, and to license water well contractors. WMDs also issue
permits for deep well injection of wastewater.

DER classifies the quality of ground water and provides
criteria for each zone of discharge as well as setting
construction standards for public water supply wells. HRS
regulates private drinking water wells.

The Commission examined a proposed transfer of the
licensing of well contractors to The Department of Business
Regulation, but found that regulation of water well contractor
licensing and water well construction were inseparable on a
practical basis.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends giving exclusive statutory
authority to the WMDs for well construction and for licensing of
water well contractors.


Page 35












Environmental Data Management And Research


Findings:

There is a need fot more complete scientific information to
support environmental policy making. The Commission found that
there is a lack Of shared information on environmental
permitting between the'agencies. 'Permit decisions are often
made by one agency without the benefit of useful information
developed by other agencies. It is not uncommon for one branch
of an agency to make a permit decision without consulting with
or reviewing information available from another branch within
the same agency. This can create an unnecessary duplication of
effort for agenciesias well as for permit applicants. Numerous
databases e*ist within DMERDNR, WMDs, RPCs, the universities
and the priVate s~itor that can be used effectively if made
available to all agencies.

The state continually implements new programs designed to
improve and/or restore the quality of natural systems.
Decisions involving significant expenditures for these programs
are sometimes made on the basis of limited data and an
incomplete understanding-of how these systems actually function.
No matter how well-meaning it may be human intervention in the
workings of natural systems can be ill-advised if not based on
an adequate understandiRg of the consequences of the proposed
intervention.

As reported by the Governor's Growth Management Data
Network Coordinating Council environmental agencies lack
accurate, timely and reliable information., This inadequacy
hampers Florida's efforts to manage growth at the state,
regional, and local level. The Comission faids the'
establishment of a statewide network of regional information
exchange programs to be essential to the achievement of greater
efficiency in environmental management.


Page 36


_~I












In addition to its duties under s. 373.026(2) which directs
DER to be the central repository for scientific and factual
water resources information generated by local governments,
WMDs, and state agencies, DER is authorized to prescribe the
format and ensure quality control for data collected or
submitted. One of the prime data needs identified was an
integrated geographic information system that would include a
statewide base map and the adoption of such spatial standards as
site locators so that all participants in a process are using
the same geographic language to talk about the same place.

Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that DER's statutory
responsibility for environmental data management and research be
made a reality. DER should be responsible for marshalling the
state's many research resources in a manner designed to aid the
environmental decision-making process, to establish, maintain
and administer a state-wide environmental resources data bank
and to act as a clearing house for environmental information.
It is essential that this program be well funded from an
earmarked revenue source. The statutory authority and directive
appears adequate. However funding and staffing have been
inadequate.

The best interests of the state will be served by
establishing an environmental research institute which could
marshal Florida's excellent and diverse research talents to
study contemporary issues and guide the environmental decision-
making process. The institute should be charged with the design
and administration of a comprehensive research program directed
at environmental issues of concern to the legislature and state
agencies. It is recommended that the institute be funded at a
level commensurate with the need for a better understanding of
how environmental systems operate and that all Florida
universities, agencies, local governments and private firms be
eligible, individually or cooperatively, to participate in the
institute's research program.


Page 37














Department of Natural Resources


Coastal Construction

Findings:

Construction of a permanent structure on a sandy beach
seaward of the coastal control line established by DNR requires
a DNR permit. Final permit issuance is at the discretion of the
governor and cabinet as the head of DNRI.

DNR makes a coastal engineering assessment to review a
project's structural integrity and the impact of the design and
siting 6n the beach-dune system. Construction seaward. of the
control line is prohibited if erosion is expected landward
within 30 years.

DER is required to assess water quality and the biological
impacts of coastal construction as they affect state waters.
DNR generally uses DER's biological assessment, but a separate
study is made if the location is within one of Florida's forty
aquatic preserves.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends the retention of coastal
construction regulation in DNR, but DN~ should be bound by the
water quality and biologicalJ impact: assessment of IDE,. When
dredge and fill programs are transferred to the WMDs as
recommended such environmental assessment wo~ildbe made by the
WMD.


Page 38












Beach Restoration

Findings:

Beach restoration and renourishment projects involve
separate impact assessments by both DERB and DNR. The sandy
beaches of Florida are assets of ines.st~ abl#e Value; and the
legislature has mandated DWR to promote 'and accomplish
protection of eroded beaches. f Such projects usually require
dredging'from offshore sites aM placement of sand on the shore.
DER is responsible for assessing the :impact of the project on
water quality and habitat.

The Commission heard testimony concerning major conflicts
between DNR and DER on two projects where DNR supported beach
renourishment programs which D-Mr ppose,.

In an effort to minimize future conflicts DNR is developing
beach management plans that include projected beach restoration
needs. DER has been requested to review these plans and
identify potential environmental problems and conflicts.


Recommendations:

The legislature should clarify conflicting policies
between DNR's mandate to restore beaches and DER's mandate to
protect marine habitat and water quallt.

DNR and DER should cooperate in a detailed environmental
study of the beach management plans now being prepared in order
to minimize future permitting problems for beach
restoration/renourishment projects. The study should produce
criteria and standards that can be applied state-wide for design
and permitting of future beach nourishment projects. Additional
funding for both agencies will be required in order to
coordinate and conduct such a study.


Page 39


F___













Mining in Wetlands


Findings:

DNR requires a comprehensive reclamation plan for mining.
Because of the comprehensive nature of the DUIR reclamation plan
review is given to the storage, management and consolidation of
waste products and mandated restoration of the terrain. Dredge
and fill permits are issued by DER. Surface water management
permits are issued by the local WMD. Large mines may also
require approval as a DRI. DNR has the authority to delegate
regulation of the mine reclamation to local governments and
intends to pursue a course of full delegation'where appropriate.

In an effort to minimize overlap Southwest Florida WMD has
adopted rules that exempt phosphate mines from obtaining a
surface water management permit provided that they have a DNR-
approved reclamation program. The Suwannee River WMD accepts a
DNR-approved reclamation program as an adequate basis for
issuing permits for management and storage of surface water for
phosphate mining.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that mine reclamation programs
remain in DNR. When wetlands responsibilities are transferred
to WMDs as recommended DNR should be bound by WMD decisions
relating to mining in wetlands.


Page 40











Oil and Gas


Findings:

In its resource management role as the steward of Florida's
non-renewable resources DRR requires a permit for all oil and
gas drilling and seismic activity in the state. DER requires an
additional permit for oil and gas drilling and seismic
activities in wetlands and waters of the state.

Recommendations:

The Commission recommends retention of the oil and gas
program in DNR. When dredge and f;1 is transferred to the WMDs
as recommRended permits for seismic activity and to 4rill in
waters and wetlands would be required from the appropriate WMD.


Page 41















Local Government: The Front Line of Environmental Protection


Delegation


Findings:

As local governments become more involved with
environmental issues through local comprehensive plans and land
use regulations there is potential for overlap and duplication
between local regulations and the regulations of WMDs and DER.
Some local Governments currently operate permitting and
regulatory programs that overlap WMD and DER programs.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that permitting and regulatory
programs be delegated to local governments wherever an
acceptable local program exists. Criteria for delegation should
follow the guidelines presently set out in section 403.182, and
should include:

1. a local government ordinance that is compatible with,
or is stricter or more extensive than state or regional
laws or rules;

2. a local enforcement program that includes appropriate
administrative and judicial process;

3. adequate local administrative support including
staff, funding, and other resources necessary to carry out
the local program.

If a local government program is qualified under the
above criteria delegation of the state or regional program
should be mandatory.


Page 42













Fee Schedule and Funding


Findings:

Local governments:must have the ability to set a fee
schedule that reflects the actual costs of permitting and
regulation.


Recommendations:


The sections of Florida Statutes that restrict
government's ability to set appropriate fees, such as
373.1~9, F.S., should be amended or deleted and local
governments given the authority to set such fees.


the local
section


-In addition the state or regional agency delegating the
regulatory program to the local government should be required to
transfer to the local government funds that the agency would
have expended on the program. Agencies must be be given the
necessary statutory authority for such a transfer.


Page 43













AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TO REMAIN UNCHANGED

The Commission also considered several areas of
environmental regulation where it was determined to make no
recommendations for change. These were:

Septic Tanks. Permitting and regulation of septic tanks
and sewage disposal systems should remain unchanged.

Fisheries. DNR controls saltwater fisheries, marine
mammals, and plants on state lands. The GFWFC controls fresh
water fisheries and game and non-game wildlife. This Commission
studied ways to consolidate these divided responsibilities into
one agency but finally decided to make no recommendation.
Several members voiced the strong opinion that trying to merge
the duties of DNR and other agencies into the constitutionally
created GFWFC would create more problems than would be solved.

Endangered Species. DNR, GFWFC, RPCs and DACS each have
a role in the protection of endangered and threatened species.
Each agency's jurisdiction is delineated by species. DNR
protects manatees and five types of marine turtles, GFWFC
protects all other animals, while DACS is required to maintain a
list of endangered and threatened plants. After considerable
study this Commission determined to make no recommendation.

Aquaculture. The Commission also studied the areas of
jurisdictional overlap as they relate to aquaculture but found
no compelling reason to recommend change.


Page 44










































APPENDIX


Page 45















A BRIEF HISTORY OF EESC, 1986-88


Appointed equally by the Governor, the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
fifteen-member Environmental Efficiency Study Commission has
researched public opinion and measured this evidence against
their own experiences.

The Commission was appointed in late 1986 to study problems
perceived by the public in the operation and administration of
state environmental and related public health laws and rules.
The first enabling legislation, Chapter 86-186, Laws of Florida,
provided for comment from members of the public and directed six
state agencies and all WMDs and RPCs to submit reports that
identified inefficiencies and duplication in environmental
program administration and that offered specific recommendations
for solutions to these problems.

The Commission researched public opinion by holding five
public meetings between December, 1986 and February, 1987 at
locations around the state. Unscheduled members of the public
as well as invited speakers representing well-known development
firms and environmental groups offered their comments. The
Commission received a great deal of documentation of testimony,
and several members made personal studies of operating programs.
In addition, the staff developed digests of agency reports, and
digested and categorized all written recommendations by topic.

After developing a consensus regarding problem areas, the
Commission produced an April, 1987 report to the legislature
identifying duplication, with specific recommendations for
efficient enforcement and administration of environmental
policy. The report found that the problems within the study
mandate were so complex that they required further research and
analysis, and so requested that the legislature extend its
existence for further study.


Page 46


APPENDIX I












The extension granted by the Legislature continued the
Commission with its present membership until June 1, 1988.
Chapter 87-297, Laws of Florida, requires the Commission to
propose legislation to implement their reooamendations, to show
any required staff transfers on agency organizational charts and
to submit this report to the legislature by the end of January,
1988. The scope of the Commission's inquiry was expanded to
include local government programs.

To organize their work, the members divided into
subcommittees, analyzed agency functions, and questioned agency
staff. Panel discussions were held in those instances where
multiple agency staff were involved in overlapping programs.

The Commission is a current example of a form of citizen
participation in government much used in Florida. The members
were chosen from diverse backgrounds in order to represent all
viewpoints and constituent interests on environmental policy.
This use of volunteer citizens inside government involves the
public in decision making and uses private sector expertise for
the benefit of the state. The Commission's goal is to produce
recommendations for public policy that address practical
problems while planning for future growth and change.

A Few Final Points:

Because the legislature directed the Commission to examine
only state and regional administration programs, the overlap
with federal government programs was not considered at length.
However, the Commission was educated by public testimony that
federal mandates complicate all levels of permitting programs.

Environmental laws protect the environment by providing for
the issuance of permits to limit or place conditions on
activities that may degrade water, land, or air quality.
Planning for appropriate land use is accomplished by prospective
comprehensive plans and by the issuance of a development order
for those large projects which have a regional impact. Public
health laws considered in this study are those which
tangentially relate to the environment because of the impact of
the governed activity on environmental quality. These laws are
examined to determine if they efficiently implement the intent
of public policy.


Page 47










This document is the result of more than a year of
productive dialogue in the free marketplace of ideas. It is
written in light of the reminders of history in which revision
of law was followed by unanticipated and unappreciated
consequences; with an awareness of the possibility that
reorganizational trauma might outweigh any benefit of
restructuring for the sake of logical design. It is
respectfully submitted by appointed Florida citizens with years
of experience watching the lobbying process in which a new
vision can be sculpted by innumerable opinions.

The Commission meetings were open door, well noticed and
attended. Commissioners were always in hearing range of agency
personnel, local government representatives, environmentalists
and business interests. These recommendations were not made in
a vacuum but are the result of intensive study. One value of
the Commission's existence to the Legislature is this research
document. The best hope of the Commissioners is that their work
will inspire further labor on behalf of the Florida environment.


Page 48















EESC MEMBERS


Mr. L.M. Buddy Blain Served: 6/18/87 6/1/88
Attorney, Blain & Cone Apppointed by: Governor
202 Madison Street Bob Martinez
Tampa, Florida 33602
Business Phone 813/223-3888


Dr. Leslie G. Bromwell Served: 9/26/86 6/1/88
Professional Engineer Appointed by: Speaker
Bromwell & Carrier, Inc. James Harold Thompson
202 Lake Miriam Drive
Lakeland, Florida 33803
Post Office Box 5467
Lakeland, Florida 33807
Business Phone 813/646-8591


Ms. Marilyn E. Crotty Served: 7/10/86 6/1/88
Faculty and Administrator Appointed by: Senate
Valencia Community College President Harry Johnston
190 South Orange Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32801
150 Spring Cove Trail
Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Business Phone 305/299-5000 Extension 3153
Suncom 339-3153


Dr. John M. DeGrove Served: 9/22/86 6/1/88
Director, FAU-FIU Joint Appointed by: Governor
Center for Environmental Bob Graham
and Urban Problems
University Tower, Room 709
220 Southeast Second Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Business Phone 305/355-5255
Suncom 238-5255


Page 49


APPENDIX II










Mr. Frank X. Friedmann
Attorney; Rogers, Towers,
Bailey, Jones and Gay
1300 Gulf Life Drive, Suite 800
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Business Phone 904/398-3911


Mr. David Gluckman **
Attorney
Gluckman & Gluckman
Route 5, Box 3965
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Business Phone 904/421-0152


Mr. James L. Lafrenz
Professional Engineer
Lafrenz Engineering, Inc.
Bay Point Office Park
2605 Thomas Drive, Suite 105
Panama City, Florida 32402
Business Phone 904/234-6600


Mr. Jay Landers *
Attorney; Landers,
Parsons & Uhlfelder
Barnett Bank Building
Suite 320
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Business Phone 904/681-0311


Ms. Susan R. Lubitz
Attorney
Environmental Control
Officer, Palm Beach County
901 Evernia Street
Room 210
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Business Phone 305/820-3136


Served: 9/4/87 6/1/88
Appointed by Senate
President John Vogt




Served: 9/26/86 6/1/88
Appointed by Speaker
James Harold Thompson





Served: 9/26/86 6/1/88
Appointed by Speaker
James Harold Thompson





Served: 9/22/88 6/1/88
Appointed by Governor
Bob Graham





Served: 9/22/86 6/1/88
Appointed by Governor
Bob Graham


* Chair
** Vice-Chair


Page 50









Mr. Jack Maloy
Vice-President,
Land/Environmental Planning;
A. Duda & Sons
P.O. Box 257
1975 West State Road 426
Oviedo, Florida 32765
Business Phone 305/365-2111
Home Phone 305/365-9040


Mr. Robert A. Mandell
Attorney/Vice President
Greater Construction Corp.
1105 Kensington Park Drive
Altamont Springs, Florida 32714
Business Phone 305/869-0300


Mr. Frederick C. (Ted) Prior
Attorney/Governmental Liaison
John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation
4176 Burns Road
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Business Phone 305/626-4800


Ms. Carol Rist
Vice President,
Kendall Plastics
18014 Southwest 83 Court
Miami, Florida 33157
Business Phone 305/238-2864
Home Phone 305/255-5275


Mr. W.F. Spann
Attorney, Managing Partner
Bay Point Yacht & Country Club
100 Delwood Beach
Panama City, Florida 32407
Business Phone 904/234-3307


Served: 9/4/87 6/1/88
Appointed by Senate
President John Vogt







Served: 7/10/86 8/15/87
Appointed by Senate
President Harry Johnston




Served: 7/17/86 6/1/88
Appointed by Senate
President Harry Johnston





Served: 7/17/86 6/1/88
Appointed by Senate
President Harry Johnston





Served: 7/10/86 7/21/87
Appointed by Senate
President Harry Johnston


Page 51










Mr. Theodore C. Taub
Attorney,
Taub & Williams
100 South Ashley Drive
Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
Post Office Box 3430
Tampa, Florida 33601
Business Phone 813/228-8000


Dr. Warren (Bud) Viessman, Jr.
Chairman,
Department of Environmental
Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
217 Black Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Business Phone 904/392-0841
Suncom 622-0841


Representative Peter Rudy Wallace
Member, House of Representatives
Attorney, Greene & Mastry
251 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
P.O. Box 3022
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
Business Phone 813/823-2167
Suncom 552-7620


Served: 9/22/86 6/1/88
Appointed by Governor
Bob Graham







Served: 9/26/86 6/1/88
Appointed by Speaker
James Harold Thompson







Served: 9/26/86 6/1/88
Appointed by Speaker
James Harold Thompson


Page 52


__














MEETINGS OF EESC, 1986-88


Location


Agenda


October 31, 1986

November 21, 1986

December 12, 1986

January 8, 1987

January 9, 1987

February 6-7, 1987



February 12-13, 1987



March 3, 1987


April 3, 1987


May 8, 1987

June 19, 1987

July 24, 1987


Tallahassee, Fl

Orlando, FL

Tampa, FL

Orlando, FL

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Jacksonville, FL



Panama City, FL



Tallahassee, FL


Tampa, FL


Orlando, FL

Miami, FL

Orlando, FL


Organization

Commission role

Public comment

Public comment

Public comment

Public comment &
sub-counittee
discussion

Public comment &
sub-committee
discussion

Discussion of
Commission report

Relationship of
DER & DNR

Chapter 380

DER & WMD issues

Sub-committee
issues


Page 53


Date


APPENDIX III











August 14-15, 1987


Captiva, FL


September 11-12, 1987 Ponte Vedra, FL


October 8-9, 1987



November 3, 1987



November 20, 1987

December 10-11, 1987



January 7-8, 1988

February 1, 1988


Tampa, FL



Tampa, FL



West Palm Bch, FL

Tallahassee, FL



Tampa, FL

Tallahassee, FL


Commission concept
discussion

Discussion of
non-final
recommendations

Discussion of
preliminary
recommendations

Discussion of
preliminary
recommendations

Public testimony

Discussion of
final
recommendations

Review of report

Final review of
report


Page 54


__













CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS


1965

1967

1970


1971

1972


1972

1972


1975

1975


1975

1977


1978

1980


1983


Beach and Shore Preservation Act

Florida Air & Water Pollution Control Act

Florida Water Pollution Control and
Sewage Treatment Plant Grant Act

Environmental Protection Act of 1971

Environmental Land and Water Management
Act of 1972

Florida Water Resources Act of 1972

Florida State Comprehensive Planning
Act of 1972

Aquatic Preserves Act

Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Act

Environmental Reorganization Act of 1975

Water Resources Restoration
and Preservation Act of 1977

Coastal Management Act of 1978

Florida Regional Planning Council Act


Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983


Page 55


161.011

403.011

403.1821-
1832

403.412

380.012


373.013

186.001-
031

258.35

163.3161-
3211

403.801

403.0615


380.20

186.501
-513

376.30 et
seq.


I


APPENDIX IV















Warsen 5.. .tnderao wetlands .vtrsaoiit o
Act i6 1f 4 :,


Stat. l
*
i / l *'


4sI .S


187.I01-
201


1984





. ,.

41*5


As urftt Z lavmt aM aIagemat
^l/^l' 1 '' .


T ,


.'


87-

'87-



87-97


I.;


t'V..i


















.3-
tL'


S.


.. .. i
'- .: '


i-^


f*9


49-i


4:

I,

- "'


-


* -n t -99
r', ,'
.;l^.. -




-a


1' 99 -.


tI *

'$ 4
C$
ft 4 9
~5t 3
: .-4t 9-a.
949


ia~u


f9


.9..'




9 9 ~$9,,;


161.52-48B


a.,


40W4


S1987


9*9
4'


;. t

v'. -9 .


9'9#

9 99


lp .


, I


-*t


'




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