_______________________________ ________________ ailii' -- ~~i;~ilL~~~~~ ;[-=
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING
2=00 BLIR STONE ROAD
TAuAHASSEE, FLORIDA 323942400
Sum y ofr
Summary of Recommendations
by the EESC
Funding and Enforcement
1. Need for adequate funding and full enforcement of
environmental permitting activities. Staff turnover is a major
problem for the public and the applicant.
2. Permitting and enforcement should be supported by fees paid
by the applicant, wherever practical.
3. Adequate professional career ladders for technical and other
personnel should be created to attract and hold good people.
1. Transfer all Henderson Wetlands Act, and other dredge & fill
permitting authority, now under DER in Chapter 403 to the WMD's
under Chapter 373.
2. Administration of the soveriegn submerged lands and aquatic
preserve rules of the TIITF should be placed under the WMD's,
with l-elaaLing. appeal rights and review authority retained in
the Governor and Cabinet.
3. Equalize the constitutional village cap of the NWFWMD with
the 1 mill authority of the other WMD's.
4. General revenue funding should go with the programs
transferred to the WMD's as well as authority to levee fees to
cover the costs of processing and enforcement. The State should
not expect WMD's to fund the new permitting and enforcement
activities through ad valorem taxes.
Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life
1. DER should retain authority over point source discharge
(industrial, domestic, hazardous and solid waste and air quality).
2. By 1994, the legislature should again review whether further
changes in WMD responsibilities should be made.
3. The entire drinking water program should be placed in DER.
*4. Septic tank permitting should continue as currently
5. Reuse rules for point sources should be established by DER.
Reuse rules for non-point sources should be established by WMD's.
6. DER should become the state center for water data management
Development of Regional Impact
1. Where the conceptual review process is utilized, Regional
Planning Councils would continue to be able to comment on the
regional implication of an agency's conceptual approval, but
would not be able to make conflicting recommendations or findings
in its report to local government.
2. Local governments should be prohibited from placing
conditions in a development order that are not contained in the
adopted local comprehensive. plan or local land development
regulations or from placing conditions on a DRI that could not be
placed on a Non-DRI development.
3. DCA should revise the procedural rules for DRI review and
should revise the Application for Development Approval.
Reflects changes made at the Feb 1, 1987 EESC meeting
.WM ^ ; y .
I/ :' ji~C1
;*: : 75 *
:. i 7
; ^SWW ';
:: ,EN <
#; j/g 7Lj47 a^'
^r .: ^r
i t r
*,. *'-r r
-? --- T -- --i "
** ~ ~ ; "" '
L -.." :1
-- --I II I~ r I -~li
"Dz 2 $
.. `ri^XBct ^M-/ ^<^/
5. shf- o
If, fetp-t. ^0 -Mj^ ,. eihr ,... .- -..
.I. Ht-^t^^,o^44jb<> ^y^Jb?^~wPc~-f^.A/ty^. .
_._~_...1.^ .k^^..f.- '_gfCp~~~~ HrA
^___..___ l ^S^ U
dm 40C-- 0-0
u.. ,. r ,, -Ay ..,.
AaL it'4' 'cC6~~-^ <
-^^L,^^-' ^^^^.y^'^^ >t*
/w #4 4&
1 A (6-/
a, Q(9~/ ft'Y
spa ~ er~
*,V~ <4 -<
- "/u /
pF~7A yr- l~~- &C~J"-
i j k '
iJ K~. Ic
D,, 4G4 -
wMD 71 l a^ TF -
IA^UL d 4a4t aP 4
^^1 (l^e T-frltU^ a W ^
...i .~. -- .I^-PLL
~-~t9 n~t~ Upr az-
p-s PA-# 7
p f 1 4f 7
PFn J- P"t,
Ihl~p ~hd k~-p
D~L -t~ ~spk
. 4 -
.... .., -, >l. U ^.
6 M a7
~ I~ _I_ ~__lr__
""""~~~~~~ "~`~" ~-` ""~""~' '