Title: The Tenth Annual Conference on Water Management in Florida - Asbstracts
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002976/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Tenth Annual Conference on Water Management in Florida - Asbstracts
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: NWFWMD
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: NWFWMD Collection - The Tenth Annual Conference on Water Management in Florida
General Note: Box 13, Folder 13 ( The Tenth Annual Conference on Water Management in Florida - 1986 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002976
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



TENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON


TENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON
WATER MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA



ABSTRACTS


Edited by

George Fisher
Public Information Officer
Northwest Florida
Water Management District


Illustrated by

Robert Mills
Public Information Specialist
Northwest Florida
Water Management District


For Additional Copies Write:

Public Information Office
Northwest Florida
Water Management District
Route 1, Box 3100
Havana, FL 32333


CONTENTS


Editor's Note and Credits ................. .............. .... 2

Main Addresses
Address by Governor Bob Graham .................. ........... .. .4
Keynote Luncheon Address by
Representative Herb Morgan ............................... .... .5
Banquet Message by Dr. Louis J. Atkins ............................ 7

Panel Discussions
A Water Management Year in Review ............................... 9
The State Comprehensive Plan:
Panacea or Placebo? .......................................... 12
Fee or Less than Fee: That is the
Land Acquisition Question ...................................... 14
Water Conservation and Reuse:
Regulatory Coordination ...................................... 16

Information Sessions
Institutional Alternatives to
W ater M management ..................................... ...... 19
Water Shortage Strategy: The
South Florida H20 Solution ................. .................. 20
Water Use Surcharges: The
National and Florida Perspective ............................. .21
Water Resources: A Middle School
Education Program .......................................... 23
Interagency Coordination for
Resource Management in the
Suwannee River Basin ........................................ 24
Regional Utilities: Advantages
and Economic Perspectives .................................... 24
Following the Same Rules for
Land Acquisition? ................. .......................... 26

Agenda ........................................ ............ 28


The costs for printing and distributing this public document were includ-
ed in the registration fee charged for the Tenth Annual Conference on Water
Management in Florida.











Est


J. William McCarmey
Executive Director


douAcwe 90,a loda

kalet ffanaj etne amei26 i

Route 1, Box 3100, Havana, Florida 32333


(904) 487-1770


Editor's Note and Credits:

On October 24 and 25, 1985, the Northwest District hosted its Tenth Annual Conference on
Water Management in Florida. Once again, we benefitted greatly from the willing participa-
tion of a large number of resource management experts and policymakers who came together
to make this one of the very best programs we have ever had. To all who participated, we ex-
tend our sincerest appreciation and hope you found the experience to be as beneficial and en-
joyable as we did.

Since 1980, all the Water Management Districts have become increasingly involved in plan-
ning and making arrangements for the Annual Conferences. They have become more and more
cooperative efforts and, as a result, the conferences have continued to improve each year.
Most notable among the many who helped make this year's program an excellent one were
Cathy Anclade and Dr. Nicole Duplaix of the South Florida Water Management District, Ed
Albanesi of St. Johns, Carolyn Mobley and Kirk Webster of Suwannee, Dr. Bud Viessman of
the University of Florida, and Fred McCormack, Esquire, staff director for the House Majori-
ty Office. Each took a personal interest in the success of this meeting and made our job of
organizing it significantly easier and more enjoyable.

George Fisher


DAVAGE RUNNELS
Chairman Destin


WILLIAM C. SMITH MARION TIDWELL
Vice Chairman Tallahassee Sec./Treas. Chumuckla


TOM S. COLDEWEY
Port St. Joe


W. FRED BOND CANDIS M. HARBISON R. L. PRICE, JR. DR. LOUIS J. ATKINS BLUCHER B. LINES
Pensacola Panama City Graceville Blountstown Quincy
































MAIN ADDRESSES


Address by Governor Bob Graham

Keynote Luncheon Address by
Representative Herb Morgan

Banquet Message by
Dr. Louis J. Atkins



























ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR
BOB GRAHAM


Governor Bob Graham

We have spent a lot of our time in this State
attempting to convert what was to us largely an
unnatural situation into one that looked, function-
ed, and felt more like what we were used to before
we moved to Florida. We looked at Florida as a
commodity that first had to be marketed as
something we were familiar with and then had to
be merchandised as rapidly as possible. The Water
Management Districts have as their predecessors
agencies whose responsibility it was to make
Florida a marketable commodity. We are in a new
era in which we have accepted Florida as being a
place that is unique, and rather than try to destroy
that uniqueness, we now know we need to protect
and preserve those very qualities. Our "Salvation
Programs" are intended to preserve and enhance
those things that are special about our State. That
specialness shapes our personality and our
character as Floridians as truly as the Rocky
Mountains do for people who live in Colorado.
The fact that during a period of slightly over ten
years, the Water Management Districts have made
this tremendous transition from reclamation agen-
cies to agencies that have responsibility for
management and conservation is a great
testimonial to you who have made that system
work. That the 1985 Legislature gave you even fur-
ther responsibilities and resources is a statement
of the confidence which the people of Florida have
in the job you are doing. And you have been given
some very major new obligations. The most
obvious is substantially greater financial capabili-
ty. With the increase in the documentary stamp


tax, the lifting of the "sunset" on the existing
documentary stamp tax for Save Our Rivers pur-
poses, and the bonding capacity, you will have,
over the next 20-25 years, almost a billion dollars
to help us protect some of the most critical areas
in our State. You will be the custodian for Florida
in our use of those funds to protect our most vital
resource, our fresh water supply. You also are
being encouraged to look for new cooperative rela-
tionships to accomplish this purpose. The Silver
River acquisition by the St. Johns River Water
Management District is a good example of the
Department of Natural Resources and a Water
Management District working together in a col-
laborative and financial arrangement to preserve
an important piece of property. In the East
Everglades, the South Florida Water Management
District, the Department of Natural Resources and
private and environmental agencies such as The
Nature Conservancy have worked together to
preserve property while it was still available. The
programs of the Southwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District in the Green Swamp are examples of
an agency seeing an opportunity to use natural
systems to protect our freshwater supply. This will
be a major historic step back from our reliance on
man-made systems for water supply and protec-
tion.
The Water Management Districts also have new
responsibilities in the area of planning. Under the
1985 State Comprehensive Planning Act, a new
seriousness of purpose is being given to our
attempts to look at the future and ask what kind of
Florida we want and what steps we need to take in
order to achieve that purpose. Those respon-
siblities are going to start at every local communi-
ty in Florida, at regional agencies such as yours,
at the Regional Planning Councils and at the State
level. It will be a process that will flow both up and
down as we attempt to arrive at some general ob-
jectives to be refined at the regional level and then
applied specifically to individual communities of
Florida. It is going to be a challenge to you as you
see issues that previously had been thought of as
pigeonholed in discrete categories increasingly
being just part of an indivisible whole. We have
already seen that you cannot divorce water
management policy from land use policy in
Florida. Two other issues which cannot be thought
of separately are water quality and water quantity.
You have got to be concerned with the quality of
the water because unless the water meets basic
qualitative standards, the quantity becomes irrele-
vant. We have lots of water in Florida: it lies in the
Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. The prob-
lem is, it is not useful for most human purposes
except at a very high economic cost. Our job is to
see that we protect the quality of the quantity of
water that we need for our purposes, and the
Water Management Districts are increasingly


4


F_







going to be at the center of that effort to integrate
quality and quantity responsibilities.
We have a great opportunity to live in one of the
most exciting places in the world, at one of the
most significant times in our history. We are living
through a generation in which our State is moving
from being a relatively small and insignificant
place to being the largest state in the southeast
and one of the first southern states to equal the
national average in terms of per capital income. We
are scheduled to be the fourth fastest growing
state, for the balance of this century, in terms of
the increase in our per capital income. We are big
in population, we are increasingly prosperous, and
we are a state that has been described as a
"megatrend place" where many of the things that
are going to shape the future of America are
already happening in our State. It has been a
tremendously exciting period.
We are going to be judged by how well our
generation carries out its responsibility. One of the


key elements is going to be how well we protect
the resources of this State, and there is no
resource that is more fundamental than our
freshwater supply. Florida has an excellent struc-
tural and administrative system for water manage-
ment. The concept of five regions-based on
hydrogeologic boundaries with local regional
responsibilities under a general state umbrella-is
a rational program to protect our resources. I am
very proud of the quality of people who have been
willing to serve to make that system live, to give
the human judgment and human commitment that
is necessary to make an organizational chart func-
tion. I commend you for what you have done. You
have a major challenge still before you. You have
the resources to carry out that challenge. You have
the public support as you undertake some difficult
decisions. I congratulate you, I share your sense of
enthusiasm for the future, and I look forward to
working with you to see that we can realize the
great opportunities which are ours.E


KEYNOTE LUNCHEON
ADDRESS BY REPRESENTATIVE
HERB MORGAN

Representative Herb Morgan
It's certainly a pleasure to be able to address
the Water Management Districts as you convene
again in Tallahassee for your annual meeting. And
I'd like to acknowledge your fortitude; for those of
you who don't remember, I spoke to you last year.
In a way, it's hard to speak to you two years in a
row because much of what I said last year could
probably be repeated. But I'm not going to do that,
so you can relax.
What I thought I would do is share a few com-
ments on some developments that have occurred
within the past year. I'd like to share some of my
own thoughts and offer some advice. As usual, you
don't have to listen to it-you never have in the
past, and I don't know why you should change
now. Really though, I hope you can tell that I enjoy


working with you. I appreciate some of the knotty
problems that you face. I've worked on them with
you. And, I even like some of the trouble you get
yourselves into and that I try to help you get out
of.
Basically I've got five things to mention to you
today. The first of those is Save Our Rivers. As you
know, we passed Save Our Rivers in 1982, and
we've extended it now and have given you addi-
tional money so that you can do more, such as
buying more land and saving our rivers. Addition-
ally, we've given you the authority to bond official-
ly. I recap this because I want to encourage you to
think seriously about what this all means.
To begin with, Florida as a state has one of the
most expansive, and perhaps the largest land pur-
chase program in the country. It is an effort that is
ongoing, has a guaranteed source of funding, has
bonding, and therefore the ability to obligate
future generations to pay for purchases made now
at what are hopefully better prices. This is impor-
tant, and I have supported these efforts and
endorse the need for these programs.
I am firmly convinced, however, that if there is a
sword that can come back and cut you, it's buying
land in this state. As Water Management Districts,
you have more money than you've ever had before.
You have to be certain to set into place the right
mechanisms to make this program of land acquisi-
tion work and be defensible in the public's eye. If
you buy a parcel, you have to be ready to defend
that purchase as compared to others. I know you
understand that. But nevertheless, I emphasize
this point because, as we in the Legislature
worked on this bill, there were congressmen and
citizens' groups who came to me and questioned
the idea of giving Water Management Districts







more money to buy more land. There were ques-
tions, complaints, criticisms, and always the issue
of what you would do with the land once you own
it.
You're going to be buying a lot of land. You have
the potential to become the largest landholders in
the state. But the Save Our Rivers' legislation,
even while providing you with great authority and
resources, also requires you to be developing
responsible plans for purchase procedures and
land use management. I'm excited and proud of
this legislation and this program, but I have to
emphasize that it carries heavy responsibility.
Land purchases are always fraught with prob-
lems-price, terms, individuals. Recognize the
potential you have to do good, but also realize the
potential problems inherent in the program.
I also need to address other issues. I know that
you are already working with staff from the House
Natural Resources Committee on a draft of the
stormwater management bill. This is a very con-
troversial piece of legislation; it has its proponents
and its opponents. But clearly, it there's an area
that needs to be looked at-and it will be as we
move into this next session-it's stormwater
management. The legislation that is being
developed may well have a major impact on the
things you do and could change some of your
responsibilities. I hope you will be actively involv-
ed in its design. We're going to need the best
people in this state in order to do the right thing
with stormwater management.
One of my personal concerns at this time,
though, is that we put a moratorium on passing
new environmental legislation. In the past two
years we've done so much in this area; we need to
recognize the substantial changes we've made and
grow into them, fine-tune them a little. After all, we
can only take so much change at a time, and we
need to sort it out and let it work.
Related to this is the whole concept of where we
are as a state. I characterize us this way: Florida is
now in the Space Shuttle period. We're traveling in
the shuttle, but only just learning how to operate
it. And it's going faster and faster every day. We
are moving at an increasingly rapid pace because
of our growth and the problems that come with
growth and our efforts to solve them.
This brings me to the issue of the State Com-
prehensive Plan. Certainly, no document could be
more fairly criticized as having problems. But cer-
tainly one of the more responsible things the
Legislature has ever done was to draw that plan
and pass it. What it accomplished was to focus
our attention on looking further down the road
than we traditionally want to do. Local government
officials, State Legislators, Water Management
Districts-we often have the tendency to focus on
the crises of the moment. But if that plan can


make us change our vision from near to far, it will
be successful. It's not a perfect plan, there are
many valid concerns about it, but it's an excep-
tional effort. We need to recognize that we are
riding a fast ship, and we need to look far down
the road and get a picture of where we are going.
Hopefully, that's what the State Comprehensive
Plan will force us to do.
I briefly want to mention other areas that are of
concern to me. We are in the process of develop-
ing a reclamation bill which relates primarily to
phosphate mining, but could relate to other areas
of mining in the state. This legislation may not af-
fect all districts, but it is a major effort and a pro-
ject that has been desired by many a long time.
It's not easy legislation to draft, but I think you'll
find it come to fruition in the next session because
we need an instrument to clarify decisions about
the reclamation and restoration of mined lands.
In closing, let me comment on the financing of
Water Management Districts. Again, I submit a
word of caution: Like legislators, Water Manage-
ment Districts are not loved by everyone. Often,
you're embroiled in controversy, and often you
face public dissatisfaction. Personally, I believe
the system of water management we've developed
in Florida is a model for the rest of the nation to
follow. I believe that basing water management on
hydrologic boundaries is the wisest system. And I
believe that the administration of Water Manage-
ment Districts is a sound system-with Governing
Board members who are appointed and who have
ad valorem taxing authority, even as non-elected
officials. But, I would caution you that more and
more people are understanding and paying atten-
tion to that fact, and they're scrutinizing very
carefully how you do business. They desire to
know that you do listen and respond to the issues
they raise.
Remember that you are nonelected officials with
tremendous power, which is necessary for this
system to work well. Understand that this tremen-
dous authority places on the staff and Board
members of Water Management Districts a respon-
sibility which is hardly comparable to that of any
other element of government. Since policymakers
are generally elected, we don't carry the same
combination of authority and autonomy that you
do. This is a great trust to bear, and it requires a
higher standard of excellence and commitment on
the part of Water Management Districts.E







its past) is to be built on its environment, we must
start the educational process early and carry it on-
ward through the lifespans of our citizens. If we
don't show them the "why's and how's," they are
not likely to participate-at least not productively.
And, if we accept this and leave environmental
matters only to the technicians and lawmakers and
regulators, our progress will be much slower than
necessary and the real need for it will be obscure
to many-and the support we are going to need, in
order to do it right, is not likely to be there.



BANQUET MESSAGE
BY DR. LOUIS J. ATKINS


Dr. Louis James Atkins
It's not a difficult thing to "legislate" en-
vironmental excellence. Lord knows, we see it hap-
pen every year. But until we can establish some
common bond, common goal, or common deter-
mination between those who make and enforce
our environmental laws and programs and those of
us who merely are to abide by them, it is
reasonable to assume that our labors in that
regard will bear imperfect fruit-unless, of course,
we also legislate a virtual army of enforcement.
The key to this seems to be education or, better
yet, understanding. It's really not hard to explain
why a man whose major concept of water is as an
agent to transport his bulk across a swimming
pool or, perhaps more to the point, an agent to
transport fine spirits over considerably shorter
distances, may display resistance or, at best,
disinterest in the idea of water conservation, or
control of stormwater runoff, or protection of
groundwater supplies, or a myriad of related con-
cepts. The fact is, he simply doesn't understand
the concepts or the need for them and, unless you
stand over him, he's probably going to be prone to
ignore, or at least forget, the environmental
measures we have so carefully legislated.
And, ultimately, it may not be his fault. And, as
might be expected, his children are likely to share
his attitudes-and it's probably not their fault
either.
The fault lies in the fact that most of our current
adult generation, and to a large extent their
children, have not had any substantial educational
exposure to the environmental management con-
cepts and precepts, especially regarding water,
that are so necessary to maintaining our way of
life. This lack becomes even more significant when
you realize that environmental management is
evolving so quickly that even the technical profes-
sionals have trouble keeping up with it.
So it would seem that if Florida's future (as was


1































PANEL DISCUSSIONS


A Water Management Year in Review

The State Comprehensive Plan: Panacea or Placebo?

Fee or Less than Fee-That is the Land Acquisition Question.

Water Conservation and Reuse: Regulatory Coordination.







A WATER MANAGEMENT YEAR IN REVIEW

MODERATOR

Vicki Tschinkel, Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation

THE PANELISTS

Bill McCartney, Executive Director, Northwest Florida Water Management District

Don Morgan, Executive Director, Suwannee River Water Management District

Gary Kuhl, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Water Management District

Woody Wodraska, Executive Director, South Florida Water Management District

Henry Dean, Executive Director, St. Johns River Water Management District


Vicki Tschinkel
It is interesting, here at the Tenth Annual Con-
ference, to note how much continuity we have had
in water management personnel and policy, and
how we are recognized nationally as leaders in the
field.
We have accomplished some important things
together. The State Water Policy we put together a
few years ago was incorporated almost intact in
last year's Growth Management Bill. Our many
new regulatory programs have been very well done
by all the districts, and the"Save Our Rivers" pro-
gram, which helps keep us going when things are
unpleasant, has been really remarkable. The
Florida Resource Rivers Act was certainly the"hap-
piest" thing that happened this past year. Under
the State Comprehensive Plan, we are directed to
ensure a water supply into the future and are given
an unwritten endorsement, by the Legislature, of
our past and current directions.
A major initiative on stormwater management in
the House Natural Resources Committee is going
to have a major impact on all of us. Since existing
stormwater problems will be addressed under this
bill, it deserves a lot of our attention and it will
probably be the single most important piece of
environmental legislation considered this year.


Bill McCartney
Our greatest accomplishment last year was
making it through the year with only five percent of
the financial resources of the other Water Manage-
ment Districts. We worry how we are going to
stretch $700,000 to cover 90 employees, technical
equipment and new legislated programs. We have
used a lot of ingenuity and creativity, but we also
sincerely thank Vicki Tschinkel for the support she
has given us through the years.
Among the other major achievements this year


is an agreement we have with Southwest Forest
Industries to purchase some 73,000 acres in the
floodplains of the Apalachicola and Choctawhat-
chee rivers and put this valuable land in the public
trust. We already bought, this year, 18,000 acres on
the Escambia River at a price of $194 per acre. We
also received a donation of $3 million in land
through The Nature Conservancy, which would
have satisfied the match originally required
under"Save Our Rivers". Another milestone was
the seven months of meetings by our Goals, Plan-
ning and Development Committee that produced
recommendations on future funding, including a
water use surcharge alternative. This committee
strongly supported our basin planning effort and
strongly endorsed the Middle School Science
Education Program we are developing.
During the past year, we were very much
involved with two of the Governor's Resource Plan-
ning and Management Committees in Okaloosa
and Walton counties and in Escambia and Santa
Rosa counties. Interestingly, in the Okaloosa-
Walton Committee, they accepted just about every
recommendation we made, including those for
regional water supply and for regional solid waste
and sewage disposal, as well as endorsing our pro-
grams on Old Pass Lagoon and Choctawhatchee
Bay.
We also, since the last Annual Conference,
made some important changes to our regulatory
programs and greatly expanded our Basin Advisory
Committees to bring the major water users, institu-
tions of higher education and larger public supply
systems together to talk about water management.
The last of our major accomplishments might
very well be our most important and enduring. It is
the establishment of a comprehensive and consis-
tent water resource education program in all our
middle schools. It should help bring a better public
understanding of the technical and institutional
issues Water Management Districts deal with on a







daily basis.
The coming issues, very briefly, include storm-
water management which, if our District is going
to be responsive, will require funding by the
Legislature. We will need additional money,
beyond the large amount provided this year, to
carry out our proposed and very important acquisi-
tions. Our District absolutely must have a depend-
able and adequate source of revenues to support
our operations.
We all also need to come to grips with program
assignments by the Legislature. There is, as well,
a great need for better data networking and
management by all the resource management
agencies. User fees should be looked at more
carefully as a source of funding for resource
management. Better coordination between the
state universities and the districts is essential and
would benefit both of us greatly. There will, finally,
be a much greater involvement of the Water
Management Districts in the marine environment,
because, as I have told Elton Gissendanner, we are
not the "Fresh" Water Management Districts of
Florida.

Don Morgan
Every year we say this is going to be the last
Annual Meeting and here we are at the 10th Last
Annual Meeting.
In trying to explain the great successes we have
had in water management and as national leaders
in the field, I have always tended to credit the
Legislature. In reality, the people responsible for
our success are mostly sitting here in this
auditorium. There is a great wealth of talent on our
Governing Boards: It is a great sacrifice they
make, and we couldn't hire the kind of talent and
expertise they provide for free.
The Swuannee District has been promoting a
nonstructural flood control alternative for the
Suwannee River. With the help of the Corps of
Engineers and an excellent staff, our Governing
Board "bit the bullet" on a comprehensive surface
water, works-of-the-District rule that was opposed
by every County Commission in our District. We
were trying to bring land planning and water plan-
ning together, and we asked that permits receive
approval by the District for any building that was
going in a major floodway. The Corps of
Engineers, which normally does not do nonstruc-
tural work, is producing a really excellent and pro-
fessional piece of work to help us in this effort.
One major problem with this program, which
was entirely our fault, was that we did not inform
our county commissioners about what we were go-
ing to do. The opposition and misunderstanding
that resulted will take a lot of "coordinating" to
correct.


Gary Kuhl
We have had a very interesting year at South-
west. It is amazing to me also how much we get
out of our Governing Board members for 20 cents
a mile. I am also very much impressed with the
quality of the staff in all the districts.
Our major accomplishments this year include
coming up with a nonstructural approach to
managing the Green Swamp. We also experienced
a severe drought followed by some serious
flooding brought on by a hurricane. Another major
accomplishment was the formation of a Water
Conservation Task Force that included our public
utilities, agricultural interests and industries. Dur-
ing the past year, we also implemented the
Wetlands Protection Act by means of our Manage-
ment and Storage of Surface Water permitting
system.
Future issues for us certainly include working
more closely with local governments on water con-
servation and on flood and drought management.
We have made some progress on this by working
with water supply authorities toward providing for
long-term needs. We plan soon to look again at our
Consumptive Use Regulations, which we have had
in effect for some ten years, and especially at the
regional impact of water withdrawal permits. Water
use monitoring is also being given a lot of atten-
tion at our District now, and better data
undoubtedly will help us manage the system
better.

Woody Wodraska
The Water Management Districts are addressing
things collectively now, rather than going about
them separately as we often did in past years. We
are all grappling with the same kind of problems,
and I am convinced that by working collectively we
are going to make better decisions.
Let me also comment on our Governing Board
members. When I came to the South Florida
District in 1972, the selection process was far dif-
ferent than now. I am truly impressed with their
understanding of complex issues, and dedication,
and the amount of time these Board members put
into it; it averages about eight to ten days a month
for each of them. Governing Board members are
the linkage between our professional staff and the
constituencies we deal with and are extremely im-
portant in helping Floridians to understand our
decisions.
There are some individual programs we are very
proud of, including the Governor's Save Our
Everglades, for which we have been selected to be
the lead agency. We have a demonstration project
on the Kissimmee that has been surprisingly
successful at restoring the flow to the old oxbows







and to the marshes. As best as we can tell, no one
has ever tried to put a river back together again
and we are getting attention from throughout the
world. It is very exciting to see this river being
restored.
Another exciting one is our East Everglades pro-
gram which has been very difficult to negotiate
between the farmers, homeowners, Everglades Na-
tional Park, and water management interests. We
have come up with a technical solution involving a
rainfall-driven model that is a serious departure
from our traditional rule-making procedures of 40
years, and one that has the concurrence of all the
players. In doing this, we used a new technique:
we would take a small step and then stop and
analyze the results. We didn't do anything that
wasn't reversible so if we took a wrong step, we
could step back. People understand and
appreciate that approach and it helped us build a
lot of public trust.
We just now are getting completely into the
groundwater quality field. It is an expensive opera-
tion, but we feel it is essential to the proper
management of water resources.
This week we closed on a $50 million bond pro-
gram for land acquisition. To me, the big issue
here is how we are going to manage these lands. I
am particularly concerned about insurance liability
for the people we are letting use these lands for
every imaginable purpose. We have had to change
our organizational structure to bring on recreation
planners and to figure out the best way to manage
these lands.
We have also added to our staff to gear up for
greater local government assistance, especially in
regard to land management. We have 131 units of
local government in South Florida, and we are try-
ing to provide them all with the water information
they need to make good land use decisions.
Our District recently was reviewed by the
Auditor General's people. They went back in our
records to the 1950's and came up with some ways
we could do business better. It has been a healthy
experience.

Henry Dean
I guess this has been a good first year for me at
St. Johns. We have had a little sample of freezing,
flooding, droughts, hurricanes, northeasterners,
forest fires and citrus canker. It has been busy and
interesting.
During the past year, our Regulatory Division
has made great strides in implementing a Surface
Water Management rule and expanding Consump-
tive Use to cover the whole District. As a result, we
tripled the number of permits we process. We also
established an Advisory Committee to help us on
water use, during freezes, by the fern industry. We
are working out, with the Department of


Environmental Regulation, the delegation to us of
stormwater permitting.
In this next year, we will be expanding our
offices into the Orlando and Jacksonville areas.
We will continue to expand our technical
assistance programs and, of course, our very large
project on the upper basin of the St. Johns. The
Corps of Engineers' plan has been approved and
we will very soon begin actual construction. The
first phase includes some canal plugging that
should have a very positive impact on water
quality and quantity.
Our Board went ahead with a $35 million bond
issue for land acquisition under Save Our Rivers.
At the same time, we were able to reduce our ad
valorem assessment by roughly 30 percent.
My biggest goal for the coming year is develop-
ing a better working relationship with our local
governments. We have grown so quickly that we
just haven't given that as much attention as it
needed.

Vicki Tschinkel
In the way of a summary, let me repeat that
there has been a lot of cohesiveness between the
management of the districts and the Department.
We have very common goals, and have produced
some well-integrated rules and are working at bet-
ter integrating others, including wastewater reuse.
Tying agencies responsible for water manage-
ment and local governments together in the long-
range comprehensive planning process is going to
be a major issue in the future. Developing policies
as a community rather than as separate entities is
a real challenge for us all, and we will all benefit if
we can get more interests involved in our decision-
making. A lot of our successes have occurred
because Floridians in general recognize we need
these kinds of programs to protect our resources.
We need to continue to foster that kind of com-
munity feeling. E







THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
PANACEA OR PLACEBO?

MODERATOR

Dr. Warren Viessman, Chairman, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida

THE PANELISTS

Richard Gentry, Legal Counsel, Florida Homebuilders Association
Hon. Gayle Nelson, Chairman, Leon County Commission
Jim Wolf, League Counsel, Florida League of Cities
Pamela Jo Davis, Assistant Secretary, Department of Community Affairs
Fred McCormack, Staff Director, House Majority Office
Jack Osterholt, Deputy Director, Governor's Office of Planning & Budgeting


Jim Wolf
Neither the 1978 nor the 1985 plan was
legislatively adopted, benefited from clear delinea-
tion of state policy by the Legislature, or was pro-
perly funded. The 1985 plan is not a clear state-
ment of legislative policy because most of the
policymaking is delegated to administrative agen-
cies, most of which are not sure what the others
are doing. They are also, so far, proposing conflict-
ing rules. The policy dealing with providing public
facilities does not, for example, indicate how we
will achieve cooperation of the agencies involved,
who delivers which services, and how to eliminate
duplication. The whole idea behind growth
management is the efficient delivery of services
and provision for that is absent from this plan. In
too many places, there were decisions that needed
to be made that were passed on to administrative
agencies.
The Legislature also ducked the funding issue
when it took the target dates out of the plan so
there would be no need to provide the funding.
They still haven't come up with a way to fund it,
but they have set up a committee to look at it. In
short, the Legislature has created a beautiful docu-
ment but has delegated all its responsibilities to
administrative agencies and has not provided any
funding.

Gayle Nelson
Florida's people have endorsed planning and
growth management and know it is important to
make plans for the millions coming in the next 15
years. The support for growth management closely
parallels what we saw several years ago when the
Governor and Legislature"went to war" against
crime. Little did we realize then that when the
state went to war against crime, so would we have


to go to war at the local level with our property
taxes. We still support the war on crime, but we
resent having to bear so much of the cost locally.
In both the war on crime and growth manage-
ment, the direction has been from the top down,
rather than from the bottom up. The top-down
approach is faster and more efficient, but dating
back to 1972 when the first state plan was not
adopted, there has been a lot of verbiage but no
real attempt to create a popular and effective plan.
There has also been an assumption that we can
solve our problems if local governments would
"just do it right." This is in spite of the fact that
local governments have spent millions of dollars
and thousands of hours in developing the required
local plans without effective state guidance; those
plans are inept and do not solve the problems. We
don't see any improvements in the new plan
Commitment will not come from the top down.
Only if people experience a problem and want to
address it are they going to be willing to pay for
the solution. We have heard nothing from the
Legislature about where the needed $30 billion will
come from.

Richard Gentry
The State Comprehensive Plan is not much of a
functional document, but it is good reading and I
think it will be a spawning ground for most of the
quality-of-life legislation for the next decade.
Florida does not have enough money to carry
out all the elements of this plan. All the goals are
worthwhile, but some are not realistic with or
without the funding. There is no way all the
environmental goals can be met and also achieve
affordable housing. Some have described this plan
as "a very sumptuous menu without any prices."
Local Government Comprehensive Plans are the
critical element in this plan. There will be a cons-


I







tant role for the state agencies to oversee the
development of these plans, but local needs must
be determined locally. Funding obviously is also
critical, and the homebuilding industry and local
governments are over-burdened with requirements
and mandates already. The funding needed for this
plan will have to be based on broad participation
and not on a single source, and if it is not address-
ed, this plan will be no more than rhetoric. Without
proper funding, further mandates will translate into
many building moratoriums in the near future.
Florida can also expect to become the national
leader on lawsuits regarding the "taking" of land.
Government agencies can look forward to being
sued from every direction because they are being
required to restrict the use of property in so many
ways.

Fred McCormack
We must ask ourselves if there is a value to
planning itself. We might argue that we should
trust in providence and let our problems solve
themselves through a process we have not been
able to identify-and there is a whole body of
thought in that area, called "religion." We can
reasonably anticipate what will be happening in
our future and we have the opportunity to plan
what we would like to have happen and how to
achieve it.
The 1978 and 1985 plans were not similar. The
1978 document was convoluted and received little
attention by the Legislature. The 1985 Plan was a
product of the Legislature; it went through an
exhaustive process and underwent considerable
change in the Legislature. It was also adopted by
the Legislature after a very large number of public
meetings at which everyone who wished to com-
ment was given the opportunity.
The Legislature has not funded this plan, but it
would have been irresponsible to attempt, during
the session, to throw $100 million or $1 billion at it
without very careful consideration of the sources
or destination. We must, however, find that fun-
ding and provide the roads and other infrastructure
needs if we are going to survive and maintain any
semblance of orderly life. Concerns about this plan
infringing on private property rights are unfounded.
The legislative intent, as written in the plan, is as
follows: "The goals and policies ... shall be
reasonably applied where they are economically
and environmentally feasible, not contrary to the
public interest, and consistent with the protection
of private property rights."

Jack Osterholt
In developing this plan, we looked at every
available planning process. We also considered
leaving the solution to randomness-it's gotten us
this far. This plan was designed to work with local


governments, and it is a management plan for this
corporation that is our state government. We
spend $14 billion a year and have over 110,000
employees.
Is it a top-down system in which "we" will be
doing something to "them"? Read this 40-page
plan and see what the answer is. We intentionally
kept this document broad in its scope so unique
areas could find unique local solutions to the big
problems. It is really intended to be more of a
bottom-up process based on the solutions in the
local government plans.
We look at this plan as a consensus-building
process. The Governor is committed to carry this
out, and we are talking with the various agencies
and finding our conversations focusing on the
plan. We realize we must also manage expecta-
tions so we can deliver when we are asked to do
so. We may argue'about these goals, but at least
they are the same ors4e-fall of us.

Pam Davis
I, too, was involved in the war on crime, and the
massive expense for jails Commissioner Nelson
talked about was the result of many years of
neglect. The Federal courts had to tell us to run
constitutional jails and then we had years of
neglect to recover from. We have the same prob-
lem with the infrastructure needed for growth.
The growth is coming and we need to try our
best to deal with it. Water managers need to focus
on the State Comprehensive Plan as a vehicle to
help manage our vital water resources.
Quality planning can be legislated. It is difficult,
expensive and time-consuming, but it can be done.
Our decisions must be processed through boards,
local government councils and regulatory commit-
tees, but our visionary and creative efforts can
accommodate the welcomed growth if we always
return to our goal that this growth be shaped to
serve beauty, order and convenience.
We realize we must integrate local, regional and
statewide planning so we will have consistency
and predictability. We must protect those interests
vital to all Floridians and arrive at a fair funding
mechanism. These are big issues, but they are not
insurmountable. E







FEE OR LESS THAN FEE:
THAT IS THE LAND ACQUISITION QUESTION

MODERATOR

Dr. Earl Starnes, Suwannee River Water Management District Governing Board

THE PANELISTS

John Hankinson, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation
Barbara Brumback, FAU-FIU Joint Center for Environmental & Urban Problems
Donna Christie, Florida State University College of Law
Buddy Blain, Blain & Cone, P.A.


Barbara Brumback
Florida has the most expensive land acquisition
program in the 50 states, both in terms of dollars
and the acreage acquired. Governments have
typically acquired land to do something with it-to
provide a service such as roads or sewers. Recent-
ly, attention has been toward conservation, preser-
ving a use or preventing a use. Each acquisition
technique should be determined individually and
carefully defined as to what needs to be protected
or the public purpose involved. If the agency wants
to take a positive action or wants to do something
to the land, full fee acquisition will probably be
needed. The agency's future needs have to be con-
sidered as well as the compatability of the land
uses. If management responsibility is not desired,
then other than fee technique could be considered.
Finally comes the question of cost. Opposition to
government acquisition of land often stems from
the cost of acquiring it and the loss of existing
and future property taxes. Less than fee ap-
proaches might be more politically acceptable
locally. However, fee title acquisition has its ad-
vantages. First, you own all the interest in the pro-
perty. Second, there are no residual interests; and,
third, we know how to do it. It's better to deal with
a known commodity. Less than fee acquisitions
may take longer to transact, at least at first,
because they are unknown. There is also the dif-
ficulty of negotiating with a landowner who never
thought he could sever the right to develop his pro-
perty from the land itself.
Private nonprofit organizations have been and
will continue to be very important in finding a
"best fit" between the resource to be protected
and the technique that is used. In addressing adja-
cent land problems-instead of appraising
easements, what is sometimes done is purchase
it, fee title it, deed restrict it, and then offer it for
sale. Likewise, when acquiring an easement on
that land, you could purchase it, restrict it, and


then resell it. One of the advantages of leaseback
is if you know you have land that you have to pro-
tect, but you are not entirely certain what you are
going to do with it long-term, or you are certain
you know that you eventually will flood it, I think
leasing under those circumstances is perfectly
viable.

Donna Christy
Florida has joined with 28 or 29 other states in
enacting conservation easement statutes basically
modelled on the Uniform Conservation Easement
that was done by the American Law Institute. It is
clearly established in Florida that conservation
easements do run with the land. There's no ques-
tion of the privity once the land is transferred. Pro-
visions in the easement clearly can be enforced. If
the use of the land needs to be changed in order
to carry out the regulatory management purposes,
the conservation easement statute provides for
easements to retain land and water uses in
predominantly their natural state and to maintain
existing uses. It is not clear if the use of the land
needs to be changed or whether the conservation
easement is a viable technique. Eminent domain
and condemnation cannot be used to establish a
conservation easement. This has to be determined
on a case-by-case basis depending upon what it is
you are trying to protect or regulate. Very often,
being able to obtain an easement to carry out
regulatory purposes means 80 to 90 percent of the
fee. If you are already purchasing 80 to 90 percent
of the fee, you may find that the other 10 or 20 per-
cent is needed for regulatory purposes. At that
point, you might find the value of the land has
gone up considerably, so you may be paying as
much for that last 10 as you did for the earlier 90
percent. New and innovative techniques of acquir-
ing land should be explored rather than just worry-
ing about how much of the interest in the land we
should be acquiring. A number of people feel no







amount of regulation can protect land the way
acquisition can. Land that is endangered is what
we need to be trying to protect at this point.

John Hankinson
Each land deal is very different, and has to be
approached with a clear idea of your goals. We
haven't had a clear idea going in of what we
wanted. It really comes down to a concept of
management. The less than fee approach can pro-
vide a tool for something that might not have
otherwise happened. Nonprofits have a great deal
more flexibility than the districts to work with
landowners, to work with local people and to say,
"What is the interest of the local people and of the
landowner in this property; what are the interests
of the acquiring agency? How can we try to work
this out so that everybody feels good about what
they've done and the state buys the land at the
lowest possible cost while still maintaining the in-
terest they need to carry out their management ob-
jectives?" Look to long-term management. Conser-
vation easements are going to be a very important
tool for the water management districts in making
sure they retain the interest to assure that water
management purposes are carried out on their pro-
perty, even by sister agencies. Environmentalists
have been pretty conservative about using less
than fee. The use of nonprofit and individual land
trusts has very much stretched acquisition dollars
because the local land trusts are smart enough to
get people from the community who know the
landowner and can appeal to a philanthropic side
to sell the land more cheaply, or to be interested
in a tax advantage. Local land trust is a cost-
effective way of investing the land acquisition
dollar. But the more creative you are, the more
subject you possibly are to criticisms from the
auditor. Adjacent land problems is the area where
you look to less than fee restrictions, and other
types of land use restrictions. You may need to ac-
quire the fee in immediate floodways, but in adja-
cent lands we might be able to get away with less
than that. In terms of leasing as an ongoing
management tool, in many cases I think you are
opening yourself up for a lot of conflict. In terms
of multiple use, it is a management question and
multiple use always means multiple abuses. The
only option, if you have something that you are
concerned about from a resource perspective, is
acquisition. I think as Florida population continues
to grow and the pressure on the resources in-
creases, we are going to continue to have a need
to acquire land to protect the basic natural and
water resources. We
only have a fairly brief window to really acquire
those things that are essential for water manage-
ment before growth will overtake our ability to use
this tool in protecting our water resources.


Buddy Blain
We had a great market for the land, and then we
created a never-ending supply of money and
boosted that price up. It is going to be increasingly
difficult to go in and acquire fee simple absolute
title. If you have a particular project and a par-
ticular use and you are going to have certain
management scenarios or schemes to follow, then
you may well want to acquire that in fee. There are
a lot of different techniques for achieving total
management and the protection of the water
resources including all types of easements. The
beauty of acquiring the easements rather than the
fee is that you don't have to manage that land
other than for the purpose of your easement. You
simply have got to have good management for that
land. You have got to set goals as to what land
you need, why you want it, what you are trying to
do with it, and how you are going to do it. The law
made it possible for landowners to convey to a
county or city the development rights on proper-
ty-provided that it would only be used for those
particular uses during that period of time, and
there was a tax incentive. In 1978, we provided that
any land that is subject to this must be open to
the general public. We rendered that law very inef-
fective. A tremendous impact on your land acquisi-
tion programs is the ordinary high water study and
the model legislation. I think that the ideal thing to
do is to use the Save Our Rivers Program and
where there is any question about owning the
submerged lands under the ordinary high, that
land should be acquired for 10 percent of the
appraised value of the adjoining land. I believe
that you could use your money wisely to acquire
the ordinary high. If the land acquisition' takes a
layered approach, you can expand your dollars
substantially. I am not sure that the Water
Management Districts have the authority to go in
and buy for the purpose of resale, but leasing is
viable. If the land was acquired and if it could be
made available to the public in a way that is com-
patible with the uses that the Water Management
District has for the land, then it should be. One
agency will have title to that land and another
agency is trying to do something. Quite often,
when you go in to acquire the land, people would
rather you go ahead and have a total taking in-
stead of just taking along some jagged line. Buy
selectively in all cases. E







WATER CONSERVATION AND REUSE:
REGULATORY COORDINATION

MODERATOR

Hon. Ralph Simmons, Chairman, St. Johns River Water Management District Governing Board

THE PANELISTS

Hon. Fran Carlton, Florida House of Representatives
Howard Rhodes, Director, Division of Environmental Programs, Department of Environmental Regulation
Rich Gunter, Public Service Commission
Hon. James Taft, Southwest Florida Water Management District Governing Board
Gordon Pfersich, Senior Vice President, General Development Utilities


Hon. Ralph Simmons
The Governor used an interesting term in his
remarks this morning. He said the Water Manage-
ment Districts are in"the management and conser-
vation business." When I first got involved in water
management with St. Johns, I looked at it as a
governmental agency dealing with regulatory
issues. Today, as water managers, we're finding
ourselves not only in the regulatory business, but
also in the conservation management business.
And that's going to take a lot of effort. It's going to
take education, much cooperation and some in-
novation within and among all the state agencies.
The St. Johns District has chosen to talk about
reuse this morning. Our Board has wrestled with
this for some time. We continue to find that we
have conflicting ideas with other agencies about
reuse. We've determined that you can't resolve
these issues in a vacuum. As a water management
agency, we're going to have to do more and inter-
act more with other agencies.
We have with us this morning a good cross-
representation of individuals who represent many
different agencies and groups. They are the ones
our District will have to work with in the future to
properly manage and conserve the water resources
here in Florida.

Hon. Fran Carlton
By now, citizens should be sensing that water
will be the major focal point in Florida's future. I
don't think there is any question about that. But I
do think there is a question, at least in my own
mind, about the level of understanding in the
private sector.
Citizens do not have the kind of understanding
that you as water managers have. It is important
that their level of understanding increase if we're
to get the job done.


Florida's freshwater system is extraordinarily
delicate. That's not news to you. A system-
sensitive nature, coupled with the known threats,
give rise to a special duty on the part of both
government and private citizens to protect and
preserve that resource. That's, of course, what
we're here about. Reuse is a subject that has been
very controversial. It will continue to be controver-
sial. And yet it is a subject which we must address
and we must do it now.
The DER is somewhat hamstrung by the rules
and regulations that have been handed to them by
EPA, but we have to continuously look at what the
goal is. If the goal is conservation, then that has to
be the criterion. If it's reuse for the sake of reuse,
then that's another issue altogether.
There are many of us who feel that, for the sake
of conservation, we're ultimately going to have to
turn to reuse. Reuse will be the answer in many
areas. It is not going to be the answer in all areas.

Howard Rhodes
Whenever we have a shortage, we immediately
go to conservation and that is probably as it
should be. When we get past that point and we
don't have enough water, then we've got other
alternatives. One of which is reuse.
Florida does not have a shortage of water. We
have a shortage of cheap fresh water. If we are
wilting to spend the money and the energy we can
have abundant sources of water. The basic ques-
tion is can we, as a state, afford that?
Let me address the issue of reuse. There's a lot
of confusion about this. Essentially you start with
the water resource, either as wastewater or storm-
water. It can go one of two directions. It can go to
a non-reuse alternative, such as surface water
discharge, deep-well injection or ocean disposal.
Or you can go to reuse.
There's a problem to be resolved in terms of


C 1







what goals we're shooting for. We shouldn't look
at reuse as a goal without considering the sum
total of all our needs. Reuse can be an excellent
solution when we discover that there are no other
reasonable and economic methods to satisfy our
needs. In some cases, reuse may not be the solu-
tion.
What we need to do is bring the goals of the
various interests together in a way that maximizes
the net result. The maximization of any individual
goal doesn't necessarily mean we're ac-
complishing the maximum that we can in protect-
ing and preserving the resource. If we can find a
way to provide the leadership that's necessary to
bring these conflicts under better management
and control, we'll end up with a much more
beneficial result.

Gordan Pfersich
I believe the underlying issue involves the
establishment of a coordinated, balanced and
goal-oriented water policy so as to create a basis
for responsible management of our water
resources. Such a policy needs to consider water
quantity and water quality aspects, technical and
financial considerations-all of which need to be
blended together in the establishment of an overall
policy. It is hoped that this can be done in a man-
ner which will mediate the differences between
frequently-conflicting goals.
To date, we have failed in many ways to meet
that challenge. And I say "we" because I believe
meeting the challenge is the responsibility of both
the public and private sector. It is important that
we find ways to begin working jointly to solve
some of these important problems.
What's missing right now is leadership. We must
bring together the energies and professionalism of
all those who are involved. We must do so in a
way which balances conflicting goals and maxi-
mizes our energy and achievement towards pro-
ducing effective management of our water policy.
It is obviously extremely expensive to have to
develop a dual system for the disposal of treated
effluent. We should do everything possible to im-
prove the opportunity for a reuse program to stand
by itself and be the primary disposal system. And
it should be accomplished in a manner which
doesn't degrade the quality of adjacent streams or
bodies of water.

Rich Gunter
On the subject of providing economic incen-
tives, we believe that they should be provided
across the board. It is our understanding that
investor-owned utilities are not eligible for EPA
grants. Therefore, the customers of these utilities
are directly impacted through the final resulting
rates. Perhaps the Legislature could create low-


cost loans that would be made available to
investor-owned utilities, or find some other way to
put these utilities the Public Service Commission
(PSC) regulates on a par with municipal utilities.
To encourage conservation, the PSC uses a
base facility chart. We believe that the more we
relate variable costs to customer bills, then the
greater the conservation becomes. The customer
has a built-in incentive not to waste water.
A long-standing policy of the PSC would prevent
our increasing the cost of water above what it
actually costs. But there are many other ways to
encourage conservation. We think that we have
discovered many of them.
One more thing that I would point out: PSC only
regulates about ten percent of the water consump-
tion in the state. Water conservation, even if
vigorously encouraged by the PSC and every utility
we regulate, would be just a drop in the bucket.
We do have a long-standing policy at the PSC to
regulate the cost of a product service to the prices
that are charged for it. We'd have to overcome that
policy of the PSC before we would be encouraging
an inverted rate structure.

Hon. James Tate
We're very enthusiastic about water reuse. We're
particularly excited about a good news/bad news
situation. Recently we suffered a drought. The
good news is the public acceptance of using
recycled wastewater. A number of people in the
urban areas have readily accepted it. As a matter
of fact, they come close to demanding it now that
they have invested money in a dual distribution
system.
There is a political fallout too because we have
the situation, as many districts dod where we have
a supplier-user philosophy, or coastal versus in-
land or the transfer of water to users residing in
another watershed. The fact is that cities like St.
Petersburg have been able to change their use pat-
terns because of reuse. Twenty-six percent of their
supply comes from recycled water.
I'm very optimistic that some of these things
have come up today. I didn't think a lot of us were
thinking the same things. Apparently we are. Water
costs to consumers are usually based on the cost
of its transmission and treatment. In these water-
short times, when we're considering the quantity
of water we're going to have available, we must
start thinking about allocating a cost for the
resource. We need a whole new rate structure, and
I'm delighted to see there is some other thinking
here along that line. U

































INFORMATION SESSIONS



INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES TO WATER MANAGEMENT
WATER SHORTAGE STRATEGY: THE SOUTH FLORIDA H20 SOLUTION
WATER USE SURCHARGES: THE NATIONAL AND FLORIDA PERSPECTIVE
WATER RESOURCES: A MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAM
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
IN THE SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN
REGIONAL UTILITIES: ADVANTAGES AND ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
FOLLOWING THE SAME RULES FOR LAND ACQUISITION?







INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES TO WATER MANAGEMENT


Moderated by Mr. Fred McComack, Staff Directo for Majority Offiee,
Florida House of Reprem tatives


Dr. Warren Viessman, Jr.
Chairman, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Dr. Jonathan Bulkley
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Mihigan


In Florida, there are two structures that have
allowed for water management: one is a
philosophy, a shared, common objective of water
management; the other is the physical mechanism
for water management, a system of regional water
management districts. As this state prepares to
meet the great challenges to water management
which the future holds, how will this system flex
and evolVe in order to perform its duties and meet
its commitments? By studying regional water
management elsewhere, by investigating what is
being done in other countries and states, we can
gain a better sense of how to organize to meet
these challenges"
The Thames Water Authority provides a case
study in water management evolution and
reorganization. It is one of the ten authorities
established In the United Kingdom in 1974. At that
time, 1,500 different organizations, each responsi-
ble for water supply, sewage disposal, river
management or some other water service were
condensed into ten Regional Water Authorities.
For the first time, the management of potable and
wastewater Was combined and a single public
authority was given control of water management
in each river basin. The Central Government of
England had realized the urgent need for a region-
wide perspective that could encompass all aspects
of water management. This new organizational
structure was charged with creating, out of
fragmented, uncoordinated local efforts, a suc-
cessful and cost-effective system.
Most Impressive is the comprehensive character
of the Regional Water Authorities. They are
responsible for water supply, sewage disposal,
pollution and water quality control, flood protec-
tion and sea defense, navigational capability, land
drainage, regulation of fisheries, recreation, and
environmental protection. Their focus it long-
range; their emphasis is on planning. Management
in the RWA's is vested in a chief executive who
oversees fbufi ~ visions: Finance, Operations,


Resource Planning, and Scientific Service.
The Thames Water Authority is perhaps the best
model of a multi-faceted and all-incTusive water
management Institution. Other systems, with more
narrowly-defined interests and responsibilities,
bear mention. These include the Nebraska Natural
Resources Districts, the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, and the Potomac
River Basin Commission.
Comparing water management in Florida to that
of other states, we can conclude that on a national
level, Florida Water Management Districts are the
model for regional resource management. No '
perfect system exists' arhd ultimately the perfor-
mance of any orgaiization is strongly related to
leadership, in spite of any institutional
arrangements. The challenge in Florida is to
guarantee that these structures wil survive in light
of changing needs.
Specific recommendations for strengthening
state water management techniques include: 1) the
development of a state resource planning process
2) the revision of consumptive use permitting and
its implications for regional and long-term alloca-
tion; 3) the development of a statewide ground-
water management strategy; 4) the combining of
water quality and water quantity focuses; 5) the ex-
pansiort of water resource management research;
6) the development of a comprehensive statewide'
water reclamation policy; 7) the implementation of
a comprehensive program of water monitoring; and
8) the establishment of public educational prb-
grams, especially the education of young people in
terms of water management. The accomplishment
of these tasks will require more cooperative arnd
collective action onrthe part of the Water Manage-
ment Districts. The movement Will be toward
districts functioning statewide as opposed to in-
dividually. UI







WATER SHORTAGE STRATEGY: THE SOUTH FLORIDA H20 SOLUTION


Moderated by Mr. Tilford C. Creel, Deputy Executive Director
South Florida Water Management District

Dr. Pat Gleason, Director
Water Use Division
South Florida Water Management District

Ms. Irene Quincey, Office of Counsel
South Florida Water Management District

Dr. Nicole Duplaix, Director
Information Services
South Florida Water Management District


During the spring and summer of 1985, the
South Florida Water Management District ex-
perienced severe water shortage conditions in Lee
and Collier counties. The District's strategies for
managing the shortage and its earlier experience
in dealing with the critical drought of 1980/81 pro-
vide insight into preparing for and administering
the technical, legal, and public relations aspects
of a water shortage.
An accurate and timely update of technical in-
formation enabled the District to both predict and
prepare for the 1985 water shortage. Although
water use restrictions were first imposed in mid-
March 1985, it was as early as August 1984 that
District technical staff indicated below normal wet
season rainfall for the summer of 1984 and con-
tinued dry conditions throughout the ensuing
winter months could result in a spring water shor-
tage. Data provided by the U.S.G.S., area utilities,
and major users such as golf courses, were review-
ed by a District Water Shortage Team under the
direction of the Deputy Executive Director.
Hydrologic conditions, pumpages, lake and water
conservation area levels, rainfall probabilities,
groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion were
monitored as criteria to be used in declaring and
rescinding shortage restrictions. In addition,
technical staff prepared a monthly Water Shortage
Report to summarize the volumes of data which
provided a basis and support for Governing Board
decisions during the water shortage. By August
1985, when final rescinding of restrictions occur-
red, it was evident that the management of
technical information both internally and external-
ly, provided the key to successful water shortage
management.
The 1985 water shortage was the first major test
of the District's 1982 Water Shortage Plan. The
plan worked well and served as a foundation for
fine-tuning water shortage strategies. However, a
number of legal challenges presented during the
shortage demonstrated the need for revision of the
document. Since the shortage, the District has


built precision and flexibility into the setting of
boundaries for water shortages. The District's rule
focuses on a total county approach which can
facilitate enforcement, protect the water resource,
and be perceived as fair and equitable. Yet, the
rule also includes provisions which allow priority
to rest with hydrologic considerations in defining
shortage boundaries.
In the 1980-81 drought, the biggest criticism con-
cerned the lack of uniformity of restrictions from
one municipality to the next. From such ex-
perience, the District learned the value of standar-
dized regulations, and prior to the 1985 shortage, a
model ordinance was drafted for adoption by the
more than 130 units of local government
throughout the District.
While standardization of ordinances and en-
forcement proved essential to water shortage
management, the District also displayed sensitivity
and fairness in granting variance requests
throughout the shortage. Under water shortage
restrictions, all groups within the community
should cooperate to reduce consumption; no one
entity should be unduly taxed or burdened, and ex-
ceptions, when justified, should be granted. In
general, District legal staff have developed a rule
which is clear and fair, but which can easily be
revised and amended to meet the ever-changing
demands of a water shortage situation.
During the actual water shortage, the SFWMD
public relations strategy relied heavily on several
mechanisms for communicating information about
the shortage and promoting cooperation and
adherence to water use restrictions. Media blitzes,
including series of news releases and regular
scheduling of interviews were essential for keep-
ing the media well-informed. Manning the phone
lines provided the public with ready access to in-
formation and updates. Such efforts paid off in
achieving public awareness and cooperation.
In-the months following the water shortage, the
District evaluated its public relations campaign.
Several key ingredients were identified as the


r







basis for success: 1) briefing the media and other
groups well in advance of declaring or upgrading a
shortage, 2) equitable distribution of frequent
technical updates to the media kept public interest
high, 3) data credibility, 4) minimizing the number
of spokespersons so as to present a more unified
message.
An outgrowth of the District's water shortage ex-
perience has been the development of a Water
Shortage Manual. The manual serves as a pro-
cedural guide to administering a shortage or
drought. It describes activities which should be im-
plemented prior to and in the event of a declared


water shortage, stressing the importance of
preparedness.
While strategic managing of a water shortage is
essential, more important is the development of
on-going and long-term water conservation. The
challenge is to improve both demand and supply
management practices to ensure against future
drought. On an individual level, we need to instill a
public water conservation ethic. On a regional and
state level, we need to further investigate the
effective use and reuse of water. The emphasis is
on saving and stretching our finite water supply. N


WATER USE SURCHARGES: THE NATIONAL AND FLORIDA PERSPECTIVE

Moderated by Hon. Bob Price, Northwest Florida Water Management District
Governing Board

Dr. Joseph M. Perry
Director, Center for Regional Economic Development
University of North Florida

Dr. Louis A. Woods
Associate Director, Center for Regional Economic Development
University of North Florida


Dr. Joseph M. Perry
Economists view the financing of government
activities in terms of sacrifice or trade-off. Dollars
taken from the private sector had a potentially pro-
ductive role there, and should ideally be used just
as productively in the provision of public services.
Government agencies thus have a stewardship
function to perform. In using funds derived from
various forms of taxation, they must also
recognize that there are no non-reactive taxes.
Every tax that is imposed will alter the behavior of
individuals and groups in the private sector. So in
considering potential sources of revenue, an agen-
cy must look at both the amount of revenue that
may be generated, and the extent to which private-
sector behavior will be affected.
Decisions regarding revenue sources also must
recognize the practicalities of government
decision-making. Economic analysis can provide
ideal solutions to given problems without regard to
their feasibility. Politics, as the art of the possible,
determines which of those proposed solutions can
reasonably be implemented. Any consideration of
alternative revenue sources for a district must be
an exercise in political economy, cutting across
both areas of activity.
Financing possibilities for water management
districts in Florida are clearly delineated by the
Florida Statutes and subsidiary rulings. The menu
of sources is very similar to that found in a


number of other states. Reliance on ad valorem
taxes is one of the most acceptable solutions. In a
growth area such as Florida, use of this approach
at a reasonable millage level provides a stable,
growing foundation for revenue, eliminates that
need to spend resources each year to identify
other funding alternatives, and permits long-term
planning by a district. More attention can thus be
paid to the basic concerns of water management,
and less to the raising of revenues.
Permit fees are a secondary source of revenue,
generating in most cases a small proportion of the
revenues needed by a district. Their primary pur-
pose, however, is that of tracking and regulating
resource usage. Problems of setting fee levels so
that district constituents are willing to follow the
permitting process are evident.
User fees and surcharges are also viable
possibilities being used more widely over time
across the country. These levies can be important
sources of revenue for a district, but they also may
affect the behavior of those groups being taxed
through such things as altered water usage levels.
There is an extensive national literature concern-
ing the price elasticity of demand for water. It sug-
gests a relatively elastic relationship, such that im-
position of a water use surcharge, for example,
would generate short-term reduction in water
usage by households. Unfortunately, no such
studies have addressed the Florida markets, so in-
ferences from studies touching other regions of








the country are the only reasonable approach at
this time.
A survey carried out by the Northwest Florida
Water Management District, covering virtually all
of the states, suggests that Florida is in the
vanguard of states facing up to the tough ques-
tions of water management. The survey indicates
that 14 states currently have no water manage-
ment programs. Twenty-three states have water
management programs that depend largely on per-
mit fees. Eight states, including Florida, now allow
water management agencies to rely on ad valorem
taxation for at least some of their financing. And
four of the states have surface water withdrawal
fees. A close comparison shows that Florida has
addressed most of the major concerns of water
management, and has in place the mechanism
that can handle them.
There is, however, an obvious financing problem
that faces several of the districts in Florida. Article
VII, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of
Florida, and Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes
authorize ad valorem taxing capability of up to one
mill for four of the districts, but limit several
districts to levels below this ceiling. Established
maxima are as follows:


Northwest Florida WMD
St. Johns River WMD
Suwannee River WMD
South Florida WMD
Southwest Florida WMD


.05 mill
.375 mill
.75 mill
.80 mill
1.00 mill


possibility, since it would probably open the door
to consideration of many other hotly-debated con-
stitutional issues. While legislative action could
give some relief to the other four districts, it can-
not immediately help the Northwest.
In the long run, it may be possible to exert
enough political influence to support a referen-
dum. In the meantime, the districts must live and
operate in the short run. As John Maynard Keynes
once observed, "In the long run, we're all dead." A
reasonable short-run alternative is therefore need-
ed.
On the basis of the information currently
available, it appears that one viable solution is a
water use surcharge imposed on municipal usage
in the northwest area. Given the rate of water
usage, the projected rates of population and urban
growth, and the long-term economic prospects for
the Florida Panhandle, such a surcharge is likely
to generate the revenues needed for district opera-
tion.
Given that a surcharge can be imposed,
however, a lot of difficult questions have to be
answered up front:
On whom or at what level should it be imposed?
What should the surcharge rate be?
Who shall collect it?
How shall it be enforced?
These and other related questions are the sub-
ject of an ongoing study that should provide at
least tentative answers within the next few
months. U


Under this constitutional limitation, the North-
west Florida Water Management District has
faced significant problems of revenue acquisition
and has been forced to rely extensively on special
grants and legislative appropriations. Much energy
and many resources have thus been diverted to
fund-raising. Several other districts may soon face
the same necessity, given the statute-imposed
caps on their taxing ability. The gap has been
closed, up to this time, by federal and state grants,
by permit and inspection fees, by other contributed
funds, and by other revenues allocated by the
Florida Legislature.
The ideal fiscal posture for the districts would
require a well-defined, predictably growing tax
base, that would generate adequate revenues for
annual operations. It would permit the districts to
focus on the problems of most importance in their
geographic areas, and devote their resources to
that activity.
The likelihood of achieving this goal on an
across-the-board basis for the districts is extreme-
ly low. A constitutional referendum would be re-
quired to eliminate the ceiling imposed on the
Northwest Florida Water Management District.
Such a referendum is politically almost an im-







WATER RESOURCES: A MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAM
Moderated by Hem. Blucher Lnes, Northwest Florida Water Management District
Governing Board


Leslie Frye
Public Education Specialist
Northwest Florida Water Management District


Our District is developing an education program
because we feel that a general public understand-
ing and appreciation of our water resources is of
utmost importance to Florida's future. As our
knowledge increases daily through studies and
technology, we are beginning to outstrip the
public's ability to understand what is happening to
our water resources. Because of this, we began
creating an education program that would help us
inform the public and raise the Overall level of
knowledge corcerniingthis resource.
We felt the most effective place to begin was
with the education of our public middle school
students. It is intended to give the student a
broad, general understanding of the needlor and
methods of water management and to lay the
groundwork for these future decision-makers to
properly provide the best management practices
and protection of our water resources.
Meetings were held with many of the En-
vironmental and Science Education Advisors
within our 16-county district. From these meetings,
we learned that no comprehensive or consistently
taught water resource education program exists
within our schools. These advisors gave their
unanimous approval of what they deemed a very
necessary program.,
In developing the program, the District
employed, on a part-time basis, an environmental
education consultant and a middle school science
teacher. The program is being designed to meet
many of.thenew curriculum frameworks, stan-
dards and skills that teachers are now required to
teach. The education program is designed, addi-
tionally, to opmplement what is already being
taught during Earth Science and Gereral Science
class periods. In order to help assure its use, the
program will require very little teacher preparation.
It contains all the necessary materials.and is
presented in a self-explanatory, easy-to-implement
format. Although this five-lesson program is in-
tended to be taught in five consecutive days, we
encourage the teacher to extend the lessons. To
make this possible, we have included additional
activities and experiments to provide "hands-on"
learning experience and urge the teachers to
develop others. A list of local resource people is
also included.


Dr. George Fisher
Public Information Officer
Northwest Florida Water Management District


The education package will be supplied to the
schools by the District. Each package will include
five audiolslide shows. All students will receive
attractive workbooks with text and activities that
reinforce the information in the slide shows. These
workbooks are "consumable," meaning they will
belong to the students to complete work in and
keep. Teachers will receive guides similar to the
student workbooks, but with additional Informa-
tion. The guides wiI include lesson plans, ques-
tions to ask (with answers), background Informa-
tion, glossary, references, suggested pre-tests and
post-tests, scripts to the slide shows, and an
evaluation sheet to rate program effectiveness.
Each day will begin with a ten-minute,
audio/slide show. The first lesson focuses on
some basic facts about water and how surface and
groundwater systems work.
The second day concentrates on different water
ecosystems and the important functions they pro-
vide. It covers the benefits of the different types of
wetlands, lakes and rivers and the unique habitats
they provide...
The third day emphasizes human uses, methods
of supply and waste treatment. The students will
know where water comes from, how it is treated
and where it goes and how it is cleaned after use.
The fourth day informs the students of some of
the issues and problems in water management, in-
cluding the many sources of pollution, possible
ways of prevention and some alternatives for pro-
viding water in the future.
The fifth day concentrates solely on the water
issues and opportunities unique tp the school
district. This should provide the teacher with easily
accessible and particularly relevant learning oppor-
tunities.
In implementing this program, the District will
provide in-service training sessions for the
teachers. We plan to pilot the program in Leon
County in the six public schools that include
grades six through eight. From these sessions, we
hope to receive additional advice and ideas from
the teachers to further improve the program. Once
we feel the program is successful, it will be im-
plemented in the remaining 15-county school
districts in our area. N








INTERAGENCY COORDINATION FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
IN THE SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN

Moderated by Mr. Terry Burnson, Director of Water Resources Management
Suwannee River Water Management District


Joseph Gurule
Hydraulic Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville, Florida


Terry Burnson
The bulk of the work involving coordination for
resource management in the Suwannee River
Basin has been accomplished within the last ten
years. Especially notable was 1980 when the
Governor called on a number of individuals
representing various factions to serve on the
Suwannee River Resource Management Planning
Committee. A Senate resolution authorized U. S.
Corps of Engineers (USCOE) involvement in the
basin which resulted in the delineation of the
floodplain and floodway. This was an important
tool that enabled the District to develop a Work of
the District rule.

Joe Gurule
The floodway is, in a general sense, a structural
management tool that allows us to recognize
flooding potential and use so that we can identify
areas in a floodplain that would mitigate the
damages from economic or adverse impacts. The
first step to understanding a river system is to do
a hydrologic analysis. The general objective is to
produce flood flows based on gauge data and use
the historic data in a frequency analysis. Gauge
data is in the form of water surface elevations and
discharge volumes and is used to predict floods
from a probability basis. We look at characteristics
unique to each flood in the analysis, and finally we
route the floods through the floodplain. By doing
this, it can be determined how the flood behaved
moving through the floodplain. Once we had deter-
mined what the flood flows are, we perform a


Dave Fisk
Assistant Executive Director
Suwannee River Water Management District


hydraulic analysis and define the geometry of the
floodplain and determine roughness coefficients
which are a measure of the resistance to flow. The
tool we use in this process-the Hydrologic
Engineering Center Program #2 (HEC-2)-models
the system and creates flood profiles. Using good
historical data, we are able to develop a model,
calibrate and verify the model using data from
known floods, and then use the model as a predic-
tive tool.

Dave Fisk
The local ordinances in effect along the rivers
are being implemented on peak stage. Homes are
being elevated one foot above this flood hazard
elevation that is specified in all 11 counties on the
Suwannee, Santa Fe, Alapaha, and Withlacoochee
systems and also as part of the overall scope of
the project. In addition, we conducted a flood in-
surance study in the Aucilla River Basin which
resulted in Jefferson County adopting a floodplain
ordinance. Throughout the District, we have
relatively good enforcement of a code requiring the
habitable flood elevation being one foot above the
flood hazard elevation. There are provisions in
Chapter 373 where a water management district
can declare areas as a Work of the District which
we have done using the floodway analysis data
developed by the USCOE. In April 1986, the upper
Suwannee River Basin floodway will be officially
recognized as a Work of the District by rule; other
portions of the basin will be managed by rule later
in the year. U


REGIONAL UTILITIES: ADVANTAGES AND ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES

Moderated by Hon. Marion Tidwell, Northwest Florida Water Management District
Governing Board

Dr. Dan Sheer
Water Resources Management, Inc.
Columbia, Maryland








Dr. Daniel P. Sheer
In 1982, the Washington Metropolitan Area took
an important step that will guarantee adequate
water supply well into the 21st century. Yet, no
large reservoirs were built, no new wells drilled, no
large pipelines constructed. State-of-the-art water
resource management techniques substantially in-
crease the yield of the existing supplies, meet
future water demands, and improve the aquatic en-
vironment. Agreement among the local jurisdic-
tions implemented the innovative operating pro-
cedures.
Implementation required eight separate
agreements among agencies including the federal
government, the states of Maryland and Virginia,
the District of Columbia, two local utilities, and
the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin. These were signed on July 22, 1982, climax-
ing three decades of uncertainty about the water
supply of the Washington Metropolitan Area. Dur-
ing that period, population of the region doubled
under the cloud of dire warnings of the need for a
reliable water supply source. Proposed solutions
had included as many as (16) major reservoirs,
recycling of estuarine water containing a substan-
tial proportion of treated wastewater, well fields,
high flow skimming, and assorted other facilities.
By 1977, after 25 years of study, the problem was
nowhere near solution.
The Washington Metropolitan Area relies largely
on the Potomac River for water supply. But the
Potomac is virtually unregulated; its flow varies
from extreme flood-over 200 billion gallons per
day-to extreme drought-less than 400 million
gallons per day at Washington. In the years since
the record low flow of September 1966, the area's
combined Potomac withdrawals have often
exceeded 400 million gallons per day. The
operating procedures implemented in July 1982
provide a dependable supply for Washington of
about 950 million gallons per day.
Coordinated regional operation of water supply
facilities is the key to this solution. Operation of
local reservoirs are meshed with those at Bloom-
ington Dam, completed in 1981 by the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Faced with politically savvy
opponents, plans for other new and costly dams in
the beautiful and historic Potomac Valley were
thwarted. The situation called for a largely
nonstructural solution.
Developing an implementable solution to the
Washington metropolitan water supply problem
required a unique combination of organization and
expertise. Beginning in the late 1970's, local
elected officials, utilities, university researchers,
and federal, state, and interstate agencies all
worked in close cooperation toward a single goal.
An important factor for public officials is the cost
saving involved: the non-structural solution costs


from $200 million to $1 billion less than the cost of
implementing any previously proposed structural
solutions.
The political nature of the problem posed
engineering challenges. Not only was it necessary
to develop new solutions, techniques had to be
developed to demonstrate beyond question the
feasibility of coordinated regional operations, and
the impact they would have on each utility and the
environment. This was accomplished using simula-
tion and gaming techniques. Simulation of the
benefits to each utility of regional operation was
used as a basis for cost-sharing in Bloomington
and Little Seneca reservoirs. Instream habitat
simulations were used to help define operating
rules which improved fisheries' potentials, while
meeting water demands.
Mathematical models, optimization and simula-
tion techniques, and other innovative tools of
system analysis have been used at the university
level for many years. Their successful application
in the Washington Metropolitan Area demonstrate
their value in dealing with complex engineering
and political problems. Overall system yield has
been increased by nearly 50%, and individual pro-
ject yields by as much as 200%, without infringing
on the autonomy of local governments.
Writing the contracts to implement the joint
operations and cost-sharing was a formidable task.
The interstate nature of the agreements, the uni-
que character of the government of the District of
Columbia, and the congressionally-mandated
responsibilities of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, created a complex situation. But as a
result of the drought exercises and careful educa-
tion of utility managers, the negotiators were
absolutely convinced of the feasibility and
desirability of joint operations.
Providing the Washington area with an adequate
water supply was a complex engineering, social,
economic, environmental, and institutional prob-
lem. Large scale structural solutions had been pro-
posed and found wanting. A fresh approach was
required. It was provided by advances in water
resources engineering and analysis over the last
20 years.
Significantly, the integration of engineering
analysis and the decision-making process, made
possible by computer simulation, played an essen-
tial role in implementing the solution. Without the
convenient and credible framework for decision-
making provided by the model, negotiations be-
tween the parties would have been far more dif-
ficult.







FOLLOWING THE SAME RULES FOR LAND ACQUISITION?

Moderated by Mr. Jim MacFarland, Florida Department of Natural Resources


Joe Flanagan
Suwannee River Water Management District

Fritz Musselman
Southwest Florida Water Management District

James McFarland
Over the next 12 or 18 months, the State of
Florida will commit to land acquisition more than
all the other states combined. We'll also be doing
more than the federal government.
We are aware that if we want to keep our land
acquisition and our resource protection efforts at
their peak, we must do a good job. We have to
show we're buying good resources and that we're
buying them without any problems, and that we're
doing it collectively. All of those things will keep
the Legislature, the Governor and Cabinet and your
Water Management Districts very interested in
acquisition programs.
An important area, and one which often raises
questions and provokes criticism, involves
appraisals. The key is the number of appraisals
which are done. DNR does two appraisals and if
it's over $250,000, we have it reviewed by a Staff
Review Appraiser. And if there is a divergency over
30 percent, we strongly look at getting a third
appraisal.

Jim Miller
It's significant to note that during the last
legislative session, appraisals and values were
made confidential during the negotiation process. I
think that's probably going to change the way we
approach the appraisal process in land acquisi-
tion.
I prefer to have two appraisals just to have some
sort of range. Appraisals are merely opinions, and
I'd rather have the opinion of two experts than rely
on one.
We require review appraisals on each and every
appraisal we do. We rely heavily on the Review Ap-
praiser to establish the final value. The DNR uses
the average of the two appraisals. I don't think
that's a good method to use in arriving at an
estimate of value for an agency to acquire proper-
ty.
The biggest problem that I've had over the years
is the selection of appraisers. Appraisers are not
like suppliers; you don't low-bid them. And if you
do low-bid them, you end up with poor quality
work.

Fritz Musselman
Our Governing Board recently adopted a new


Phil Hubbard
South Florida Water Management District

Jim Miller
St. Johns River Water Management District

policy and procedure. We are not getting two
appraisals, for the most part, on our land. Even
though we just adopted this new policy and pro-
cedure, we're going back and taking another look
at how we're going to select appraisers. I'm not
too thrilled by the way it's being done now
because it's my responsibility, and I don't know
whether I want all that responsibility.
I don't think there are many differences in how
the districts acquire their land. I think you can
have a standardized framework to operate from,
but I don't know that all the parts within it will be
the same. That's part of the acquisition procedure.
I don't think they can be exactly the same, but
they can be consistent.

Phil Hubbard
The South Florida District is in the process of
revising its structure for hiring appraisers. We have
set up a selection committee made up of various
people in the District and we will select from an
appraisal list to hire our appraisers.
We work under one appraisal on District projects
and two appraisals for Save Our Rivers projects.
All our review work is done in-house by review
staff. I favor, especially when you have two
appraisals, trying to work out the differences with
each appraiser. Or else the Review Appraiser
should establish the compensation to be offered
to the owner. If you have two appraisals, one
appraisal should be picked rather than splitting the
difference.

Joe Flanagan
As you all know, we do things differently at the
Suwannee District. We try to minimize the
appraisal process in land acquisition. We try to
deal with the landowner and get him committed to
sell to the District. We use that as a safeguard to
DER to get our money.
We want to assure the public that we did not
spend more than the property is worth. To date, it
really has not created a problem for us. The selec-
tion of the appraiser is a problem. Who gets the
job and how he is compensated raise two impor-
tant questions. We're probably going full circle by
opening up a competitive bidding process using
the dollar digits as the major determinant. We
would also prefer that the appraiser have some
past experience working with the District.










AGENDA


Thursday, October 24





























Friday, October 25


Registration
A Water Management Year in Review, organized by the
Northwest Florida Water Management District.
Water Is Our Future, produced by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District.
The State Comprehensive Plan: Panacea or Placebo? Panel
discussion organized by the Northwest Florida Water
Management District.
Keynote Luncheon, Address by Representative Herb
Morgan, hosted by the South Florida Water Management
District.
Concurrent Sessions
Water Shortage Strategy: The South Florida H20 Solu-
tion.
Data Networking: Future Needs and Directions.
Water Use Surcharges: The National and Florida Perspec-
tive.
Institutional Alternatives to Water Management.
Fee or Less than Fee-That is the Land Acquisition Ques-
tion. Panel discussion organized by the Suwannee River
Water Management District.
Hospitality Hour, Cash Bar
Banquet. Presentation: The Divining Rod, by Dr. Louis J.
Atkins, hosted by the Northwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District.
Governor's Coffee
Address by Governor Bob Graham, hosted by the North-
west Florida Water Management District.
Concurrent Sessions
Water Resources: A Middle School Education Program.
Following the Same Rules for State Land Acquisition?
Regional Utilities: Advantages and Economic Perspec-
tives.
Interagency Coordination for Resource Management in the
Suwannee River Basin.
Water Conservation and Reuse: Regulatory Coordination.
Panel discussion organized by the St. Johns River Water
Management District.







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