Title: Opinion File 67-20 thru 67-23
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003254/00001
 Material Information
Title: Opinion File 67-20 thru 67-23
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Bobby Blain's Collections - Opinion File 67-20 thru 67-23
General Note: Box 14, Folder 2 ( Opinion File 1961-1971 - 1961-1971 ), Item 42
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003254
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

6 67-Z1



Honorable Myron Gibbons, Attorney
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Post Office Box 216
Brooksville, Florida 33512

Re: Respective Duties of County Commissioners
and Management District Board as to their
Respective Plans and Spedifications

Dear Mr. Gibbons:

Your letter of March 15, 1967, poses the question of
whether or not the contracts, plans, specifications, etc.,
of the Board of County Commissioners for Citrus County,
Florida, for the construction and improvement of its roads
and bridges must be submitted to the Southwest Florida
Water Management District for its inspection and approval
before such road and bridge construction may be carried out
by the county or its road and bridge contractor. The reverse
of this question might also be posed.

.Boards of County Commissioners exist under and pursuant
to 5, art. VIII, of the Florida Constitution, and are there-
fore constitutional boards. Prior to the 1944 amendment of
this section there was included the provision that, "The
powers, duties and compensation of such county commissioners
shall be prescribed by law," which provision was omitted from
the 1944 amendment of said section. The omission of this
sentence from the said section by the 1944 amendment did not
withdraw from the state legislature power to legislate with
regard to the county commissioners. (Peters v. Meeks, Fla.,
163 So. 2d 753). The powers and authority of boards of
county commissioners has remained largely statutory. Some
question might arise as to whether or not common law powers
may have been revived by the omission under the 1944 amendment.
This question does not appear to be material at this time.
Many of the general powers and duties of the boards of county
commissioners are to be found in Ch. 125, F. S., and their
powers and duties in connection with county roads and highways
in Ch. 336, F. S.


Honorable Myron Gibbons
Page Two

The Southwest Florida Water Management District was
created and established by Ch. 61-691, Acts of 1961, and
exists under said act and acts amendatory thereof, and is
operated and administered under and pursuant to Ch. 378,
F. S. We find nothing in said Ch. 61-691, Acts of 1961,
and acts amendatory thereof declaring the relationship
between the counties, and their boards of county commissioners,
within the water management district, and the said water
management district and its governing board, and vice versa.
Section 378.46, F. S., authorizes counties to convey available
county lands to flood control districts for flood control
purposes. We find nothing in either said Ch. 61-691, Acts
of 1961, and acts amendatory or in extension thereof, or
in Ch. 378, F. S., relating to flood control, which expressly
subordinates counties and their boards of county commissioners
to flood control or water management districts, or their gov-
erning boards, or vice versa. Neither such counties and their
governing boards, nor such flood control districts and their
governing boards, is by ch. 61-691, and its amendments and
extensions, subordinated to the other. We find nothing in
either of said statutes or laws requiring that either the
boards of county commissioners or the governing board of
such flood control districts obtain permission of the other
board or commission before surveying, laying out or con-
structing roads, canals, drains or other works, as a condition
for carrying out their works or improvements. We find nothing
in either Ch. 61-691, Acts of 1961, and amendments and extensions
thereof, or in Ch. 378, F. S., requiring that either the board
of county commissioners or the governing board of the water
management district obtain a permit from the other in order
to carry out their powers and authority when constructing roads,
canals, drains, water control works, or other works and projects.
The applicable statutes and laws make no express requirement
that the county commissioners before they begin the construction
of county roads and highways, including drains in that connection,
obtain a permit or other authority from the water management
district, or that the water management district obtain like
permits or authority from the board of county commissioners.

In the water management'district's letter of March 23,
1967, to this office, the'statement is made that, "It is
necessary that we review Citrus County's plans for the canal
and bridge under our permit system to be sure that their works,
such as the bridge, are able to handle the water we are releasing
S. ." The only reference we find in our flood control statutes,
which makes any reference to permits, is 378.17, F. S., which
seems to relate to connections with the works of the district
by "other districts or by private persons." This section of the
statute would not seem to apply to the counties in connection
with their road and bridge construction.


Honorable Myron Gibbons
Page Three

It may be that the water control district has adopted
a rule or regulation, under 378.151, F. S., requiring that
all counties within the water control district submit their
plans for road and bridge construction to the water control
district, and obtain a permit therefore from said district.
If there be such a rule or regulation, then the question
arises as to the validity of such a rule or regulation under
said 378.151, F. S., which section provides that,

In administering this chapter the governing
board of the district is authorized to make
and adopt reasonable rules, regulations and
orders consistent with law and such rules,
regulations.and orders may be enforced by
mandatory injunction, or other appropriate
action in the courts of the state. (Emphasis

Generally where a statute empowering an administrative
agency to promulgate rules and regulations is challenged,
"the test is whether or not the statute defines a pattern by
which the rule and regulation must be made to conform."

"If legislative standards are prescribed and the legis-
lature itself enacts the general outlines of a governmental
scheme, or policy, or purpose, an administrative agency may
be authorized to make rules and regulations to accomplish
such policy or purpose and such authority is not an unconsti-
tutional delegation of legislative power." (1 Fla. Jur. 244
and 245, 36). The legislature "may enact a law complete in
itself designed to accomplish a general public purpose, and
may expressly authorize designated officials within defined
valid limitations to provide rules and regulations for the
complete operation and enforcement of the law within its
expressed general purpose." (Robbins v. Webb's Cut Rate
Drug Company, 153 Fla. 822, 16 So. 2d 121, text 122; State
v. Fowler, 94 Fla. 752, 114 So. 435, text 437; State v.
Atlantic Coast Line, 36 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969, text 976;
Pridgen v. Sweat, 125 Fla. 958, 170 So. 653, text 655). In
Arnold v. Culbreath, 140 Fla. 610, 190 So. 543, there was
involved the validity of a rule or regulation of the Board of
Public Instruction for Wakulla County, concerning which the
court remarked that, "The test of validity in a case of this
kind is whether or not the act defines a pattern by which
the rule or regulation must be made to conform." See also
Hutchings v. Mayo, 143 Fla. 707, 197 So. 495, text 496; Shad
v. De Witt, 155 Fla. 27, 27 So. 2d 517; Mayer v. Dade County,
Fla., 82 So. 2d 513, text 517 and 518, to substantially the
same effect.


Honorable Myron Gibbons
Page Four

In the light of the above authorities and observations
we entertain grave doubt of the right of the water management
district to require the submission for review of Citrus County's
plans for the county canal and bridges under the district's
permit system as contemplated by your letter of March 23, 1967.
This is a matter that should be worked out through mutual
agreement between the two agencies.

Attorney General


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