Title: Letter - Summary of Bureau of Water Resources Management Interaction with SWFWMD
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004162/00001
 Material Information
Title: Letter - Summary of Bureau of Water Resources Management Interaction with SWFWMD
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Letter - Summary of Bureau of Water Resources Management Interaction with SWFWMD (JDV Box 43)
General Note: Box 18, Folder 2 ( Water Management - 1977-1983 ), Item 4
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004162
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

/
Stat- F Florida
PARTV NT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

INT-EROFFICE MEMORANDUM


For Routinq To District OficeM
And/Or To Oth~a Than The Addressee
To: Loctn.:
To: Locin.:
To: Loctn.:
From: Date:


June 15, 1977


TO: Joseph W. Landers, Jr.
Secretary

FROM: Charles B. Littlejohn, Chiefl :
Bureau of Water Resources Management

SUBJECT: Summary of Bureau of Water Resources Management inter-
action with Southwest Florida Water Management District


Present DER/BURM actions in support of SWFWMD

1. Revision of Public Works Program schedule, meetings with
0MB and CGE in Washington.

2. Testimony before APA Committee in support of water crop
(Attachment #1).

3. Establishment of Deep Well Injection technical review
committee which presents processing of 201 grant without specific
approval of SWFWMD (Attachment #2).

4. Response to Withlacootchee Regional Planning Council
in regard to formation of Regional Water Supply Authority (Attachment #3).

5. Numerous routine supportive letter-(examples attached).


Recent DER/BRM actions in support of WND's

1. Letter to Ocala/Mlarian Chamber of Commerce in opposition
.to HB 484.

2. Letter and testimony against SB 312 (Twice personally).

3. Support of HB 1303 and SB 790 establishing greater St.
Johns Basin.

4. Support of SB 693 and HB 709 establishing council for
restoration of upper St. John's (testified personally).

5. Remaining neutral in WMD budget controversy; meeting
with Governor; attempts to reach compromise.

HS R-v 7!76








MEMO

Joseph W. Landers
Page Two
June 15, 1977



6. Staff work and testimony before Joint Legislative Audit
Committee to get relief on performance audit requirements.

Problems/Incidents involving SWFWID

1. Performance Audits at the request of WMD's you twice
appeared before the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to obtain
relief from annual performance audit requirement (Chapter 373.507).
You also met with Senator MacKay to work out compromise language.
Every WMD was notified at each step. I personally reviewed your
briefing package with Buddy Blain in lobby of House to be sure of
accuracy.

At the second meeting with the JLAC we briefly discussed
how the money might be raised by pooling WMD contributions but
no conclusions were reached. Later JLAC staff approached me with
the idea of an appropriation of $25,000 to fund a CPA over the next
year to determine how WMD accounting systems might be arranged to
facilitate a performance audit. I agreed and casually informed you
and Buddy of this.

JLAC staff got the appropriation in the Senate Budget
but when approached House (Pridneon), found that Buddy had already
put $10,000 in House side payable to Districts. Staff (Peery) was
irritated at this but let the matter drop.

During conference and at the request of JLAC staff, we
obtained a commitment from Herb Morgan to go with Senate version,
but the matter was referred to staff (Strong & Pridgeon). Later
we found out that Buddy arranged for final language in act which
completely left out Department and specifically provided for $10,000
to be spent within 6ne district selected by the other four. When I
found out, I called Buddy, we had words, and he called you. There
,are several points to be made here:

a. $10,000 is probably not enough

b. The concept of WMD's determining how money is to be spent
is contrary to JLAC and Department intent.

c. The money was to be spent to study how all WMD accounting
procedures might be arranged to facilitate performance audits, not
just one.

d. Buddy's actions were done in secrecy, while we were open
in dealing with HMD's and JLAC staff. (For details, refer to attachment
#4)


. k






MEMO


Joseph W. Landers
Page Three
June 15, 1977


Budget Review/Cresse Report
In August of 1976 we requested WMD's to submit 1977-78
budget requests in program format.for DER review. WMD's more or
less complied with an extremely short turn around time. DER review
resulted in recommendations for full funding of WRDA, increased
funding for operations in the newer districts, and less operations
funding in the older districts. Due to time constraints we did not
provide for final WMD review of our recommendations prior to sub-
mission to the Governor's office.

In September, DOA established a task force to review WMD
funding which consisted of DSP, Bureau of Budget, and after a month
or so, DER. The persons involved were Estus Whitfield, James Ward,
and myself.

When I joined the effort, I was told that Cressee wanted
the effort kept secret. I also found out that Cressee felt that
WRDA funding from General Revenue should be discontinued and that
Ward and Whitfield were working in that direction.

After reviewing 373 and hearing the arguments, I felt Cresse
was basically riqht and still do. I then supplied supporting arguments
to the task force and corrected many factual errors in the report. For
instance, when I began participation the task force was considering
only district wide, and not basin, taxation limits in the SWFWMD area.
I also felt, however, that there was no rationale for reducing
the overall level of stat funding of water programs, and supplied
a Department position to the task force which called for greatly in-
creasing operations funding as HRDA was reduced. This was included as
an attachment to the final task force report.

Buddy found out about the report in progress and inquired
of it during a standardization meeting. I told him of the Governor's
desire for secrecy but, since he knew of the effort, gave him a draft
copy of the report for his review. Buddy then mailed copies to all
other UHD's with a cover letter alterting IMD's to its impact.
I was not contacted personally by any WMD on this until the
"secret meeting" in White Springs and the confrontation at the winter
quarterly meeting.
After the quarterly meeting, I spent the weekend developing
arguments for WRDA funding from General Revenue and submitted those
to Jim Tait at 8:00 AM the following Monday. The result was some
softening on the part of the Governor's office regarding WRDA funding.







MEMO


Joseph W. Landers
Page Four
June 15, 1977


I later found that Cressee had ignored the Department
request to greatly increase operations funding. I then wrote a
letter for you to send to Cressee which recommended increased
operations funding and sent a copy to all WMD's. This letter apparently
had no impact.
During the session, we continually sought to obtain a com-
promise between UMD's and the Governor's office, arranged for a
meeting with the governor, an' made a noint of remaining neutral
during Legislative Budget hearings. One result of our efforts was
a softening of the Governor's position on land acquisition.

There was no effort made by Buddy or other HMD lobbyists
(except Morgan) to communicate during the session. I personally
lobbied in behalf of the 3 newer districts in an effort to obtain
adequate funding for operations. Several points should be made:
1. Our original budget request was supportive of both the
older districts for HRDA and the newer districts for operations.

2. Although time was short, we should have given the MMD's
a chance to review our recommendations prior to submission to the
Governor.

3. Our efforts on the task force were primarily those of
correcting mistakes and refining arguments rather than developiigq
policy.
4. Although the Governor's office wanted secrecy, I should
have alerted you to the potential impact of excluding WID's. Had
I done so, you would have likely insisted that they be included.
5. Our recommendations to Cressee were for an equivalent
amount of funding to WMD's as last year, only for different purposes.
6. !ad we actively lobbied in the Governor's behalf during
the session, we nay have made a substantial difference in the amount
of 1RDA allocated. We chose not to. (For details, refer to attachment
#5)

Standardization of Rules

The Dronram proceed without incident until Buddy raised
the technicality of whether the Secretary of State's office would
object to new rules being adopted with the same number. He suggested
(over the phone) changing the letters 16G01 to 16R.01, etc. Ue in
turn suqqested changing the rule numbers to 17. He said this sounded
ok.







MEMO

Joseph W. Landers
Page Five
June 15, 1977


At the next standarization meeting, I suggested this change
and all agreed. Buddy attended this meeting but may have Been out
of the room when I brought it up. In either case, it was not con-
troversial.

During the next quarterly meeting, all 1MD's raised hell
about Chapter 17 and requested that they remain in Chapter 16.
Buddy denied having agreed to Chapter 17.

Rip Caleen attended the next standardization meeting at
which Buddy and John wheeler argued for a separate Chapter designation
for !JMD's. The arguments were not strong (see below).

Rip decided to go directly to Secretary of State's office
and you stated that you had simply made the decision and "low-keyed"
it at the next quarterly meeting.

Buddy orchestrated a series of phone calls to Liz Cloud,
she kicked it up to Shrieve and things are on hold for the time being.

A summary of arguments for and against changes to Chapter 17
is as follows:

Arguments For:

a. Go to one Chapter Quantity and Quality.

b. Department association with WMD's under 373.

c. Logical way to go since they have to change anyway.

d. Not sure can get separate number.

e. Delegation if delegate provisions of 17 rule to
another rule, then would have one rule reference
another Chapter.

f. Confusing to public if all water permitting isn't
in one Chapter.

Arguments Against:

a. WMD 16-X rules sometimes referenced as DNR rules
in Administrative weekly.

b. Tired of changing, want own numbers.

c. RPC's Loxahatahee have own rule numbers.







MEMO


Joseph W. Landers
Page Six
June 15, 1977



d. Really want different rules for each WMD some
numbers for all UMD's a compromise.

A few points can be made:

1. I think Buddy has been inconsistent in his position
but has denied this to McAteer.

2. This issue has been blown way out of proportion,
mostly by Buddy.

3. I think Rip should be present when we discuss this.

Oklawaha Basin Controversy

Buddy requested an Attorney General's opinion as to whether
District funds collected within the Oklawaha Basin should be trans-
ferred to the SJRWMD (about $200,000). The AG's response.was that
such transfer was not authorized under Chapter 373 and that further-
more no transfers of district funds was permissible.

This ruling caused the SJRWMD a lot of trouble while the
SNFWIMD Board was apparently willing to transfer the $200,000. The
question is "Why did Buddy request the opinion and did he have any
input into the final opinion?" Herb Webb in particular thinks Bu4dy
was playing games here.


Hooker's Prairie/ W.C. Grace

Terry Cole had some problems with a permit granted to
W. C. Grace ohosphate in Hooker's Prairie by SWFWMD. I casually
mentioned this to Buddy at the NWFWIMD meeting in Wakulla Springs
so he could anticipate controversy and alert SWFWMD staff and
Board members.

The next thing I knew McAteer had said that I was "bad
mouthing" SVFWrMD. I called Buddy and McAteer to clear the air.
No specifics were given.

The point here is that in attempting to help SUFWMD
things got distorted and I was accused of subverting their pro-
gram.









MEMO


Joseph W. Landers
Page Seven
June 15, 1977




Deep Hell Injection

During the winter quarterly meeting, Buddy stated that
S!HFWMD had not agreed to the concept of prior HMD annroval been
before 201 grant processing. Yet I had previously received a
letter from Feaster endorsing the approach.

FY 1977 Proposed Legislation

We were accused by the WH''s of "pushing" legislation
without their consent. Actually, with only two exceptions, every
piece of legislation was suggested by a IMD and every suggestion
was collected and drafted in bill form for review at the winter
quarterly meeting ( Ex: artesian well bills suggested by McAteer
at Wakulla Conference).

Again, while going out of our way to coordinate withHMD's,
we were accused of the exact opposite.

Routine difficulties with SWF'IMD

1. Last to submit performance audit and in wrong format.
Finally corrected at last minute.

2. Reluctance to get into water quality.

3. Taking the position that a permit could not be required
by DER for one of their projects.

4. Past difficulty in obtaining budget information in
correct format.

All of the above detail is provided in case things get to
that level. I think the main point is that there will be an integrated
state program of water management which addresses both quality and
quantity. DER, which has general supervisory authority over the WMD's
is the agency responsible for making this happen.

DER's objectives, which are developed from a state wide per-
spective, will inevitably conflict with the more localized objectives
of an agency such as SU.FWJMD. This conflict is natural, and SUFWMD
should not feel that DER is "out to control Districts" because of







MEMO


Joseph W. Landers
Page Eight
June 15, 1977


it. Rather SWFWMD should positively assist DER in building a
statewide program of water management and suggest alternatives
where they feel we are taking the wrong approach. It is not, and
should not be an adversary relationship.

Unfortunately, Buddy has developed that view and sees
himself as protecting not only SIF!ID, but all of the water management
districts. This is evident in his attitude, his lobbying efforts,
and his practice of organizing WMD's against DER.

Despite Buddy's legal ability and legislative experience
he is viewing things from a local rather than statewide viewpoint
and cannot possibility have the perspective necessary to determine
statewide water policy. DER is clearly in the best position to
do this based on input from each WMD.

If Buddy is to continue in his present capacity as legal
counsel for S!FH1MD, his activities should be limited to those in-
golving local rather than statewide problems. I also think that
DER should make a practice of dealing with District staff attorney's
only. Should Buddy continue to interfere or disrupt the orderly
development of statewide water policy, I think the DER should
officially question (in an appropriate manner) SWFHVMD's practice
of retaining legal council rather than staff attorneys


CBL/pm




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