Title: Preliminary Draft Report containing Subcommittee Recommendations for Consideration by the Task Force
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004369/00001
 Material Information
Title: Preliminary Draft Report containing Subcommittee Recommendations for Consideration by the Task Force
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Preliminary Draft Report containing Subcommittee Recommendations for Consideration by the Task Force (JDV Box 49)
General Note: Box 21, Folder 2 ( Land and Water Planning Task Force - 1994 - 1995 ), Item 11
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004369
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









Preliminary DRAFT Report


containing

Subcommittee Recommendations for Consideration by the
Task Force


For Discussion at the September 1 & 2, 1994 Meeting
of the


Governor's Land Use and Water Planning Task Force











LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE MEMBERS











Table of Contents




LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE MEMBERS .................. ii

INTRODUCTION .................. .... ............................ 1
Defining the Problem ........................................... 1
Creation and Charge of the Governor's Land Use and Water Planning Task Force ..... 2

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 3
Consistent Application of Terms ..................................... 3
State Level Plans, Policies and Rules .................................. 4
State Comprehensive Plan .................................... 4
Development of Enhanced State-Level Plans ........................ 4
Florida W ater Plan ......................................... 6
Chapter 17-40, F.A.C. (Water Policy Rule) ........................ 9
State Land Development Plan ................................. 9
Florida Transportation Plan .................................. 11
Regional Level Plans, Policies and Rules .............................. 15
District Water Management Plans .............................. 15
Regional Water Supply Authority Master Plans ..................... 17
Strategic Regional Policy Plans ............................... 17
Local Government Level Plans, Policies and Rules ........................ 19
Local Government Comprehensive Plans ........................ 19
Technical Assistance ...................................... 20
EAR Recommendations .................................... 22
OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE ............ 24

APPENDIX ...................................................... 25
Meeting Locations and Dates ...................................... 25









INTRODUCTION


Defining the Problem

Water is one of Florida's most basic resources. The state and its citizens are dependent upon an adequate
supply of high-quality fresh water to meet the demands of the state's residents and the approximately
265,000 new residents each year. A survey conducted by the Voices of Florida Project, published in May
1994, reported that 53 percent of Florida voters felt that maintaining a safe and adequate water supply
is a critical issue facing the State. The survey ranked water supply 7th out of the 25 critical areas
identified.

In order to protect this valuable resource, Florida has some of the strongest water protection laws in the
Nation. Our laws, however, have been adopted and subsequently amended over time in a less-than well
coordinated fashion and now require an array of state, regional and local planning activities. Moreover,
Florida law at present does not establish a formal link between land and water planning. In light of the
importance of water resources for the future development of the state, the Third Environmental Land
Management Study Committee (ELMS) identified this as a significant "missing link" in Florida's growth
management planning process.

The ELMS Committee identified intergovernmental coordination as a key element to successful land and
water management, noting that the local comprehensive plan represents a vehicle for effective integration
of land and water planning. Local comprehensive plans must address water and its relationship to future
land development, however, local governments do not control the use of water. Water management
- districts have exclusive authority over the allocation of water resources, yet the allocation decisions do
not have to be consistent with, nor even consider local comprehensive plans.

Various government entities at the state, regional and local levels have planning and programmatic
responsibilities for land and water management, and many planning documents are currently required as
part of this state's comprehensive planning framework.

Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., contain extensive requirements which can be used to provide
a link between land and water planning. Several elements required in local government comprehensive
plans (such as the land use element, the sanitary sewer, potable water and natural ground water aquifer
recharge element, the coastal management element the conservation element, and the intergovernmental
coordination element) have direct implications regarding land and water planning. For example, local
governments, through their comprehensive plans and land development regulations, must limit
development to areas which have an adequate supply of water and water facilities available to serve
planned development; comprehensive plans must identify, designate, and map important water resources,
S aquifer recharge areas, wellfields, and cones of influence; local government plans must provide adequate
protection for these resources by directing undesirable development away from these areas; local plans
must determine current and projected water needs and sources based on demand for industrial,
agricultural, and potable water use including the quality and quantity of water available to meet these
needs for the next ten years. Technically, the framework exists for local government comprehensive plans
to provide an effective "starting point" for integrating land use and water planning.










Creation and Charge of the Governor's Land Use and Water Planning Task Force

Following the recommendation of the ELMS Committee, the 1993 Florida Legislature in Chapter 93-206,
Laws of Florida, directed the Governor to establish a task force with public sector and private sector
representatives, including local government officials to formulate recommendations on the most
appropriate legal relationship between the district water management plans, the growth management
portion of the state comprehensive plan, strategic regional policy plans, and the local government
comprehensive plan. Governor Chiles furthered this charge directing the task force to recommend options
regarding the integration and coordination of the state water use plan, the state land development plan,
and the Florida transportation plan.

The 1994 Legislature, through Chapter 94- Laws of Florida, added yet another task to make
recommendations on the mechanisms and procedures for establishing and amending state water policy.

The Task Force began meeting in December, 1993, and met monthly around the State in order to solicit
public participation throughout the process as well as to witness first hand the variety of land use and
water resource conflicts facing the different regions of the state. Staff support for the Task Force was
provided for by representatives from the Governor's Office, each of the eleven regional planning councils,
the five water management districts, and the Departments of Environmental Protection, Community
Affairs, and Transportation.

Four subcommittees were formed to serve as a forum for detailed discussions and development of
recommendations on: (1) state issues, (2) regional issues, (3) the role of the Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports process it relates to land use and water planning, and (4) water policy.










RECOMMENDATIONS


Consistent Application of Terms


Plans -

Policy Defined as in 186.003(4), F.S., meaning "the way in which programs and activities are
conducted to achieve an identified goal."

Rule Defined as in 120.52(16), F.S., meaning "each agency statement of general applicability that
implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or
practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits
any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule."

Plan Approval -

Rule Adoption -

Consistency Defined as in 163.3177(10)(a), F.S., meaning "compatible with" and "furthers" the
contents and policies of a plan or rule."

Compatibility Defined as in 163.3177(10)(a), F.S., meaning "not in conflict" with a plan or rule.

Formal Link -

Informal Link -

Best Available Data -

Benchmarks High level indicators that focus on state-wide outcomes and results using baseline data
that define the state's current status.










regional review of federally assisted projects, and other
regional comment functions.

(9) Regional planning councils shall consider, and make
accessible to the public, appropriate data and studies, including
development-of-regional-impact applications and agency reports,
in order to assist participants in the
development-of-regional-impact review process. A major objective
of the regional planning process shall be to coordinate with the
state land planning agency in order to achieve uniformity and
consistency in land use information and data collection efforts
in this state and provide a usable and accessible data base to
local governments and the private sector.

(10) Each regional planning council shall enter into a
memorandum of agreement with each local health council in its
comprehensive planning district to ensure the coordination of
health planning, if the regional planning council elects to
address health issues in its strategic regional policy plan. The
memorandum of agreement shall specify the manner in which each
regional planning council and local health council will
coordinate their activities.

(11) All natural resources of regional significance
identified in the strategic regional policy plan shall be
identified by a specific geographic location and not solely by
generic type.

(12) In addressing regional transportation, the council may
recommend minimum density guidelines for development along
designated public transportation corridors and identify
investment strategies for providing transportation infrastructure
where growth is desired, rather than focusing primarily on
relieving congestion in areas where growth is discouraged.

(13) Standards included in strategic regional policy plans
may be used for planning purposes only and not for permitting or
regulatory purposes. However, a regional planning council may
not adopt a planning standard that differs materially from a
planning standard adopted by rule by a state or regional agency,
when such rule expressly states the planning standard is intended
to preempt action by the regional planning council. The absence
of a planning standard for a particular issue on the part of a
state or other regional agency shall not be deemed to create a
material difference from a planning standard adopted by a
regional planning council. Planning standards may be used as a
basis for comments on federal consistency and clearinghouse
reviews. However, any inconsistency between a local plan or plan
amendment and a strategic regional policy plan must not be the
sole basis for a notice of intent to find a local plan or plan
amendment not in compliance with this act.

(14) A regional planning council may not, in its strategic
regional policy plan or by any other means, establish binding









Discussion


Previous task forces, including the ELMS III Committee, recognized that the State Comprehensive
Plan does not, by itself, provide sufficient direction to local governments relating to the State's
concerns pertinent to physical growth and development. The Task Force concurs that additional,
specific direction concerning physical growth and development with the State is necessary.

The 1993 legislative response to the ELMS III recommendations was to enact the provisions of
Section 186.009, F.S., which provide for the development and legislative approval of the Growth
Management Portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Initial efforts to develop the Growth
Management Portion were inconclusive.

The Task Force believes that additional state direction continues to be necessary for effective
implementation of the state's growth management process. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends
the creation or modification of the relevant statutes relating to development of the three agency state-
level, or translationall" plans Chapter 373, F.S., for the newly named "Florida Water Plan";
Chapter 380, F.S., for the State Land Development Plan; and Chapter 337, F.S., for the Florida
Transportation Plan. Specific recommendations as to the content of each plan is further detailed
below.

The intent of this recommendation is to allow the development and implementation of the required
additional growth management policy by the three agencies most familiar with their individual subject
areas.

Recommendation 3

The Legislature should provide for the implementation of the three state-level plans by
adopting procedures to be followed by the authoring agencies prior to final
implementation of the state-level plans.

Discussion

Based on Subcommittee discussion, two generic alternatives are presented for consideration in the
implementation of the state-level plans:

Review of the plans by the legislature prior to their taking effect; or,
Adoption of all or parts of the plans by the agencies as chapter 120, F.S., rules.

OPTION 1: Legislative Review: If the legislative review option is chosen, a further decision as to
the type of legislative review must be made. Three options:

Affirmative Legislative review, plan takes effect until reviewed and approved
(wetlands delineation model).
Negative Legislative review, plan takes effect unless Legislature acts (9J-5, F.A.C.,
model).
S miion to Le slature ut no r uireme for leilature tact, pitvelof
iegvely. PI would come active suant etho f actionn" ose y
t authorin agency ess ac upon Legislg re.









Note that the choice of a legislative review mechanism may/should affect to substantive effect of the
plans, i.e. broaden their effect and dignity. Too, should the legislative review be chosen, restrictions
on Chapter 120, F.S., challenges should be considered to prevent the authoring agencies from having
to undergo both legislative approval and Chapter 120, F.S., review/challenges.

The rationale for legislative review is if, as a practical matter, these three state-level plans are
intended as an alternative to the Growth Management Portion of the State Comprehensive Plan, and
the GMP was to be reviewed by the Legislature, should not these plans also be so reviewed? Also,
the additional dignity afforded the plans by legislative review would serve to bolster their substantive
effect and reduce opportunities for Chapter 120, F.S. challenges.

OPTION 2: Chapter 120. F.S. Implementation The Chapter 120, F.S., model discussed at the
Subcommittee would involve the preparation of the plans by the agencies as non-self executing
documents. Specific implementation of those portions of the plans intended to effect third parties -
governments or permit applicants would be separately implemented by rule adoption proceedings by
the authoring agency after the "consistency" and "compatibility" reviews by the Executive Office of
the Governor, further described below.

If the Chapter 120, F.S., model is chosen for implementation, two additional issues arise:

Whether the enabling legislation should require the adoption of minimum portions of
the plans by rule so as to ensure their substantive effect (e.g. adoption by DEP of
protective rules and land use recommendations for resources identified in the Florida
Water Plan as being of state-wide significance); and
Whether the adopted implementing rules should be shielded form Chapter 120, F.S.,
challenge to allow their timely implementation (see e.g. Ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., and the
SRPPs as examples.).

The rationale for the Chapter 120, F.S., model is that it is consistent with existing procedure; it would
allow the authoring agencies flexibility in the development of the plans since the document itself
would not be self-executing, and thus subject to challenge; and it would avoid the political climate
engendered by legislative review.

[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE: Alternative 1:
recommending the legislative consideration of the consolidation of the SLDP and the FWP as
follows: Following implementation of the enhanced state-level plans, and the development of
experience in the application, the Legislature may wish to consider, at some time in the future,
but no sooner than the consolidation of the State Land Development Plan and the
Florida Water Plan into a single document jointly generated by the applicable agencies;

OR Alternative 2: No recommendations concerning consolidation of the two plans, relying
instead on the updating of each individual plan.]


b&xu&u 7h1 /A?&,









Florida Water Plan


Recommendation 4

The Legislature should review, revise, and update 'p:tr 373, F.S., particu!ry-
sections 373.036 (1) and (2), F.S., to specifically authorize DEP's development,
jointly with the Water Management Districts, of a "Florida Water Plan", and to
provide legislative direction as to the FWP' content and effect.

Discussion

The existing provisions relating to DEP's development of the "State Water Use Plan", sections
373.036(1) and (2), F.S., were initially adopted in 1972, and do not recognize either the additional
planning or data gathering activities of the Water Management Districts which have developed since
the enactment of growth management legislation in 1984-85.

The Task Force therefore recommends that the Legislature review, revise and expand water planning
activities at the state level by the enactment, within Chapter 373, F.S., of express authority for the
DEP to develop a state "Florida Water Plan"; in conjunction with the Water Management Districts.

The development process for the Florida Water Plan should include DEP, the Water Management
Districts, interested governmental entities and members of the public. Procedurally, the FWP's
development should be subject to public workshopss, the "consistency" and "mutual compatibility"
reviews by the EOG detailed below, and [the implementation mechanism chosen above], prior to
final implementation.

As to substantive content, the Task Force recommends that the FWP, at a minimum, contain the
following:

Goals, benchmarks, policies, the identification of resource management issues,
/W~Afi /r A implementation strategies, and short and long term schedules, intended to support and
gi ll d 4,g implement the SCP's goals and objectives; including at a minimum policies in each of
the following areas: (i) water supply protection and management; (ii) flood protection
and management; (iii) water quality protection and management; and (iv) natural
systems protection and management.
A 20 year planning horizon, in order to be consistent with the planning horizons of the
proposed District Water Management Plans, the Florida Transportation Plan, and to
support long-term local government land use planning efforts.
A requirement for the identification in the FWP, pursuant to statutorily established
criteria, of water resources, areas, or restoration efforts which are of state-wide
significance, together with related policies needed to protect or support such resources,
areas, or efforts.
Delineation of the roles of DEP and the WMDs in water resource planning activities,
and in the implementation of the FWP, recognizing the varying resources available to
individual WMDs.









Such other direction as to the content of the FWP as may be necessary or desirable,
including for example those elements of the FWP outlined in proposed Chapter 17-
40.510, F.A.C.

The FWP should be based on, and consistent with, the best available data and analysis. Such data and
analyses need not be included in the FWP, provided such materials are identified and available to
members of the public.

As to substantive effect, the Task Force recommends that the FWP, at a minimum:

Be required to be "mutually compatible", as determined by the EOG, with the other
two state-level plans -- the State Land Development Plan and the Florida
Transportation Plan.
Be use by DEP, in its review of the proposed District Water Management Plans, to
determine that the DWMPs are "consistent" with the Florida Water Plan.
Be used by the EOG, in its review of the Strategic Regional Policy Plans, to
determine that the SRPPs are "compatible" with the Florida Water Plan.
[OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION BY THE TASK FORCE: Internal
effect of the FWP as binding on DEP and the WMDs. Beyond providing for the
substantive effect of the state-level plans in the development of "linkages" to other
planning documents the "external" effect of the plans, the Subcommittee also
discussed a further "internal" substantive effect for the Plans: the binding of the
authoring agency to act "consistently" with the plan,m or its adopted portions
(depending on the implementation model chosen Legislative or Chapter 120).
The intent of the suggestion is to establish additional meaning for the plans by
requiring the state agencies to adhere to them in their budgetary, grant funding,
and permitting decisions. The Task Force must decide whether this extended
substantive effect should be recommended, and if so, how it should be
implemented.]

The current requirement for the biennial updating of the FWP [ ? every five years if legislative review
is chosen?], timed to be consistent with the updating of the SCP and, if possible the Evaluation and
Appraisal schedule for local comprehensive plans should be retained.

Finally, in order to address certain nomenclature difficulties which the Task Force encountered,
implementation of the above recommendations will require: (i) repeal of existing 373.039, F.S.,
which provides for the current content of the "Florida Water Plan"; (ii) revision of other statutory
provisions to delete references to the "State Water Use Plan" (e.g. references contained in
373.036(1) and 186.021(4)); and (iii) revision of 373.026(10), F.S., to amend references to the "state
water policy" to read "state water policy rule".









Recommendation 5


The Legislature should consolidate the WMD planning and data gathering obligations
pursuant to 373.0395, F.S., ground water basin inventories, 373.0397, F.S.,
aquifer mapping, and 373.042, F.S., minimum flows and levels, into a single provision
authorizing and requiring the development of District Water Management Plans, with
a focus, at a minimum, of providing short- and long-term raw water availability
information suitable for local government comprehensive and future land use planning.

Discussion

See additionally, Regional Subcommittee recommendations.


Chapter 17-40, F.A.C. (Water Policy Rule)

Recommendation 6

To be discussed


Discussion:

To be discussed.
DcA eMVuL&D IU2R-

State Land Development Plan 4o r W FIP
5/ikJ nMt TirL A xS 5
Recommendation 7- IV'/tptnTVl-. o(-

The Legislature should create a new section within Chapter 380, F.S. [or alternatively
Chapter 186, F.S.], specifically authorizing the Department of Community Affairs to
develop and adopt appropriate portions of the State Land Development Plan by rule.
[NOTE: THIS RECOMMENDATION AS DRAFTED ASSUMES THE CHAPTER 120,
F.S., IMPLEMENTATION MODEL. THE RECOMMENDATION MAY NEED TO BE
MODIFIED BASED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE TASK FORCE}


Discussion


Section 380.031(17), F.S., currently provides the only guidance for the State Land Development Plan,
defining it as a "comprehensive state wide plan or any portion thereof setting forth state land
development policies".

Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that a separate statutory section be created to provide
legislative direction for the content and effect of the State Land Development Plan.









The development process for the State Land Development Plan should include DCA, the WMDs,
interested governmental entities and members of the public. Procedurally, the SLDP's development
should be subject to public workshopss, the "consistency" and "mutual compatibility" reviews by the
EOG detailed below, and [the implementation mechanism chosen above], prior to final
implementation.

As to substantive content, the Task Force recommends that the SLDP, at a minimum contain the
following:

Goals, benchmarks, policies, implementation strategies, and short and long-term
schedules, intended to support and implement the SCP's goals and objectives;
including at a minimum policies in each of the following areas: (i) affordable housing,
(ii) economic development, (iii) emergency preparedness, (iv) natural resources, (v)
transportation, (vi) air quality, (vii) archaeological and historical resources, and (viii)
land use. Within each issue area, the SLDP should address and identify: (i) state
[OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR THE TASK FORCE TO DECIDE: (i) whether
statutory direction is needed to define "state" resources and facilities; and (ii)
whether the SLDP should also include "regional" resources and facilities,
supplemental to those defined by the SRPPs] resources and facilities; and (ii)
"compatibility" with the Florida Water Plan and the Florida Transportation Plan.
A 20 year planning horizon, in order to be consistent with the planning horizons of
DWMPs, the Florida Transportation Plan, and to support long-term local government
land use planning efforts.
Such other direction as to the content of the SLDP as may be necessary or desirable.

The SLDP should be based on, and consistent with, the best available data and analysis. Such data
and analysis need not be included in the SLDP, provided such materials are identified and available to
members of the public.

As to substantive effect, the Task Force recommends that the SLDP, at a minimum:

Be required to be "mutually compatible" as determined by the EOG with the other two
state-level plans -- The Florida Water Plan and the Florida Transportation Plan.
Be used by the DEP, in its review of the DWMPs, to determine that the DWMPs are
"compatible" with the SLDP.
Be used by the EOG, in its review of the SRPPs, to determine that the SRPPs are
"consistent" with the SLDP.
[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION BY THE TASK FORCE: Internal
effect of the SLDP as binding on DCA].

The current requirement for the biennial updating of the FWP [? every five years if legislative
review is chosen?], timed to be consistent with the updating of the SCP and, if possible the
Evaluation and Appraisal schedule for local comprehensive plans should be retained.

Finally, in order to implement the SLDP's identification of state [?and regional?] resources and
facilities, the provisions of section 163.3177(6)(h)1.a, F.S., relating to required Intergovernmental
Coordination Elements of local comprehensive plans, must be modified to include a reference to the
SLDP.









Recommendation 8


The State Land Development Plan should continue to be usedfor the review of
Developments of Regional Impacts (DRIs) and Florida Quality Developments (FQDs),
as currently provided by law.

Discussion

The State Land Development Plan should continue to play the role it currently does in the DRI and
Florida Quality Developments review processes specifies in 380.06(12)(a)1, 380.06(14)(a)7,
380.065(3)(b) and 380.07(3), F.S. In addition, the SLDP should continue to act as the basis for DCA
review of DRI-sized development approvals in "terminated" jurisdictions, once the DRI process is
terminated as to certain jurisdictions in 1997.

Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that the SLDP retain its current role in the review
procedures for DRI and FQD developments.

[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE: Expansion of the use of the
SLDP, once legislatively review or adopted by rule, to other siting programs.]

Recommendation 9

The Legislature should amend appropriate statutory provisions to permit utilization of
the [legislatively reviewed or adopted portions of the] State Land Development Plan,
particularly as relates to the identification of state [?and regional?] resources, in the
review procedures pursuant to applicable siting acts.

Discussion

the Department of Community Affairs currently has statutory review obligations with respect to a
number of siting plans and programs, listed below. The Task Force recommends that, [once
legislatively reviewed or adopted by rule], the SLDP be utilized by DCA as a review criteria in their
analysis of siting application.

The applicable siting acts to which this recommendation applies are as follows:

Campus Master Plans, s. 240.155, F.S.
Military Base Reuse Plans, s288.975, F.S.
Job Siting Act, s403.950, et seq.
Florida high Speed Rail Act, s341.3201, et seq.
Ten Year Power Plant Siting Act, s186.801, F.S.
Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, s.403.501 et seq.
Transmission Line Siting Act, s403.52, et seq.
Statewide Multi-Purpose Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act, s.403.78, F.S.
Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Siting, s. 403.941, F.S.
Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Facility Siting, s. 404.0617,
F.S.









Following repeal of the Growth Management Portion of the SCP, the SLDP will likely become the
only planning document which identifies state resources and facilities, whose locations should be
considered in the siting of the referenced facilities. The siting acts are generally used as alternatives
to DRI review, thus, in order to ensure symmetry of review, the SLDP should also be part of the
review criteria for the reference siting act decisions.


Florida Transportation Plan

Recommendation 10

The Legislature should amend Chapter 186, F.S., or other appropriate statutes, to
ensure that the Florida Transportation Plan is required to undergo "consistency" and
"mutual compatibility" review by the Executive Office of the Governor, and is utilized
in the review of the SRPPs and the DWMPs.

Discussion

The Task Force recommends below a set of procedures by which the EOG reviews each of the three
state-level plans for "consistency" with the SCP, and for "mutual compatibility" with the other two
state level plans. The purpose of this recommendation is to ensure that the Florida Transportation
Plan similarly undergoes the necessary EOG reviews to ensure consistency and compatibility among
the three state-level plans.

In addition, as to substantive effect, the Task Force recommends that the FTP, at a minimum:

Be required to be "mutually compatible", as determined by the EOG, with the other
two state-level plans -- The Florida Water Plan and the State Land Development Plan.
Be used by DEP, in its review of the DWMPs, to determine that the DWMPs are
"compatible" with the FTP.
Be used by the EOG, in its review of the SRPPs, to determine that the SRPPs are
"consistent" with the FTP.
[OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE: Internal
effect of the FTP as binding on FDOT]

[FDOT MAY PRESENT ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTLY TO THE TASK
FORCE CONCERNING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY TO
IMPLEMENT CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE FTP]









Recommendation 11


The Legislature should add to the provisions of Section 186.022, F.S. to expressly
providefor "consistency" and "mutual compatibility" review of the three state-level
plans -- the Florida Water Plan, the State Land Development Plan, and the Florida
Transportation Plan -- by the Executive Office of the Governor. This legislation
should provide for: (i) procedures for the three agencies -- DEP, DCA, and DOT-- to
review and comment on the applicable state-level plan following its drafting by the
responsible agency; (ii) review of each of the plans by the EOGfor "consistency" with
the State Comprehensive Plan; and (iii) review of each of the plans by the EOGfor
"mutual compatibility".

Discussion

The purpose of this recommendation is to ensure that the three state-level plans are developed
"consistently" with the State Comprehensive Plan and to provide for the "mutual compatibility" of the
three plans.

The Task Force recommends that "consistency" be defined in section 163.3177(10)(a), F.S.
"Compatibility" should be defined in section 163.3177(10)(a), F.S., as meaning "not in conflict with".
Each of the state-level plans should be treated as being of equal dignity, thus requiring that they be
"mutually compatible" with each other, rather than having one of the state-level plans control. The
initial reviewing agency would be the EOG.

Existing requirements for "consistency" with the State Comprehensive Plan applicable to the three
state-level plans should be retained and clarified. Procedures should be developed, however, to
provide for the drafting of the three plans, with circulation to other authoring agencies. Comments
from the reviewing agencies, and members of the public through workshops, should then be addressed
or incorporated by the authoring agency prior to finalization of the draft, and its transmittal to the
Executive Office of the Governor for review.

"Consistency" review should proceed pursuant to existing procedures and standards.

"Mutual compatibility" review procedures for the three plans should first emphasize inter-agency
discussions to address incompatibilities, to be followed by a negotiated/mediated settlement by the
EOG.

[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR TASK FORCE DECISION: Appellate remedies for EOG
"consistency" and "mutual compatibility" determinations.

Should the EOG determinations be appealable?
If so, to which body: FLWAC,(dmin. Comm or First DCA?
Who should have standing to appeal: authoring agency, other affected agencies,
members of the public, and what is the point of entry for such appeals?
What should the standing requirements be for such appeals: Chapt. 120, F.S.,
"substantially affected party", or the broader standing of Chapt 163, F.S.?









Using existing procedures, the recommendations could be as follows: "Consistency" and
"compatibility" determinations by the EOG, should be subject to an appeal to the Administration
Commission which should proceed pursuant to a procedure similar to that outlined in
186.022(3) (5), F.S.,inclusive]

Recommendation 12

The Florida Transportation Plan shall be utilized by local governments as the "best available data" for
transportation issues. The Department of Community Affairs will conduct the review as part of the
existing Chapter 163, F.S., compliance process.

Discussion

This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement a linkage between the FTP and local government
comprehensive plans. There are presently no direct linkages between the local plans and the FTP .
Note that the linkage is intended to apply only to the adopted revenue estimates of the FTP.

Implementation of this linkage will require the adoption of revisions to 163.3184 (1)(b), relating to
the definition of "in compliance" (and related rules), to reflect the addition of the linkage chosen and
the inclusion of the FTP as one of the referent documents for DCA's review of local comprehensive
plans.


*Q I










Regional Level Plans, Policies and Rules


District Water Management Plans

Recommendation 13

The District Water Management Plans shall be expressly provided for in Chapter 373,
F.S.. and that the minimal contents of the DWMPs be set out in the statute.


Discuss

DOtT qOU WUAr

7
Mll~Yti abUn






II
-- ~KOmJDtL
C6IA4Oe1r241


ion

At a minimum, each DWMP shall include, for its region:

a. Water supply, including needs and sources(as well as source protection
b. Flood protection, including flood protection facilities and floodplain management.
c. Water quality for surface and ground water.
d. Natural systems protection, including ecosystem management and minimum flows and
levels.
e. The narrative identification of priority water resources scheduled for restoration or
improvement or which require protection, restoration, or improvement. (This list must
be qualified as not being exhaustive, but merely a current inventory which will change
as other water resources are scheduled or otherwise identified for restoration,
S improvement, or protection To maintain flexibility and avoid legal misinterpretations,
w the list should not be adopted by rule, although it may include resources that are
already geographically defined by rule.)
f. Methods for assessing the effectiveness of plan implementation.
g. Procedures for intergovernmental coordination and public participation in plan
development.


Recommendation 14

Each district shall develop and each district governing board shall approve a District
Water Management Plan for the management of regional water resources. District
Water Management Plans are to be prepared consistent witChe State Comprehensive /
Pa a the Florida Water Plan. In addition to informal participation by other parties
in the development of the DWMPs, each district should be required to hold public
workshops on its plan.




w &AT 6chAW[ [0 U-I^ itr w 3.L '5^9PPY -JfJAt-iJ W6
DOTj;I H'ex v'WmL"s '5o MuLt4 Tfl- IT



W6V- 'A PP POMIt -S H-ict) RPE1 vt 6LTuV VCYA -DtCM -- 1WT WtVl -D -
-tuD HAola+ btfc-nlL Rc Uo^~ yiM/b ^UJLf <^6C u ffetb^-.









Discussion

After governing board approval of a DWMP, DEP shall review the DWMP and determine whether it
is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Florida Water Plan. (During development of
a DWMP, the department and districts should work together to ensure consistency.) The SWIM plan
approval process is a possible model for the formal consistency determinations. For instance, under
specified timelines, the department receives the accepted or approved plan and submits a determination
of consistency to the governing board.

If the department finds the plan inconsistent, the governing board either incorporates the department's
recommended changes or states in the plan the reasons for not adopting the changes. This constitutes
final agency action, subject to review under 373.114, F.S. This review should be limited to the
issue of consistency.

If the department finds the plan consistent, its determination should be appealable under
\ 373.114, F.S. This should be limited to the issue of consistency.

NOTE: In the same process of reviewing a DWMP for consistency with the SCP and the FWP, the
department could review the DWMP for compatibility with the SLDP and the FTP. However, this
presents other questions, such as whether a DWMP should be subordinate to the FTP or whether there
should be some resolution process which might result in changing the FTP. AT MOST RECENT
MEETINGS OF THE TASK FORCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, THE PREMISE WAS
GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT IF THE FWP, FTP, AND SLDP ARE ALL COMPATIBLE
WITH EACH OTHER, THE DWMPS WOULD END UP BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE FTP
AND THE SLDP, ASSUMING THAT THE CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE DWMPS ARE
CONTAINED IN THE FWP.

Recomme tion 15

The Dist *t Water Management Plans shall be co atible with the Florida
21 Transporta n Plan. The Florida Department of Tra portation will conduct the
review as part the Department of Environmental Pro action review of the District
Water Managem Plans.

scussion

This sa new linkage, and seeks to i element a linkage between the Flori Transportation Plan and
the newWater Management District Pla There is no existing linkage.

Implementati of the linkage will require the adoption by rule, of a procedure for e FDOT review
of DWMPs. Th review should be coordinated ith DEP's review of the DWMPs by ference to
the FWP and the St e Comprehensive Plan.


I









Recommendation 15


\ Each district should be required, after the DWMP is final (having gone through
Consistency review and challenges, if any), to adopt by rule those portions of the plan
which it intends to have a binding effect on any other governmental entity or person.
( / Applicable district rules existing at the time a DWMP is final should be required to be
amended to be consistent with the rule-adopted portions of the plan within one year of
each portion's adoption.

Discussion

At a minimum, the policies in the plan should be required by statute to be adopted by rule. They
could be incorporated into appropriate existing rules.

ther possible elements for required rule adoption are:

a. Implementation schedules. This requires further discussion because of concerns over
the potential budget impacts of adopting these schedules by rule. O
145$ 16 MO 6 b.. Water supply planning determinati*ns, including determination of water availability i
(WP M f .f.rnm :secified ou-ro and criteria for allocation of limited supplies.

Each district shall assess its DWMP's effectiveness, evaluate plan priorities, and update its plan at
least every five years, with the participation of other governmental entities and the public. Before any
modifications to its DWMP, the district shall hold a public hearing.


Regional Water Supply Authority Master Plans

Recommendation 16

All regional water supply authorities shall adopt by rule Regional Water Supply Plans or
portions of the plans, if the entire plan is not appropriate for adoption. These plans shall
be consistent with the SCP, State Water Policy, and the FWP and compatible (or
cnsi stent. with the rule-adopted portions of the relevant DWMPs.

I' DEP shall review all RWSPs for consistency or compatibility with the relevant plans. If
DEP determines a RWSP to be inconsistent or incompatible and cannot informally resolve
such finding with the regional water supply authority, there should be available to DEP,
and any substantially affected person, an appeal to the Florida Land and Water
=- Adjudicatory Commission.

Discussion

At least every five years, a regional water supply authority shall prepare an evaluation and appraisal
report on its RWSP, assessing the successes and failures of the plan; addressing changes to the SCP and
other plans with which it must be consistent or compatible; and preparing and adopting by rule
amendments, revisions, or updates to the plan as needed.










Strategic Regional Policy Plans

Recommendation 17

The SRPPs shall be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the SLDP as
determined through the SRPP review conducted by the Office of the Governor. This
consistency would provide the linkage to the other state-level plans, which are required
to be compatible with each other. DC4 Wt v l *i K
e4MDiscussion ,w~Itrlt / Ubf 4 t.r raranorw)
Discussion FRA. -A.

The SRPPs also shall be compatible with the rule-adopted portions of the relevant DWMPs and with
any relevant Regional Water Supply Plans, as determined through the SRPP review conducted by the
Office of the Governor.

Where an SRPP is inconsistent or incompatible and this cannot be informally resolved, there should be
available to any appropriate governmental entity (DCA, DEP, WMDs, RPCs, local government, the
Office of the Governor) or any substantially affected person, an appeal to the Administration
Commission.

Recommendation 18

The Strat gic Regional P oicy Plans shll be compatible with the FIWida
Trans station Plan. Te Florida D apartment of Tr nsportation yll conduct/ie
revi as part of the executive O ce of the Govej or's review Of the Stratgic
ggional Policy Pl ns pursuant Rule 27E-5, .A.C.

Discussion

This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement a linkage between the FTP and the Strategic Regional
Policy Plans. There is no existing linkage.

Implementation of the linkage may require the expansion of FDOT's review of the SRPPs under
27E-5.




K)0 kwagJJ OF M9 P Ptus L A e RIP .


II










Local Government Level Plans, Policies and Rules


Local Government Comprehensive Plans


Recomi


Discuss

To be

Recomr


Discuss


nendation 19

Local government comprehensive plans hall be compatible with the rule-adopted
portions of the Florida Water Plan, as de er ed by DCA as part of the existing
Chapter 163, F.S., compliance process. In compatibility shall not be the sole basis for
a DCA finding that a local government c np hensive plan is not in compliance
(Should the compatibility requirement e tend t the rule-adopted portions of the
DWMP or does compatibility with th FWP impl compatibility with the DWMP?
Alternatively, should the compatibi ty requirement apply only to the DWMP?)

;ion

discussed L,6f ~tbb9D l t*MD~164te w/ IbT PtLJ.

mendation 20

The linkage between the local go ent comprehensive plans and the adopted
portions of the State Land Develop nt Plan shall be that of "compatibility."

;ion


This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement a linkage between the SLDP and local government
comprehensive plans. There are presently no direct linkages between the local plans and the SLDP
plan. Note that the linkage is intended to apply only to those adopted portions of the SLDP.

Implementation of this linkage will require the adoption of revisions to 163.3184 (1)(b), relating to
the definition of "in compliance" (and related rules), to reflect the addition of the linkage chosen and
the inclusion of the SLDP as one of the referent documents for DCA's review of local comprehensive
plans.

Recommendation 21

The local government comprehensive plan that is a member of a regional water supply
authority shall be compatible with that authority's RWSP, as determined by (DCA?)

Discussion

To be discussed


II L II


\J










Technical Assistance

Recommendation 22

Each WMD, in coordination with DEP, shall submit an advisory report to each
regional planning council within its jurisdiction to assist in the preparation of Strategic
Regional Policy Plans. The reports shall include:

a. Recommended identifications (maps) of natural resources of regional significance
related to water resources.
b. Water supply information regarding:facilities, identification of water resource caution
areas, ancyrecommended standards for water su development
c. Recommended policies fr protecting the resources identified in a. and recommended
policies to promote conservation, protect aquifer recharge areas, etc.

Discussion

To be discussed

Recommendation 23

The WMDs shall provide technical assistance to local governments, including the
information required in 373.0391, F.S. and 373.0395, F.S. This information shall
not be construed as a rule and shall be provided in an understandable format and in
time for local governments to use the information in the development or revision of
their local governments comprehensive plans. (These sections should be examined for
updating and consolidation in light of recent advances in water resources information.)

Discussion

Each WMD should assist local governments with interpreting and applying the technical information
submitted to them.

The water management districts are required in Section 373.0391, F.S., to provide technical assistance
to local governments to support local government comprehensive planning. This section, adopted in
1989, directs the WMDs to provide local governments a large menu of water related information.
Additionally, other sections of Chapter 373, F.S., specifically require various technical reports
including evaluations of ground water availability and identification of recharge areas. The quality of
these data submittals bears a large impact on the degree to which land and water planning are
Integrated. Local governments are required to use the "best available information" in their plans and,
in many instances, data and analysis provided by the WMDs will constitute that.
a


. I





* I ,


The water management districts should place high priority on providing adequate technical information
for local governments and other parties on many subjects. Local government comprehensive plans
should regard the technical information in district water management plans as the best available
information related to water resources, unless more accurate, locally specific information is available.
Recognition should be given, however, to the fact that the level of technical information provided will
vary significantly according to funding and related technical capabilities of individual Water
Management Districts.











EAR Recommendations

Recommendation 24

EAR Minimum Requirements and 9J-5 Minimum Requirements are sufficient, from a
procedural perspective, for an appropriate integration of water issues into the local
comprehensive plans.

Discussion

Water issues are integrated into the EAR process, because the EAR process requires an updating of
the data and analysis, and a review of the goals, objectives and policies in the local comp plan. The
local comprehensive plans have numerous requirements in many elements regarding water issues.

Recommendation 25

A compendium of data sources as well as a statewide understanding of data needs and
sources should be available to local government prior to the EAR update process.

Discussion

The WMDs will have additional data available to provide to local governments at the time of the
EARs. However, the information needs of the local governments in different parts of the state will be
different and WMDs need to have an understanding of the local government priorities. The SRPPs
will help identify the water issues and data requirements. A recommended process would include the
RPC setting up a water planning workshop for the entire region. The WMD would have a pro-active
role and also have technical assistance teams to help the RPC and the local governments. The WMD
and DEP could do workshops on water planning and also report on solutions (e.g. reuse of water,
efficient plumbing, etc.)

If WMDs have the best available data, DCA will require that a local government will have to use it,
unless they get their own "best available data", a scenario which is not likely to occur in many areas
of Florida given the expense and complexity of the data models. However, if a WMD or an RPC
challenges the local government's data, the issue might not be easily resolved without going to a
hearing.

Many of the original comprehensive plans had little or no data regarding water issues. In the past 5
years, great strides have been made towards gathering and developing additional data and to update
existing data. The WMDs now have good, more current data available for the local governments to
use in updating their plans.




LDC4Y_ 601 up ph"rr, -n0%, e PL(Ui e~iero 0
Uilr

'. -









Recommendation 26

The Department of Community Affairs should compare the requirements of
403.0891(3) (a), F.S., and 373.0391, F.S., with existing 9J-5, F.A.C., requirements
to determine consistency.

Discussion

The existing linkage, consistency, is adequate. It is suggested that this issue be broadened to include
review of other linkages such as 403.0891(3)(a), F.S., which requires that water management
districts provide technical assistance to local governments, and 373.0391, F.S., which addresses
coordination of stormwater management plans.









OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE

State Issues Subcommittee


1. Nature of implementation mechanism for the three state-level plans. Should they be
implemented following legislative review, or should they be implemented by authoring agency
through rule-making?
2. Should the Task Force recommend that the Legislature consider the consolidation, into a
single document, of the State Land Development Plan and the Florida Water Plan at some | No
time in the future?
3. Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- Florida Water Plan. Should the plans, once
legislatively reviewed or adopted by rule, be binding on the authoring agency in its budgetary,
grant funding, and permitting decisions? If so, how should this effect be implemented?
4. Should the State Land Development Plan identify both "state"and "regional" resources and
facilities for use in the SLDP?
5. Should the Legislature provide guidance in the form of a definition for the types of "state
resources and facilities" to be identified?
6. Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- State Land Development Plan? Ei9t,0 q *
7. Should the role of the State Land Development Plan be expanded to allow its use in DCA's | b.
statutory review in siting act applications and programs? I
8. Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- Florida Transportation Plan?
9. Appeal mechanism and standing issues relating to appeal of Executive Office of the
Governor's findings of "consistency" and "compatibility" for the state-level plans?


- '. I









APPENDIX


Meeting Locations and Dates









ACCRONYMS


SCP State Comprehensive Plan
SLDP State Land Development Plan
FWP Florida Water Plan
FTP Florida Transportation Plan
SRPP Strategic Regional Policy Plan
RPC Regional Planning Council
WMD Water Management District
DWMP District Water Management Plan
RWSA Regional Water Supply Authority
RWSP Regional Water Supply Plan
DCA Department of Community Affairs
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DOT Department of Transportation
GMP/SCP Growth Management Portion of the State Comprehensive Plan
LG Local Government
LGCP Local Government Comprehensive Plan




















Ch. 186.507, F.S.



(18) ... The District's Water Resources and Facilities Plan shall include:

a) An inventory of existing and proposed water management district facilities and works
of the district which should be considered in regional or local government comprehensive
planning efforts to avoid conflict and coordinate efficient water management, including
facilities and works designed for the purposes of water supply, flood protection, water
quality management, or natural systems protection.

b) Identification of deficiencies in water management systems and facilities which
require consideration in regional or local government comprehensive planning including
water management systems and facilities necessary for water supply, flood protection,
water quality management or natural systems protection.

c) Planning standards which represent water resource planning constraints relevant to
regional or local government comprehensive planning such as capacities (levels of
service) of water management district flood control or stormwater management facilities,
water supply availability determinations, pollutant load reduction goals, minimum flows
or levels, reservation of water for natural systems or other adopted, numeric standards.


,Amyt^ianve I0 &&J 4ti -








Milledge Iden & Held


A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
ATTORNEY Y S AT LA W

Allan Milledge
Bruce Franklin Iden
Gary M. Held, P.A.
Dana J. McElroy

August 24, 1994

Mr. Jake Varn
Carlton Fields
P.O. Drawer 190
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dear Jake:


Jake Varn
Rivas
John M, P.A.



RECEIVED

AUG 2 1994
Carlton Fields Tallahassee
-'^ D. V-


Enclosed is my suggestion for regional water plans that
fit into the existing system with the least disruption.

In summary, a WMD generated Water Resources and
Facilities Plan for the area of the RPC within the WMD would become
a part of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Conflicts with the
balance of the SRPP, if any, are resolved by the Executive Office
of the Governor and, if necessary, despite resolution under
186.509.

The statutory changes required are minimal i.e.
amendments to 186.507 and 186.508.

The attachments consist of:

1. the proposed amendments to 186.507 and
186.508, and;


2. 186.507 and 186.508 as amended
proposal (changes underlined) and
186.509 for reference.

See you next week. Best regards.
Sincerely,



Allan Milledge


by this
a copy of


AM/ip

Enclosures

cc: Vicki Tschinkel
Linda Shelley
David Orshefsky


Suite 600 2100 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Miami, Florida 33134 Telephone (805) 446-1500 Fax (305) 446-9972










INITIAL DRAFT OF AMENDMENTS TO CH. 186, F.S.
PROVIDING FOR WMD WATER RESOURCES AND FACILITIES PLAN


1. Add a new paragraph (18) to Section 186.507 requiring each
Water Mangement District to adopt a Water Resources and
Facilities Plan for each Regional Planning Council within the
district that will become an element of the Regional Policy Plan
and applicable to local government comprehensive plans as now
provided in Section 163.3177,F.S.

186.507 Strategic regional policy plans.

(18) Each Water Management District shall adopt a Water
Resources and Facilities Plan for the area of each Regional
Planning Council within the Distrin~t. The District's Water
Resources and Facilities Plan shall become an element of the
Strategic regional policy plan and applicable to local government
comprehensive plans in the manner provided in Section 163.3177 ,
F.S.,for regional policy plans unless the Executive Office of the
Governor determines that the District's plan is inconsistent with
the regional policy plan. The District's Water Resources and
Facilities Plan shall include:

S a. Provisions necessary for the protection, operation and
maintenance of existing facilities and works of the district and
construction of planned facilities and works including stormwater
management, environmental restoration and water supply facilities,

b. Resource Planning constraints relevant to local government
comprehensive plans including capacity of the district's flood
control and stormwater management facilities, water supply
availability, water shortage areas and areas of significant
recharge and

c. Surface water improvement and management ("SWIM") plan
provisions relevant to local comprehensive plans.



2. Add a new paragraph (4) to Section 186.508,F.S. providing the
process for adoption of the WMD Water Resources and Facilities
Plan.

186.508 Strategic regional policy plan adoption; consistency with
state comprehensive plan.

(4) The Executive Office of the Governor may adopt by rule
minimum criteria to be addressed in each Water Managment District
Water Resources and Facilities Plan. Each Water Management District
shall adopt a Water Recources and Facilities plan for the area of
each Regional Planning council within the District as provided in
Section 186.507,F.S. and submit the plan to each Council on a
schedule adopted by rule by the Executive Office of the Governor










but in no event later than January 1, 1998. If, within 60 days of
submittal, the Regional Planning Council objects to any provision
of the Water Resources and Facilities plan of the District based
upon inconsistency with the adopted regional policy plan, then the
council may invoke its dispute resolution process adopted under
Section 186.509,F.S. If that process fails or is not complete
within 90 days, the Executive Office of the Governor shall
determine whether the District's plan is inconsistent and if so make
recommendations for revisions that would avoid the inconsistency.
If the Council does not object to any provision within 60 days of
submittal the plan shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary
of State and shall become an element of the strategic regional
policy plan as an amendment.











186.507 Strategic regional policy plans.


(1) A strategic regional policy plan shall contain regional
goals and policies that shall address affordable housing,
economic development, emergency preparedness, natural resources
of regional significance, and regional transportation, and that
may address any other subject which relates to the particular
needs and circumstances of the comprehensive planning district as
determined by the regional planning council. Regional plans
shall identify and address significant regional resources and
facilities. Regional plans shall be consistent with the state
comprehensive plan.

(2) The Executive Office of the Governor shall adopt by rule
minimum criteria to be addressed in each strategic regional
policy plan and a uniform format for each plan. Such criteria
must emphasize the requirement that each regional planning
council, when preparing and adopting a strategic regional policy
plan, focus on regional rather than local resources and
facilities.

(3) In preparing the strategic regional policy plan, the
regional planning council shall seek the full cooperation and
assistance of local governments to identify key regional
resources and facilities and shall document present conditions
and trends with respect to the policy areas addressed; forecast
future conditions and trends based on expected growth patterns of
the region; and analyze the problems, needs, and opportunities
associated with growth and development in the region, especially
as those problems, needs, and opportunities relate to the subject
areas addressed in the strategic regional policy plan.

(4) The regional goals and policies shall be used to develop
a coordinated program of regional actions directed at resolving
the identified problems and needs.

(5) The council shall give consideration to existing state,
regional, and local plans in accomplishing the purposes of this
section.

(6) The draft regional plan shall be circulated to all local
governments in the region, and the local governments shall be
afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment on the regional
plan.

(7) The council shall provide for adequate input by citizens
into the regional planning process.

(8) Upon adoption, a strategic regional policy plan shall
provide, in addition to other criteria established by law, the
basis for regional review of developments of regiunal impact,










regional review of federally assisted projects, and other
regional comment functions.

(9) Regional planning councils shall consider, and make
accessible to the public, appropriate data and studies, including
development-of-regional-impact applications and agency reports,
in order to assist participants in the
development-of-regional-impact review process. A major objective
of the regional planning process shall be to coordinate with the
state land planning agency in order to achieve uniformity and
consistency in land use information and data collection efforts
in this state and provide a usable and accessible data base to
local governments and the private sector.

(10) Each regional planning council shall enter into a
memorandum of agreement with each local health council in its
comprehensive planning district to ensure the coordination of
health planning, if the regional planning council elects to
address health issues in its strategic regional policy plan. The
memorandum of agreement shall specify the manner in which each
regional planning council and local health council will
coordinate their activities.

(11) All natural resources of regional significance
identified in the strategic regional policy plan shall be
identified by a specific geographic location and not solely by
generic type.

(12) In addressing regional transportation, the council may
recommend minimum density guidelines for development along
designated public transportation corridors and identify
investment strategies for providing transportation infrastructure
where growth is desired, rather than focusing primarily on
relieving congestion in areas where growth is discouraged.

(13) Standards included in strategic regional policy plans
may be used for planning purposes only and not for permitting or
regulatory purposes. However, a regional planning council may
not adopt a planning standard that differs materially from a
planning standard adopted by rule by a state or regional agency,
when such rule expressly states the planning standard is intended
to preempt action by the regional planning council. The absence
of a planning standard for a particular issue on the part of a
state or other regional agency shall not be deemed to create a
material difference from a planning standard adopted by a
regional planning council. Planning standards may be used as a
basis for comments on federal consistency and clearinghouse
reviews. However, any inconsistency between a local plan or plan
amendment and a strategic regional policy plan must not be the
sole basis for a notice of intent to find a local plan or plan
amendment not in compliance with this act.

(14) A regional planning council may not, in its strategic
regional policy plan or by any other means, establish binding










level-of-service standards for public facilities and services
provided or regulated by local governments. This limitation
shall not be construed to limit the authority of regional
planning councils to propose objections, recommendations, or
comments on local plans or plan amendments.

(15) A strategic regional policy plan or any amendment
thereto shall be adopted by rule by a two-thirds vote of the
membership of the governing body of a regional planning council.

(16) In formulating regional policies, the regional planning
council shall consider existing requirements in other planning
and regulatory programs.

(17) Each regional planning council, in its strategic
regional policy plan, may recommend specific locations or
activities in which a project, due to character or location,
should be a development of regional impact within that
comprehensive planning district.

(18) Each Water Management District shall adopt a Water
Resources and Facilities Plan for the area of each Regional
Planning Council within the District. The District's Water
Resources and Facilities Plan shall become an element .-f the
Strategic Regional Policy plan and applicable to local government
comprehensive plans in the manner provided in S. 163.3177, F.S.,
for Regional Policy Plans unless the Executive Office of the
Governor determines that the District's plan is inconsistent with
the Regional Policy Plan. The District's Water Resources and
Facilities Plan shall include:

a. Provisions necessary for the protection, operation and
maintenance of existing facilities and works of the District and
construction of planned facilities and works including stormwater
management, environmental restoration and water supply facilities;

b. Resource Planning constraints relevant to local
government comprehensive plans including capacity of the
District's flood control and stormwater management facilities,
water snnnlv availability, water shortage areas and are~ps of
significant recharge; and

c. Surface Water Improvement and Management ("SWIM") Plan
provisions relevant to local comprehensive plans.
History.

ss. 3, 5, ch. 80-315; s. 4, ch. 82- 46; s. 13, ch. 84-257; s.
100, ch. 91-282; s. 1, ch. 92-182; ss. 32, 38, ch. 93-206.


Note. Former s. 160.07.


~










186.508 Strategic regional policy plan adoption; consistency
with state comprehensive plan.

(1) Each regional planning council shall submit to the
Executive Office of the Governor its proposed strategic regional
policy plan on a schedule adopted by rule by the Executive Office
of the Governor to coordinate implementation of the strategic
regional policy plans with the evaluation and appraisal reports
required by s. 163.3191. The Executive Office of the Governor,
or its designee, shall review the proposed strategic regional
policy plan for consistency with the adopted state comprehensive
plan and shall, within 60 days, return the proposed strategic
regional policy plan to the council, together with any revisions
recommended by the Governor. The Executive Office of the Governor
must consider the findings of the Statewide Health Council's
review of the consistency of the health elements of the strategic
regional policy plans with the health element of the state
comprehensive plan in formulating recommended revisions to the
strategic regional policy plans if the regional planning council
has elected to address health issues in its strategic regional
policy plan. The Governor's recommended revisions shall be
included in the plans in a comment section. However, nothing
herein shall preclude a regional planning council from adopting
or rejecting any or all of the revisions as a part of its plan
prior to the effective date of the plan. The rules adopting the
strategic regional policy plan shall not be subject to rule
challenge under s. 120.54(4) or to drawout prococdings under s.
120.54(17), but, once adopted, shall be subject to an invalidity
challenge under s. 120.56 by substantially affected persons,
including the Executive Office of the Governor. The rules shall
be adopted by the regional planning councils within 90 days after
receipt of the revisions recommended by the Executive Office of
the Governor, and shall become effective upon filing with the
Department of State, notwithstanding the provisions of s.
120.54(13).

(2) If a local government within the jurisdiction of a
regional planning council challenges a portion of the council's
regional policy plan pursuant to s. 120.56, the applicable
portion of that local government's comprehensive plan shall not
be required to be consistent with the challenged portion of the
regional policy plan until 12 months after the challenge has been
resolved by a hearing officer.

(3) All amendments to the adopted regional policy plan shall
be subject to all challenges pursuant to chapter 12U.

(4) The Executive Office of the Governor may adopt by rule
minimum criteria to be addressed in each Water Management
District Water Resources and Facilities Plan. Each Water
Management District shall adopt a Water Resources and Facilities
Plan for the area of each Recional Planning Council within the
District as provided in S. 186.507.F.S.- and submit the Plan to
each Council on a schedule adopted by rule by the Exective Office


~











of the Governor but in no event later than January 1, 1998. If,
within 60 days of submittal, the Regional Planning Council
objects to any provision of the water Resources and Facilities
plan of the District based upon inconsistency with the adopted
Regional Policy Plan. then the Council may invoke its dispute
resolution process adopted under S. 186.509, F.S. If that
process fails or is not complete within 90 days, the Executive
Office of the Governor shall determine whether the District's
plan is inconsistent and if so make recommendations for revisions
that would avoid the inconsistency. If the Council does not
object to any provision with 60 days of submittal the Plan shall
take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State and shall
become an element of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan as an
amendment,
History-

s. 14, ch. 84-257; s. 23, ch. 85-55; s. 13, ch. 86-191; s.
101, ch. 91-282; s. 1, ch. 92-1U2; ss. 34, 38, ch. 93-206.



186.509 Dispute resolution process.

Each regional planning council shall establish by rule a
dispute resolution process to reconcile differences on planning
and growth management issues between local governments, regional
agencies, and private interests. The dispute resolution process
shall, within a reasonable set of timeframes, provide for:
voluntary meetings among the disputing parties; if those meetings
fail to resolve the dispute, initiation of voluntary mediation or
a similar process; if that process fails, initiation of
arbitration or administrative or judicial action, where
appropriate. The council shall not utilize the dispute
resolution process to address disputes involving environmental
permits or other regulatory matters unless requested to do so by
the parties. The resolution of any issue through the dispute
resolution process shall not alter any person's right to a
judicial determination of any issue if that person is entitled to
such a determination under statutory or common law.
History.

s. 15, ch. 84-257; s. 1, ch. 92-182; ss. 35, 38, ch. 93-206.




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