Title: Task Force Draft Recommendations of David Powell
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004376/00001
 Material Information
Title: Task Force Draft Recommendations of David Powell
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Task Force Draft Recommendations of David Powell (JDV BOX 49)
General Note: Box 21, Folder 2 ( Land and Water Planning Task Force - 1994 - 1995 ), Item 18
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004376
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







CARLOB ALVARE2
P-. JAMES S. ALVE
BRIAN H. BIBEAU
KATHLEEN L. BLIZZARD
ELIZABETH C. BOWMAN
WILLIAM L. BOYo, IV
RICHARD S. BRIoHYMAN
PETER C. CUNNINGHAM
RALPH A. DEMEO
THOMAS M. DERosE
WILLIAM H. GREEN
WADE L. HOPPING
FRANK E. MATTHEWS
RICHARD D, MELSON
DAVIO L. POWELL
WILLIAM D. PRESTON
CAROLYN S. RAEPPLE
GARY P. SAMe
ROBERT P. SMITH
CHERYL G. STUART


HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
123 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 6520
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32314
(804) 222-7500
FAX (904A 224-8551
FAX (904) 425-3416

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(904) 425-2222


KRISTIN M. CONROY
C. ALLEN CULP, JR.
CONNIE C. DURRENCE
JONATHAN S. Fox
JAMES C. GOOOLETT
GARY K. HUNTER, JR,
DALANA W. JOHNSON
JONATHAN T. JOHNSON
ANGELA R. MORRISON
GARY V. PERKO
KAREN M. PETERSON
MiCHAEL P. PETROVicH
DOUGLAeS. ROBERTS
R. SCOTT RUTH
JULIE R. STEINMEYER

OF COUNSEL
W. ROBERT FOKES


FAX COVER SHEET

August 8, 1994


Please Deliver the Following Pages to:

NAME CODE FAX NUMBER PHONE NUMBER

Casey Gluckman 5510 421-2426 421-0152

Bob Rhodes 5510 222-8410 224-1572

Jake Yarn 5510 222-0398 224-1585


From: David L. Powell

Client/Matter: TASK/101
We are transmitting 4 pages (including this cover sheet). If you do not receive all of the pages, please
call Debbie R. Smith.

19IE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORN YV fRIVjIGED AND CONFIDcNfIAL INFORMATION INTcNDED ONLY FOR THE
USE we THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMoE ABOVF. IF THE LEADER (c TMHS Mt.SSAGE ERNOT TUE INNDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE IIERIY NOTIfMED
TIIAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTTMUrION. OR COPY OF TrIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHBrIED. IF YOU RAVE RECEIVED T'llS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PIEASF IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US IY TELEPHONE AND RE1 RN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US ATTIOE ABOVE ADDRESS
VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SItRVICE. THANK YOU.






Jake Varn

Working Copy


toe ] 96*ON


EV : 80 V6/80/80









HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
JALS ALVAEZ 123 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET KRITIN CONRO
JAMES 5. ALVES C. ALLEN CULP, JR.
BRIAN H. BIBEAU POST OFFICE BOX 6526 CONNIE C. DURRENCE
KATHLEEN BLIZZARD JONATHAN S. FOX
ELIZABETH C. BOWMAN TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32314 JAMES C. GOODLETT
WILLIAM L. BOYD. IV GARY K. HUNTER JR.
RICHARD 5 BRIGHTMAN (904) 223-7500 DALANA W. JOHNSON
PETER C. CUNNINGHAM FAX (904) 224-8551 JONATHAN T. JOHNSON
RALPH A. DEMEO ANGELA R. MORRISON
THOMAS M. DOROSE FAX (904) 425-3416 MARIBEL N, NICHOLSON
WILLIAM H. GREEN GARY V. PERKO
WADE L. HOPPING KAREN M. PETERSON
FRANK E. MATTHEWS MICHAEL R PETROVICM
RICHARD D. MELSON Writer's Direct Dial No. DOUGLAS s. ROBERTS
DAVID L, POWELL (904) 425-2222 SCOTT RUTH
WILLIAM D. PRESTON JULIE R. STEINMETER
CAROLYN S. RAEPPLe --
GARY MS OF COUNSEL
ROBERT P. SMITH M EMO URA N D U w oET
CHERYL G. STUART


TO: Casey Gluckman
Bob Rhodes
Jake Varn

FROM: David Powell

RE: Task Force Draft Recommendations

DATE: August 8, 1994




I regret I will not be able to join you this week to discuss how we might come to closure
on the issues now pending before the Task Force on Land Use and Water Planning. As I
promised Casey, this memorandum will set forth a few of my thoughts on where we ought to
be going; I will try to address as many issues as possible but recognize that some may not be
addressed here. My views are not set in stone and I will, of course, place great weight on any
collective judgment the three of you arrive at, even if it differs from the views I have set forth
below.

In general terms, my basic approach has been that "less is more." I think we will
maximize the chance for reaching a consensus and for achieving legislative approval for our
recommendations if we can focus on just a few key changes that will move us in the direction
we are trying to go, i.e., toward greater coordination of land and water planning. That
philosophy, of course, is one reason why I believe that so much remains to be done on the State
Issues Subcommittee. I think the Regional Issues Subcommittee is more nearly in line with that
philosophy and thus can serve as the linchpin of the task force's recommendations.

Strategic regional policy plans. In my view, the case has not been made that additional
linkages should be established between regional plans and State agency plans, or that additional
procedures should be established to enforce the existing consistency requirement. I believe there
is an adequate remedy for an inconsistency between the State Plan and an SRPP under Section
186.508. I would leave this area of law alone. 1 am particularly opposed to any greater role
in the planning process for the Governor and Cabinet.






0fI S96 "ON
SFt7:80 176/8080


' 'lili_'' ~a~s~pa~tlrr~











U District water management plans. I agree that statutory status should be accorded the
District Water Management Plans since their statutory foundation at present is suspect at best.
I think these plans should be consistent with the State Plan. Since the Florida Water Plan is to
be based on the District Water Management Plans, using a sort of bottom-up approach to arrive
at the state-level water plan, to require that the district plans be consistent with the Florida e
Water Plan would be a redundancy, in my view, and result in the same kind of circular logic
we have in the transportation area at present. IT 5 or ,pecitrc iood0

The polestar for the district plans should be th State Plan otherwise we end up with the
same sort of problem we had in ELMS, where we recommended a potential two-tier consistency
review with the State Plan and a Strategic Growth and Development Plan. Everyone found that
approach objectionable and unduly cumbersome. In my view, the State Plan consistency
requirement should be adequate. Consistency should be determined by the Governor's Office,
the same entity that makes those judgments regarding SRPPs, not DEP. Otherwise we have too
many people rendering judgments on the meaning of the State Plan. I think some of the
concerns on this issue could perhaps be addressed by requiring instead that a district water
management plan be consistent with the plan of the abutting district. *w S .?

a DWMP linkages. I still lean toward thedvisory report ide proposed by the regional
planning councils but am willing to consider a consistency requirement. I am not inclined to
institutionalize this proposed "compatibility" standard that has gained so much currency in our
discussions. The planning process is complex enough already. The "compatible with" definition
in Section 163.3177(10)(a) was included solely because that term is one of two -- the other being
"furthers" -- used to define the term "consistency." It was not included with the purpose of
being a separate standard. In light of the use of the term "compatible with" for defining
consistency, it would unnecessarily complicate matters to spin that language into a new second-
tier standard for the relationship between planning documents.

Regional water supply authorities. I agree there should be some planning undertaken
by regional water supply authorities. I think their plans should be consistent with the district
water management plan. I am aware of no justification for any standard less than consistency
between a local comp plan of a member of a regional water supply authority and the authority's
own plan. If the member local governments are not going to conduct their land planning
programs to fully implement their own authority's water plan, then why should anyone else
accord that authority's plan any respect? These are the local governments who have the most
to gain or lose by the success of the authority's plan; they ought to be doing everything they can
to achieve its successful implementation. Having said that, we may be picking a political fight
here that we don't need to pick. Is this topic really essential?

a Updating district and authority plans. I like the basic idea of requiring the same sort
of five-year updates for various water plans that we require on the land planning side. The one
rough spot is that the State Plan must be updated every two years, and current law requires each
translational plan to be updated within six months of a State Plan change. To make the five-year
update process work, this later biennial revision requirement should be revisited.

2




20l SS6 "ON
Zt7:80 V6X8/808





,.. .






State Plan. I like the set of recommendations dealing with the State Plan as set forth
in the recommendations by the State Issues Subcommittee, and not just because Casey and I
drafted them. But they aren't perfect and if anyone wants to tinker with them, I am amenable
to discussing it.

Florida Water Plan. The language on the Florida Water Plan needs to be trimmed
down. Anything as ambitious as proposed in the Orshefsky draft will, in my judgment, fall of
its own weight in the legislative process. In general, I think the statutory framework for the
Florida Water Plan should embrace, at a state level, those items now being addressed in the
district planning process, since the idea is to consolidate the guts of the district plans at the state
level. I agree that a specific planning horizon may not be meaningful. I also believe the plan
should have benchmarks rather than objectives, as we are attempting to do with the State Plan.
Here, also we must consider the five-year-update versus biennial update requirements. I oppose
any additional linkages for this plan at the present time.

State Land Development Plan. The State Land Development Plan, if it is retained,
should have a clear statutory mandate that sets forth its required contents. At present, it is a
blank slate for the agency to do anything it wishes; in the area where this plan is chiefly used
at present, current law is tantamount to letting the agency invent its own grounds for DRI
appeals. This is inappropriate. This plan should be subject to a consistency review with the
State Plan by the Governor's Office, much like SRPPs. (The same approach should be followed
vis a vis the Florida Water Plan; after all, the district plans upon which it is based would already
have undergone such a review.) I oppose any additional linkages for this plan at the present
time.

Consolidated Land and Water Plan. I believe it is inappropriate for State government
to demand greater coordination of land and water plans, particularly imposing new requirements
at the local level, when the state land and water agencies operate with separate, uncoordinated
plans. If the state wants to coordinate land and water planning, then the first step should be
consolidation of the land and water plans developed by DCA and DEP. These plans, in 1986,
were developed on parallel tracks, resulting in great similarities, if not identical provisions, in
many areas. Let's finish the job that was begin almost 10 years ago. After these plans have
been consolidated it might be appropriate to consider additional uses for the consolidated plan.

a Florida Transportation Plan. Leave it alone. Transportation is another world.

I look forward to visiting with you all prior to our next task force meeting.








3




~01 SS6 "ON
P 7:80 V6/80/80




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