Title: Memo re: Draft Recommendations dated 7/11/94 From David M. Orshefsky, Chair, State Issues Sub-committee
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004396/00001
 Material Information
Title: Memo re: Draft Recommendations dated 7/11/94 From David M. Orshefsky, Chair, State Issues Sub-committee
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Memo re: Draft Recommendations dated 7/11/94 From David M. Orshefsky, Chair, State Issues Sub-committee (JDV Box 49)
General Note: Box 21, Folder 2 ( Land and Water Planning Task Force - 1994 - 1995 ), Item 33
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004396
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


ORSHEFSKY HOLDINGS, INC.


2420 De Sota Drive
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (305) 524-5035

MEMORANDUM

TO: MEMBERS and STAFF, STATE ISSUES SUB-COMMITTEE
LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE

FROM: David M. Orshefsky, Chair, State Issues Sub-committee

RE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

DATE: 7/11/94

CC: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Attached please find:

An outline of the recommendations which contains the major substantive
elements of the recommendations;

The draft recommendations themselves, together with supportive dis-
cussion concerning the content and intent of the recommendations; and

Support documentation for the recommendations based on the materials
gathered by the Sub-committee.

The attached recommendations reflect my personal approach to the issues raised,
based on the materials received, and recommendations made, to date. A number of the
recommendations are framed as a series of options, among which the Sub-committee
will have to decide.

The draft is not intended to be either exclusive or exhaustive of alternative approaches
to these issues. The draft has not been reviewed or approved by the Sub-committee, or
its staff.

Please review the attached materials in preparation for our meeting on July 18, 1994,
at which meeting it is intended that the Sub-committee arrive at final recommenda-
tions to be presented the full Task Force at the meeting of July 22, 1994.

By copy of these materials to Sub-committee staff, I would request that they review the
materials, particularly the Support Materials, for any errors or omissions.

See you on the 18th.








STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE
LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE

OUTLINE OF
CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS



I. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING STATE WATER USE PLANNING

(See attached for further detail)

STATUTORY AND STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS

B. Create a new section 373.036(2) to specifically authorize DEP's
development of a consolidated "Florida Water Plan" (FWP), and to
provide legislative direction as to the content and effect of the FWP.
This legislation should:

Provide specific statutory authority for DEP's preparation of the FWP,
in coordination with the WMDs

Provide statutory direction as to the content of the FWP, including:

A requirement that the FWP provide for a 20 year planning
horizon, in order to be consistent with the planning horizons of
WDMPs and long-term local government land use planning

A requirement for the identification of water resource areas,
policies or restoration efforts which are of state-wide
significance, if any, together with related policies needed to
protect or support such areas, efforts, or policies

A legislative prioritization, similar to that provided in the
SWIM legislation, of ground water basin inventories and water
bodies which are to receive priority in the development of basin
data and minimum flow analyses to be implemented by the
WMDs under DEP's direction pursuant to the FWP

A requirement that the FWP contain, as applicable, policies
supportive of the implementation of WMD adopted SWIM plans

A requirement for the definition of the roles of DEP and the
WMDs in water resource planning activities and the
implementation of the FWP

Such other direction as to the content of the FWP as may be
necessary or desirable, including without limitation those
elements of the FWP outlined in proposed Chap 17-40.510

OUTLINE OF CHAIRS DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 1
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION SEE ATTACHED FOR DETAIL
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94










Provide statutory requirements as to which portions, or elements, of
the FWP are to be adopted by rule for the purposes of binding DEP, the
WMDs and local governments in their planning and other activities.
The rulemaking statutorily required to implement the elements of
the FWP, similarly to the the rulemaking for the Regional Policy
Plans pursuant to 186.508(1), should not be subject to 120.54(4) or
120.54(17) proceedings, but should be challengeable pursuant to
120.56 once adopted.

This requirement should, at a minimum, require the adoption by rule
of the geographically identified water resource areas and restoration
efforts determined to be of state-wide significance, if any, together
with related policies.

Provide that once adopted by rule, those adopted portions of the FWP
would be binding on DEP and the WMDs, requiring those agencies to
act consistently with the adopted provisions of the FWP.

Provide that once adopted by rule, those adopted portions of the FWP
would be available for review of local comprehensive plans. See
further "Linkage" discussion below.

C. Repeal existing 373.039, F.S. 1993, which provides for the current
content of the "Florida Water Plan", revise 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 revise 373.026 (10) to
amend references to the "state water policy" to read "state water
policy rule".

D. Consolidate the WMD planning and data gathering obligations
pursuant to 373.0395, ground water basin inventories, 373.0397,
aquifer mapping, and 373.042, minimum flows and levels into a
single provision authorizing and requiring the development of Water
Management District 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.

E. Create an additional subsection within 186.022, relating to
"consistency" review of "agency strategic plans", to expressly provide
for the consistency 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 (EOG).

Revise 186.022 (3) (5), inclusive, to broaden the availability of the
existing EOG review, and the appeal mechanism to the
Administration Commission, to expressly include the three state-
level plans.

OUTLINE OF CHAIRS DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 2
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION SEE ATTACHED FOR DETAIL
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94









II. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING STATE LAND USE PLANNING


N. Create a new section within Chapter 380, F.S. to specifically authorize
DCA's development of the State Land Development Plan (SLDP), and
to provide legislative direction as to the content and effect of the SLDP.
This legislation should:

Provide statutory direction as to the content of the SLDP, including:

A requirement that the SLDP provide for a 20 year planning
horizon, in order to be consistent with the planning horizons of
WDMPs and long-term local government land use planning

A requirement for the SLDP to contain, at a minimum goals,
objectives and policies addressing: (i) affordable housing; (ii)
economic development; (iii) emergency preparedness; (iv)
identified natural resources of state-wide significance; and (v)
identified state-wide transportation issues.

Provide statutory requirements as to which portions, or elements, of
the SLDP are to be adopted by rule for the purposes of binding DCA
and local governments in their planning and other activities. The
rulemaking statutorily required to implement the elements of the
SLDP, similarly to the the rulemaking for the Regional Policy Plans
pursuant to 186.508(1), should not be subject to 120.54(4) or
120.54(17) proceedings, but should be challengeable pursuant to
120.56 once adopted.

This requirement should limit those portions of the SLDP to be
adopted by rule to the five mandated issue areas: (i) affordable
housing; (ii) economic development; (iii) emergency preparedness;
(iv) identified natural resources of state-wide significance; and (v)
identified state-wide transportation issues, together with related
policies.

Provide that once adopted by rule, those adopted portions of the SLDP
would be binding on DCA, requiring the agency to act consistently
with the adopted provisions of the SLDP.

Provide that once adopted by rule, those adopted portions of the SLDP
would be available for review of local comprehensive plans. See
further "Linkage" discussion below.





OUTLINE OF CHAIRS DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 3
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION SEE ATTACHED FOR DETAIL
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94









III. LINKAGE RECOMMENDATIONS


T ,-l,-,


State Plans:
Fla. Water Plan
State Land Dev. Plan
Fla. Trans. Plan

State Plans

Fla. Water Plan

Adopted Portions
Fla. Water Plan

State Land Dev. Plan



State Land Dev. Plan

State Land Dev. Plan


Adopted Portions
State Land Dev. Plan


State Comp.
Plan



State Plans

WMD Plans

Local Comp.
Plans

State Comp.
Plan


WMD Plans

RPC Plans.


Local Comp.
Plans


"Consistency"




"Compatibility"

"Consistency"


EOG/
Admin.
Comm.


EOG

DEP


"Consistency" OR DCA
"Compatibility"


"Consistency"



"Compatibility"

"Consistency"


EOG/
Admin.
Comm.

DCA

EOG/
DCA


"Consistency" OR DCA
"Compatibility"


IV. PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS.


E. Create an additional subsection within 186.022, relating to
"consistency" review of "agency strategic plans", to expressly provide
for the consistency 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 (EOG).

Revise 186.022 (3) (5), inclusive, to broaden the availability of the
existing EOG review, and the appeal mechanism to the
Administration Commission, to expressly include the three state-
level plans.

To address procedural requirements for the development of the three state-level
plans -- Florida Water Plan, State Land Development Plan, and Florida
Transportation Plan, three options are presented:


Option F


Formal Procedure -- Review by EOG -- Appeal to Admin.
Commission -- Adoption by Rule


OUTLINE OF CHAIRS DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 4
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION SEE ATTACHED FOR DETAIL
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94


Review
A nc FV


LnT rom1.....g


F?/^










Option G


Option H


Informal Procedure Review by EOG -- Appeal to
Admin. Commission -- Adoption by Rule

Joint Development Procedure Review by EOG -- Appeal
to Admin. Commission -- Adoption by Rule


See attached for details.


OUTLINE OF CHAIRS DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 5
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION SEE ATTACHED FOR DETAIL
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94


I I








STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE
LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS



I. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING STATE WATER USE PLANNING


Reorganize existing water resource planning authority and responsibilities
to:

Recognize the current regional focus of water resource planning

Provide authority for, and direction in, the preparation of a
consolidated "Florida Water Plan" (FWP) by DEP; and

Provide for linkages between the FWP and other planning
documents; and

Provide procedures for the development and review of the "Florida
Water Plan"

STATUTORY AND STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS


A. Repeal the existing provisions of 373.036 (2), F.S. 1993, which provide
the elements to be considered in the development of the State Water
Use Plan, as duplicative of the existing Water Management District
efforts to regionally address ground water inventories, needs and
sources analyses, minimum flows and levels, and technical
assistance to local governments pursuant to 373.0391, 373.0395,
373.0397, and 373.4042.

Discussion. The original provisions of 373.036(2), relating the the
elements to be considered in the development of the State Water Use Plan (SWUP)
were adopted in 1972, prior to the enactment of the additional referenced
provisions which gave similar planning authority and obligations to the Water
Management Districts (WMD). Since the current focus of issues, as well as
efforts, relating to water resource availability and its maximum development for
reasonable and beneficial uses is presently regional in scope, and being
implemented by the WMDs -- including the WMDs' development of District Water
Management Plans (DWMPs), consumptive use permitting activities, and
development of "water use caution areas" -- the existing provisions of 373.036(2)
should be revised and updated to reflect the current focus on WMD data gathering
and planning activity.


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 1
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









B. Create a new section 373.036(2) to specifically authorize DEP's
development of a consolidated "Florida Water Plan" (FWP), and to
provide legislative direction as to the content and effect of the FWP.
This legislation should:

Provide specific statutory authority for DEP's preparation of the FWP,
in coordination with the WMDs

Provide that the FWP be structured to contain goals, measurable
objectives, and policies intended to support and implement the plan's
goals and objectives.

Provide statutory direction as to the content of the FWP, including:

A requirement that the FWP provide for a 20 year planning
horizon, in order to be consistent with the planning horizons of
WDMPs and long-term local government land use planning

A requirement for the identification of water resource areas,
policies or restoration efforts which are of state-wide
significance, if any, together with related policies needed to
protect or support such areas, efforts, or policies

S A legislative prioritization, similar to that provided in the
SWIM legislation, of ground water basin inventories and water
bodies which are to receive priority in the development of basin
data and minimum flow analyses to be implemented by the
WMDs under DEP's direction pursuant to the FWP

A requirement that the FWP contain, as applicable, policies
supportive of the implementation of WMD adopted SWIM plans

A requirement for the definition of the roles of DEP and the
WMDs in water resource planning activities and the
implementation of the FWP

Such other direction as to the content of the FWP as may be
necessary or desirable, including without limitation those
elements of the FWP outlined in proposed Chap 17-40.510

Provide statutory requirements as to which portions, or elements, of
the FWP are to be adopted by rule for the purposes of binding DEP, the
WMDs and local governments in their planning and other activities.
The rulemaking statutorily required to implement the elements of
the FWP, similarly to the the rulemaking for the Regional Policy
Plans pursuant to 186.508(1), should not be subject to 120.54(4) or
120.54(17) proceedings, but should be challengeable pursuant to
120.56 once adopted.


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 2
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









This requirement should, at a minimum, require the adoption by rule
of the geographically identified water resource areas and restoration
efforts determined to be of state-wide significance, if any, together
with related policies.

S Provide that once adopted by rule, those adopted portions of the FWP
would be binding on DEP and the WMDs, requiring those agencies to
act consistently with the adopted provisions of the FWP.

Provide that once adopted by rule, those adopted portions of the FWP
would be available for review of local comprehensive plans. See
further "Linkage" discussion below.

Provide for the biennial updating of the FWP, timed to be consistent
with the updating of the SCP and, if possible the Evaluation and
Appraisal schedule for local comprehensive plans.

Discussion: The current thrust of DEP and WMD water policy
development is the development by DEP of the FWP, and the development by the
WMDs of the District Water Management Plans (DWMPs). See proposed
amendments to Chap. 17-40, FAC. This policy thrust should be recognized by the
adoption of specific statutory authority for the development of the FWP, together
with legislative direction as to certain elements to be contained within the FWP.

As it relates to comprehensive planning, a threshold requirement for the
implementation of state-policy concerns is the establishment of a series of state-
defined elements, or criteria, which the state seeks to implement through the
comprehensive planning process. The establishment of these state-defined
referents is a necessary precursor to the requirement that other governmental
activities, at all levels, be "consistent or "compatible" with the established
referent.

This recommendation provides for the development and use of the FWP as a
mechanism by which to establish several referents against which other
governmental activities can be reviewed for "consistency" or "compatibility": for
local and regional governments -- the geographically identified water resource
areas and restoration efforts determined to be of state-wide significance (together
with related policies) provide a referent for future land use decision making; for
the WMDs -- the same geographic identifications will serve to focus District
activities, and the establishment of priority water bodies for inventory and
minimum flow analyses will provide a referent for the review of WDMPs and
their updates.

It is anticipated that the development of geographically designated water resource
and restoration areas will be supported by, and consistent with, similarly efforts
by the RPCs and the WMDs to develop similar geographic identifications for
inclusion in the Regional Policy Plans and the Water Management District Plans.



CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 3
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM










C. Repeal existing 373.039, F.S. 1993, which provides for the current
content of the "Florida Water Plan", revise 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 revise 373.026 (10) to
amend references to the "state water policy" to read "state water
policy rule".

Discussion: One of the difficulties encountered in the review of state
water policy is the multiplicity of sources of water policy: the "State Water Use
Plan", pursuant to existing 373.036(2); the "Florida Water Plan", pursuant to
373.039; and the "state water policy" required by 373.026 (10). This has lead to
confusion.

This recommendation seeks to provide for a single nomenclature for the sources
of state water policy: the "Florida Water Plan", to be developed as outlined above;
and the "state water policy rule", Chap. 17-40 FAC, which reflects the portion of
the state water policy adopted by rule.

D. Consolidate the WMD planning and data gathering obligations
pursuant to 373.0395, ground water basin inventories, 373.0397,
aquifer mapping, and 373.042, minimum flows and levels into a
single provision authorizing and requiring the development of Water
Management District 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 Regional Sub-committee recommendations for
details.

E. Create an additional subsection within 186.022, relating to
"consistency" review of "agency strategic plans", to expressly provide
for the consistency 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 (EOG).

Revise 186.022 (3) (5), inclusive, to broaden the availability of the
existing EOG review, and the appeal mechanism to the
Administration Commission, to expressly include the three state-
level plans.

Discussion: This recommendation is intended to resolve a potential
ambiguity in Chap. 186, to clarify that the three specialized state-level plans are to
be treated, for purposes of consistency review with the State Comprehensive Plan,
similarly to "agency strategic plans". This clarification is necessary since both
DEP and DCA produce both the state-level plans and separate "agency strategic
plans".



CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 4
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









PROCEDURAL AND TIMING RECOMMENDATIONS


PROCEDURE

Recommendations concerning the procedure for the development and adoption of
the FWP are presented as alternative options, with the options varying based on
the level of formality to be recommended for the process.


Option F Formal Procedure Review by EOG -- Appeal to Admin.
Commission -- Adoption by Rule

Create a new section in Chap. 186 which provides for a formal
procedure for the review of the three state-level plans -- the Florida
Water Plan, the State Land Development Plan, and the Florida
Transportation Plan.

This procedure should provide for:

Formal review and comment procedures for the three
participating agencies -- DEP, DCA, and FDOT to review and
comment on the applicable state-level plan following drafting
by the responsible agency. Comments should be focused on
making the three state-level plans "compatible" with each
other.

Comments from the reviewing agencies would then be
addressed or incorporated prior to finalization of the draft and
its transmittal to the Executive Office of the Governor (EOG) for
consistency review.

State Comprehensive Plan "consistency" review by the EOG, with an
appeal to the Administration Commission would proceed pursuant
to 186.022 (3) (5), inclusive, as amended by Recommendation E,
above.

Following State Comprehensive Plan "consistency" review pursuant
to 186.022(3), and "compatibility" review pursuant to 186.022 (5) (see
also "Linkage" discussion below), appropriate portions of the state-
level plans would adopted by rule pursuant to the plan's organic
statute -- Chap 373, for the Florida Water Plan, Chap. for the
State Land Development Plan, and Chap. 339, for the Florida
Transportation Plan.







CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 5
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









Option G Informal Procedure Review by EOG -- Appeal to
Admin. Commission -- Adoption by Rule

Without legislative action, it is recommended that the EOG establish
an procedure for the review of the three state-level plans -- the Florida
Water Plan, the State Land Development Plan, and the Florida
Transportation Plan with a goal of having the participating agencies
collectively create "compatibility" among the three state-level plans

State Comprehensive Plan "consistency" review by the EOG, with an
appeal to the Administration Commission would proceed pursuant
to 186.022 (3) (5), inclusive, as amended by Recommendation E,
above.

Following State Comprehensive Plan "consistency" review pursuant
to 186.022(3), and "compatibility" review pursuant to 186.022 (5) (see
also "Linkage" discussion below), appropriate portions of the state-
level plans would adopted by rule pursuant to the plan's organic
statute -- Chap 373, for the Florida Water Plan, Chap. _, for the
State Land Development Plan, and Chap. 339, for the Florida
Transportation Plan.


Option H Joint Development Procedure Review by EOG -- Appeal
to Admin. Commission -- Adoption by Rule

Create a new section of Chap. 186 which requires that the EOG, DEP,
and DCA to jointly prepare a consolidated land and water
management plan, following the required revisions the the State
Comprehensive Plan in 1996.

State Comprehensive Plan "consistency" review by the EOG, with an
appeal to the Administration Commission would proceed pursuant
to 186.022 (3) (5), inclusive, as amended by Recommendation E,
above.

Following State Comprehensive Plan "consistency" review pursuant
to 186.022(3), and "compatibility" review pursuant to 186.022 (5) (see
also "Linkage" discussion below), appropriate portions of the joint
plan would adopted by rule pursuant to the respective agencies'
organic statute -- Chap 373, for DEP, Chap. for DCA.

Discussion: Based on the discussions of the Sub-committee with the
applicable state agencies, it is apparent that additional steps similar to the efforts
of DCA to conform the SLDP to the policies contained in the 1986 SWUP must be
taken in order to ensure "compatibility" among the three state-level plans.

This recommendations attempts to formalize, at various levels of formality, a
procedure to enhance the development of the state-level plans in a compatible way.

CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 6
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM










Based upon its review, the State Issues Sub-committee recommends Option


TIMING

[Timing recommendations are to be further discussed and framed by the Sub-
committee.

Relevant dates:

11/94 DWMPs to be accepted by WMD Boards

8/1/95 First local government EARs due

10/95 EOG recommendations on SCP revisions to Admin.
Commission

11/95 Proposed date for completion of FWP by DEP per Chap.
17-40.510

12/95 SCP revisions to Legislature]


LINKAGE RECOMMENDATIONS

Below are the recommendations concerning proposed linkages between the
Florida Water Plan (FWP) and various other planning documents.
Recommendations are organized by the level of government effected.

Each recommendation below will be structured to identify:

Linkage Plan -- the document which is to provide the referent against
which the referenced plan is to be measured pursuant to the
recommended standard

Reviewing Agency -- the agency undertaking the review of the plan
pursuant to the standard

Enforcement/Sanction -- the sanction, if any, recommended for
failure to meet the established standard

Standard -- the standard to be used by the reviewing agency in its
review of referenced plan, including:

1. "Consistency" -- defined as in 163.3177 (10(a), meaning
"compatible with" and "furthers" the contents and policies of
the Linkage Plan

CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 7
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM










2. "Compatible with" -- defined as in 163.3177 (10(a), meaning
"not in conflict with" the Linkage Plan.

The distinction between "consistency" and "compatibility" is
that in the instance of "compatibility" the plan under review is
not required to "further", or serve to support the
accomplishment of the Linkage Plan.

3. "Best Available Data" -- referring to the concept contained in
DCA's Rule 9J-5, FAC, which requires a local government to
consider the referenced data as the best available in the
preparation of its comprehensive plan pursuant to Chap. 163
requirements.


Linkage J


State-Level Plans (FWP, SLDP, and FTP) /State Comp.
Plan


The linkage between the state level plans and the State
Comprehensive plan is recommended to be as follows:


* Linkage Plan:

* Standard:

* Reviewing Agency:


State Comprehensive Plan

"Consistency"

EOG and Admin Commission per Chap.
186, as amended by Recommendation E


* Enforcement/Sanction: To be discussed


Discussion:


Linkage K


This linkage conforms to existing law.


State level Plan/ State-Level Plans (FWP, SLDP, and FTP)


The linkage between/among the state level plans plan is
recommended to be as follows:


* Linkage Plans:

* Standard:

* Reviewing Agency:


Other two state-level plans

"Compatibility"

EOG per 186.02(5), as amended by
Recommendation E


* Enforcement/Sanction: To be discussed

Discussion: This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement additional
integration among the state-level plans. See Options F-H above.


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM


PAGE: 8











Linkage L


Florida Water Plan and District Water Management
Plans


The linkage between the District Water Management Plans (DWMP)
and the State Comprehensive Plan and Florida Water Plan is
recommended to be as follows:


* Linkage Plans:


* Standard:

* Reviewing Agency:


(i) State Comprehensive Plan
(ii) Florida Water Plan

"Consistency"

DEP


* Enforcement/Sanction: To be discussed

Discussion: This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement a linkage
between the State Comprehensive Plan and the FWP and the new
Water Management District Plans. The only existing linkage to the
DWMPs is that proposed by Chap 17-40.530 which requires DEP
review of DWMPs for "consistency" with Chap. 17.40 only.

This recommendation seeks to broaden the review to include both the
SCP and the FWP.

Implementation of the linkage will require the adoption by DEP rule,
potentially as part of the revisions to Chap 17-40, of a broader DEP
review procedure for the DWMPs.


Linkage M


Florida Water Plan and Local Comprehensive Plans


The linkage between Local Government Comprehensive Plans and
the Florida Water Plan is recommended to be as follows:


* Linkage Plan:

* Standard:

* Reviewing Agency:


Adopted Portions of Florida Water Plan only

OPTION: "Consistency" or "Compatibility"

DCA, as part of the existing Chapter 163
compliance process


* Enforcement/Sanction: To be discussed

Discussion: This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement a linkage
between the FWP and local government comprehensive plans. There
are presently no direct linkages between the local plans and the state-


PAGE: 9


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM










level water plan.


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 Florida Water Plan as one of the referent documents
for DCA's review of local comprehensive plans.


Based upon its review, the State Issues Sub-committe recommends that the
linkage standard between the Florida Water Plan and local government
comprehensive plans be :


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM


PAGE: 10








II. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING STATE LAND USE PLANNING


Provide statutory authorization and guidance for the development of the
State Land Development Plan by:

Providing authority for, and direction in, the preparation of the State
Land Development Plan (SLDP) by DCA;

Providing procedures for the development and review of the SLDP;
and

Providing for linkages between the SLDP and other planning
documents.

STATUTORY AND STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS

N. Create a new section within Chapter 380, F.S. to specifically authorize
DCA's development of the State Land Development Plan (SLDP), and
to provide legislative direction as to the content and effect of the SLDP.
This legislation should:

Provide specific statutory authority for DCA's preparation of the
SLDP

Provide that the SLDP be structured to contain goals, measurable
objectives, and policies intended to support and implement the plan's
goals and objectives.

Provide statutory direction as to the content of the SLDP, including:

A requirement that the SLDP provide for a 20 year planning
horizon, in order to be consistent with the planning horizons of
WDMPs and long-term local government land use planning

A requirement for the SLDP to contain, at a minimum, goals,
objectives and policies addressing: (i) affordable housing; (ii)
economic development; (iii) emergency preparedness; (iv)
identified natural resources of state-wide significance; and (v)
identified state-wide transportation issues.

Such other direction as to the content of the SLDP as may be
necessary or desirable, including without limitation, those elements
listed as components of the Growth Management Portion of the State
Comprehensive Plan in 186.009 (2).

Provide statutory requirements as to which portions, or elements, of
the SLDP are to be adopted by rule for the purposes of binding DCA
and local governments in their planning and other activities. The

CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 11
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









rulemaking statutorily required to implement the elements of the
SLDP, similarly to the the rulemaking for the Regional Policy Plans
pursuant to 186.508(1), should not be subject to 120.54(4) or
120.54(17) proceedings, but should be challengeable pursuant to
120.56 once adopted.

This requirement should limit those portions of the SLDP to be
adopted by rule to the five mandated issue areas: (i) affordable
housing; (ii) economic development; (iii) emergency preparedness;
(iv) identified natural resources of state-wide significance; and (v)
identified state-wide transportation issues, together with related
policies.

Provide that once adopted by rule, those adopted portions of the SLDP
would be binding on DCA, requiring the agency to act consistently
with the adopted provisions of the SLDP.

Provide that once adopted by rule, those adopted portions of the SLDP
would be available for review of local comprehensive plans. See
further "Linkage" discussion below.

Provide for the biennial updating of the SLDP, timed to be consistent
with the updating of the SCP and, if possible the Evaluation and
Appraisal schedule for local comprehensive plans.

Provide that the SLDP would continue, under current law, to be used
in the review of Development of Regional Impact Development
Orders.

Discussion: There is no current statutory framework or direction
addressing the development and content of the SLDP; the only current statutory
references being a definitional provision contained in 380.031(17), and the
treatment of the SLDP as a specialized "agency strategic plan" pursuant to
186.021(4).

This recommendation provides for the development of the statutory framework for
the development and required content of the SLDP. The recommendation's intent
is to provide for parallel statutory authority for the development of the Florida
Water Plan and the SLDP.

The recommendation also specifically limits those portions of the SLDP to be
adopted by rule to those areas similarly covered in the Regional Policy Plans, with
which local government's are already required to be "consistent". In this
manner, additional linkages between local government comprehensive plans and
the SLDP, see "Linkage" discussion below, are not intended to expand local
government "consistency" requirements beyond those already provided for by
statute. As with the Florida Water Plan, adoption of the appropriate portions of
the SLDP by DCA by rule would provide for an additional referent "Linkage
Document" to be used in DCA's review of local comprehensive plans.

CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 12
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM











[Although not repeated here, the elements of Recommendation "E" above, relating
to revisions to Chap. 186 to provide for "consistency" and "compatibility" review,
are equally applicable here to the procures required for reviewing the SLDP.]


PROCEDURAL AND TIMING RECOMMENDATIONS

PROCEDURE

Recommendations concerning the procedure for the development and adoption of
the SLDP are the same as those presented above as "Options F-H".

Based upon its review, the State Issues Sub-committee recommends Option


TIMING

[Timing recommendations are to be further discussed and framed by the Sub-
committee. See relevant dates listed above.]


LINKAGE RECOMMENDATIONS


The
7-8.


linkage recommendations below, follow the format established above. See pp..


Linkages between the SLDP and: (i) the State Comprehensive Plan, and
(ii) the other state-level plan are recommended to be the same as
those outlined above as "Linkages J and K', respectively. Please see
p. 8.


Linkage O


State Land Development Plan and District Water
Management Plans


The linkage between the District Water Management Plans (DWMP)
and the State Land Development Plan is recommended to be as
follows:


* Linkage Plan:

* Standard:

* Reviewing Agency:


State Land Development Plan

"Compatibility"

DCA, as part of DEP's review of the DWMPs


* Enforcement/Sanction: To be discussed


Discussion:


This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement a linkage


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 13
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









between the State Land Development Plan and the new Water
Management District Plans. There is no existing linkage.

Implementation of the linkage will require the adoption by rule, of a
procedure for the DCA review of DWMPs. This review should be
coordinated with DEP's review of the DWMPs by reference to the FWP
and the State Comprehensive Plan.


Linkage P


State Land Development Plan and Strategic Regional
Policy Plans


The linkage between the Strategic Regional Policy Plans (RPPs) and
the State Land Development Plan is recommended to be as follows:


* Linkage Plan:

* Standard:

* Reviewing Agency:


State Land Development Plan

"Compatibility"

DCA, as part of the EOG review of RPPs
pursuant to Rule 27E-5, FAC


* Enforcement/Sanction: To be discussed

Discussion: This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement a linkage
between the State Land Development Plan and the Strategic Regional
Policy Plans. There is no existing linkage; although DCA is already
slated to be a commenting agency under the EOG Rule for review of
RPPs.

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


Linkage Q


State Land Development Plan and Local Comprehensive
Plans


The linkage between Local Government Comprehensive Plans and
the SLDP is recommended to be as follows:


* Linkage Plan:

* Standard:

* Reviewing Agency:


Adopted Portions of SLDP only

OPTION: "Consistency" or "Compatibility"

DCA, as part of the existing Chapter 163
compliance process


* Enforcement/Sanction: To be discussed

Discussion: This is a new linkage, and seeks to implement a linkage
between the SLDP and local government comprehensive plans.


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM


PAGE: 14









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.


Based upon its review, the State Issues Sub-committee recommends that the
linkage standard between the Florida Water Plan and local government
comprehensive plans be :


[MATERIALS RE FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO FOLLOW]


































CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 15
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM


I









STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE
LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE


I. WATER PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS -- SUPPORT MATERIALS


STATE WATER USE PLAN (SWUP)

Status

Since the 1972 adoption of the statutory requirement for the preparation of the
State Water Use Plan, Section 373.036, two SWUPs have been prepared.

The first, developed in 1978, the result of significant and voluminous effort by the
Water Management Districts and DER, was shelved in the face of a hostile
legislative environment. 1 Initial development of the state water policy rule,
Chap. 17-40, F.A.C. followed in 1981, as an alternative mechanism for
implementation of state water policy. The 1978 SWUP was not reviewed by the
Sub-committee.

The second SWUP was prepared in 1986 in response to the requirements of Section
186.021(3), F.S. 1985, which required the development of the SWUP as an "agency
functional plan" within 6 months of the adoption of State Comprehensive Plan
(SCP). The 1986 SWUP has not been updated. Rather, DEP has focused on the
revision and updating of Chap. 17-40.

Extensive revisions and additions to Chap. 17-40, by the Environmental Regulatory_
Commission in December 1993, including additional provisions for the
development and content of the District Water Management Plans (DWMPs), were
reviewed by the 1994 Legislature and the effectiveness of the 1993 revisions was 4
delayed until following recommendations by the Task Force as to "mechanisms
and procedures for establishing water policy", and review by the 1995
Legislature. 94- L.O.F.

Originally classified, in 1984, as an "agency functional plan", 186.021(3), the
SLDP was not to be adopted by rule pursuant to 186.022(7). Although unclear,
when "agency functional plans" were transformed by statutory revisions into
"agency strategic plans" in 1992, the SLDP is still interpreted as a specialized
"agency strategic plan" and thus is not, and has not been adopted by Chap. 120
rule.

In order to fulfill the "strategic plan" requirements of Chap. 186. DEP generates
a separate "Agency Strategic Plan" for review under applicable requirements of
186.022.





CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 16
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM


u~.,--









Statutory Framework


1. Section 373.036. Statutory authority and requirements for the
drafting of a State Water Use Plan (SWUP) were enacted in 1972, as part of the
Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, and are codified at 373.036.

The Act provides that the Department shall proceed as "quickly as possible" to
generate studies leading to the development of a "coordinated plan for the use and
development of the waters of the state" to become "a functional element of a
comprehensive state plan".

373.036(2) provides that in the development of the SWUP the Department shall
consider a series of factors, including:

Maximization of the reasonable-beneficial use and control of the
waters of the state, consistent with environmental, drainage, flood
control and water storage uses and requirements, 373.036(2);

Water resources policy as expressed in Chapter 373, id:

Consultation with other governmental entities involved in water
resources management, including particularly the water
management districts (WMDs), 373.036 (3) and (4);

Consideration of potential uses of water in relation to environmental
needs or other factors which are desirable or undesirable from the
perspective the water resource irrvolved, in order to establish
preferences or restrictions to be applied by the WMDs in their
permitting activities, 373 .0936 (7)-(0); and

"[A]ny other information, direction-r objectives necessary or
desirable for the guidance of the [WMDs] or other agencies ... ,
373.036(10).

The WMDs are expressly directed to aid in the "formulation and drafting" of the
SWUP applicable to the District. 373.036(4).

2. Section 373.039. This section combines two elements, (i) the SWUP
and (ii) state "water quality standards and classifications" to create the "Florida
water plan".

3. Chapter 17-40. F.A.C. Originally adopted in 1981, Chap. 17-40 FAC
codifies general policies statements with regard to both DEP and WMD planning
and rulemaking. Additional statutory authority for the development of water
policy by rule was provided in 1989, with Legislative adoption of 373.026 (10), F.S.,
which requires the adoption of a state water policy-by Chap. 120 rule.




CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 17
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









4. Related Statutory Requirements Addressing Water Management
District Planning Requirements -- Sections 373.0395. 373.0397, 373.
0391, and 373.042.

Chapter 373 also provides for a number of Water Management District (WMD)
data gathering activities and related rule-making.

Section 373.042, adopted in 1973, requires the WMDs to adopt minimum flows and
levels for water bodies within the District. Establishment of these flows.
particularly as relates to flows need to accommodate non-consumptive
environmental requirements, are critical to the eventual quantification of
available potable water supplies, since these environmental flows are a potentially
significant proportion of available water supplies.

Section 373.0395, adopted in 1982, requires the WMDs to prepare ground water
basin inventories for those areas deemed appropriate by the Districts. The
inventories are to include identification of: potential quantities of available
potable water; prime water recharge areas; and, areas suitable for water resource
development. Section 373.0395 expressly contemplates the use of this information
by local governments for comprehensive planning purposes, and declares the
legislative intent that "future growth and development planning reflect the
limitation of available ground water or other available water supplies."

Section 373.0397, adopted in 1985, supports the inventory activities of 373.0395 by
requiring the WMDs to map the primary recharge areas for the Floridan and
Biscayne aquifers, and to adopt the map of such areas by Chap. 120 rule.
[?CONFIRM: To date, no such map has been adopted by any WMD.]

Section 373. 0391, adopted in 1989 in apparent anticipation of the transmittal on
local government comprehensive plans, requires the Districts to provide technical
assistance to local governments in their preparation on comprehensive plan
elements relating to water resource issues. Support is specifically required,
among others, in the areas of water needs and sources for the next twenty years,
and minimum flows and levels.

WMD implementation of these requirement has varied by District jurisdiction,
hampered, at least in part, by budgetary constraints applicable to some Districts.
Local government utilization of this ground water inventory data has also been
spotty, reflecting both the lack of available data in some cases2, and the lack of
WMD interpretational support of complex water basin data in others3.









CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 18
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM








Scope and Application of the SWUP


Scope

The 1986 SWUP was drafted broadly. It is organized around "policy clusters"
established for the SCP by the Governor's office, and includes:

Policy direction to all levels of government, state (DER and other state
agencies), regional (WMDs and RPCs), and local government;

Programmatic and rulemaking direction to DEP and the WMDs in
the development and expansion of water policy, regulatory,
programs, and data gathering; and

Establishes cost estimates for the significant costs attendant the
proposed operating policies.

Application

Use and application of the 1986 SWUP has declined over time since its initial
development.

Historically, subsequent to its original development in 1986, the SWUP was used by
both DCA in the development of the State Land Development Plan (SLDP), and the
Regional Planning Councils (RPCs) in the development of their respective
Regional Policy Plans (RPPs).

DCA made a conscious effort to frame the policies contained in the SLDP
consistently with similar policy content contained in the SWUP. 4 Similarly,
various RPCs used the SWUP to formulate their water related regional policies
contained in the RPPs. Accordingly, there may have existed an indirect
concurrency linkage between the local comprehensive plans and the SWUP,
through the mechanism of the local plans' required consistency with the RPP. 5

Currently, however, use of the SWUP is limited. Both at the state level, and within
other levels of government, the SWUP's organization around the "policy clusters",
and lack of updates have limited the usefulness of the SWUP. 6 Even within DEP
current use of the SWUP is very limited. 7

Relationship/Duplication Between the SWUP. Other State-Level Pans, and
the Growth Management Portion of the SCP

There does not appear to be significant duplication among the state-level plans --
the SWUP, the State Land Development Plan (SLDP), and the FDOT Florida
Transportation Plan (FTP), with the exception of DCA's conscious conformance of
water related SLDP policies to the SWUP.

With the exception of the DCA efforts, there appears to be no relationship between
the development processes of the three state-level plans -- there is no formal or

CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 19
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









informal review or comment procedure for the plans among the responsible
agencies. Consistency between the state-level plans and the State Comprehensive
Plan, required by Section 186.022, is discussed further below.

The relationship/duplication between the SWUP and the Growth Management
Portion (GMP) of the SCP is indeterminable at this time, given the current status
of the development of the GMP. The potential for duplication between the two
documents exists, however, particularly if the GMP to be developed contains
significant, detailed policy statements relating to water resources.

Existing Linkages

The existing linkages between the SWUP and other plans, or levels of government,
are as follows:

1. Horizontal -- Florida Water Plan To State Comprehensive Plan

The statutory "consistency" linkage between the SWUP contained in Section
186.022(3) is express, but unclear. The referenced provision provides for the
Governor's review of "agency strategic plans" for consistency with the SCP.
Given that both DEP and DCA produce both the state-level plans and agency
strategic plans, this consistency linkage requires clarification.

2. Vertical -- Florida Water Plan and State Comprehensive Plan to
District Water Management District Plans

There is no current direct linkage between either the State Comprehensive Plan
or the FWP, and the newly framed DWMPs.

There are indirect linkages between DEP and the WMD rules through DEP review
of WMD rules for "consistency" with "state water policy" pursuant to 373.114 (2).
Similarly, proposed provisions of Rule 17-40.530 provide for DEP review of WMDPs
for consistency with Chap. 17-40.

3. Vertical -- Florida Water Plan to Local Comprehensive Plans.

There is no current direct linkage between the Florida Water Plan to Local
Comprehensive Plans.

There are potential indirect linkages between the current version of the SWUP
and local plans through the inclusion of SWUP policies in regional plans. 8








CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 20
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM










II. LAND USE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS -- SUPPORT
MATERIALS


STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SLDP)

Status

Statutory support and direction for the development and content of the State Land
Development Plan (SLDP) is sparse.

Originally an outgrowth of ELMS I, the SLDP concept was first adopted in 1973,
and contained in a definitional provision, 380.031(17), supportive of the Chapter
380 DRI process.

Initially viewed by DCA as a plan to be adopted and then utilized for review of DRI
projects, no formal drafting of the SLDP was undertaken until 1986, in direct
response to the requirement under 186.021(3) that the SLDP be prepared as a
specialized "agency functional plan" within 6 months of the adoption of the State
Comprehensive Pan. 9 Accordingly, the first SLDP was drafted at the same time,
and for the same reasons as the first SWUP in 1986.

Since 1986, the SLDP had been regularly updated biennially, generally consistently
with the schedule provided for in 186.021(4). The SLDP is currently being
updated.

Originally classified, in 1984, as an "agency functional plan", 186.021(3), the
SLDP was not to be adopted by rule pursuant to 186.022(7). Although unclear,
when "agency functional plans" were transformed by statutory revisions into
"agency strategic plans" in 1992, the SLDP is still interpreted as a specialized
"agency strategic plan" and thus is not, and has not been adopted by Chap. 120
rule.

In order to fulfill the "strategic plan" requirements of Chap. 186. DCA generates
a separate "Agency Strategic Plan" for review under applicable requirements of
186.022.


Statutory Framework

1. Section 380.031(17). This definitional provision provides:

'State land development plan' means a comprehensive state-
wide plan or any portion thereof setting forth state land
development policies.

2. Section 186.021(4). This section, one of several providing for the
development and content of "agency strategic plans", details that neither 186.021,
nor 186.009 relating to the preparation of the Growth Management Portion of the

CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 21
DRAFT -. SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM









State Comprehensive Plan, shall limit the authority of appropriate agencies to
prepare state-level plans, including the SLDP.

Although the SLDP was clearly and "agency functional plan" pursuant to prior
statutes, see 186.021(3), F.S. (1991), the current formulation of "agency strategic
plans" is less clear as to the SLDP's status as a "strategic plan". Nonetheless,
current interpretation treats the SLDP as a specialized "agency strategic plan",
and thus subject to the bar of adoption by rule contained in 186.022(7).

Scope and Application of the SLDP

Scope

The SLDP is drafted broadly. It has been organized around "policy clusters"
established for the SCP by the Governor's office, and includes:

Policy direction to all levels of government, state (DCA, then DNR,
and other state agencies), as well as regional agencies (WMDs and
RPCs), but not local governments, which are rather "encouraged" to
consider the SLDP in their planning activities; and

Programmatic and rulemaking direction to state and regional
agencies (DEP, WMDs and RPCs, among others) in support or the
established policies.

Application 10

Use and application of the SLDP is varied, based on a number of statutory roles
assigned the SLDP.

1. Developments of Regional Impact, Chapter 380.

The SLDP is used in a number of contexts in the implementation of the
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Florida Quality Development
processes, as follows:

380.06(14)(a) -- Local government considering a development order
must consider whether development unreasonably interferes with
achievement of the objectives of the SLDP

380.06(12)(a)1 -- Regional Planning Council in making
recommendations to local government as to DRI development order
must consider proposed development's impacts on state or regional
resources identified in the SLDP

180.065(3)9b) and 380.07(3) -- provide that inconsistency with the
SLDP can be the basis for a DCA appeal of a development order in
situations where the local government is issuing development order
outside the DRI process.

CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 22
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM










380.061(3)(a)(7) -- In order to be eligible for designation as an FQD,
development must be undertaken consistently with the SLDP.

2. Growth Management Trust Fund, 186.911(3)-- In order to be eligible
for grants from the fund, all work performed with fund monies must be consistent
with the SLDP.

3. State Comprehensive Plan, 4 186.021(4) and 186.009(2)(n) -- Pursuant
to these sections, the Growth Management Portion of the State Comprehensive
Plan is "to draw upon" the work contained in the SLDP, and to provide for SLDP's
"integration" into the comprehensive planning structure of the State.

Broader current use of the SLDP among state agencies was not reflected in a brief
survey performed for the Sub-committee. 11 The RPCs did use the SLDP in the
preparation of their regional plan, and this use may have effected an indirect
consistency linkage between the SLDP and the local plans though the mechanism
of the regional plans. 12

Relationship/Duplication Between the SLDP, Other State-Level Pans, and
the Growth Management Portion of the SCP

There does not appear to be significant duplication among the state-level plans --
the SWUP, the State Land Development Plan (SLDP), and the FDOT Florida
Transportation Plan (FTP),

DCA did, however, in the development of the SLDP make a conscious effort to
conform the water-related policies in the SLDP with the similar policies contained
in the 1986 SWUP. Accordingly, relevant portions of the SLDP have been
conformed to SWUP policies, 13 an may thus be indirectly reflected in regional and
local comprehensive plans. 14

With the exception of the DCA efforts, there appears to be no relationship between
the development processes of the three state-level plans -- there is no formal or
informal review or comment procedure for the plans among the responsible
agencies. Consistency between the state-level plans and the State Comprehensive
Plan, required by Section 186.022, is discussed further below.

The level of duplication between the SLDP and the Growth Management Portion
(GMP) of the SCP is indeterminable at this time, given the current status of the
development of the GMP. The potential for duplication between the two
documents exists, however, given the statutory requirement that the SLDP be used
as a potential policy source for the GMP.







CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 23
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM










Existing Linkages


The existing linkages between the SLDP and other plans, or levels of government,
are as follows:

1. Horizontal -- SLDP To State Comprehensive Plan

The statutory "consistency" linkage between the SLDP contained in Section
186.022(3) is express, but unclear. See discussion above, "Status". The referenced
provision provides for the Governor's review of "agency strategic plans" for
consistency with the SCP which requires clarification.

2. Vertical -- SLDP and State Comprehensive Plan to District Water
Management District Plans

There is no current direct linkage between either the State Comprehensive Plan
or the SLDP, and the newly framed DWMPs.

3. Vertical -- SLDP to Local Comprehensive Plans.

There is no current direct linkage between the SLDP to Local Comprehensive
Plans.

There are potential indirect linkages between the current version of the SLDP and
local plans through the inclusion of SLDP policies in regional plans. 15

[MATERIALS RE FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO FOLLOW]



1 Comprehensive Review of Water Resources Policies, Planning and Programs in
Florida, Volume IV Executive Summary, James W. May and Susan Snaman, FSU, April 1986.
2 Local government representative panel, Tampa,

3 Bob Usherson, Dade County, Task Force meeting, Miami,

4 Henry Bittaker, DCA, Sub-comittee meeting, Tallahassee,

5 Angel Cardec Memo dated 5/11/94.

6 Angel Cardec Memo dated 5/11/94.

7 Pam McVeety, DEP, Sub-committee meeting, Tallahassee,

8 Angel Cardec Memo dated 5/11/94.

9 Henry Bittaker, DCA, "History of Florida's State Land Development Plan, Sub-comittee
materials, package dated 4/18/941, p.2.
10 Henry Bittaker, DCA, "Current Uses of the State Land Development Plan, Sub-comittee

CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 24
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 11:52 AM











materials, package dated 4/18/941, p.1-3.

11 Angel Cardec, Memo dated 6/16/94.

12 Id.

13 Henry Bittaker, DCA, Sub-committee meeting, Tallahassee,

14 Angel Cardec, Memo dated 6/16/94.

15 Id.


CHAIR'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO REVISION
DRAFT PRINTED: 7/11/94 12:28 PM


PAGE: 25




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