Title: Final Draft Report By The Environmental Efficiency Study Commission to the Legislature of Florida And The People of Florida: Summary of Recommendations by the EESC
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004522/00001
 Material Information
Title: Final Draft Report By The Environmental Efficiency Study Commission to the Legislature of Florida And The People of Florida: Summary of Recommendations by the EESC
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Environmental Efficiency Study Commission - Feb. 1, 1988
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Final Draft Report By The Environmental Efficiency Study Commission to the Legislature of Florida And The People of Florida: Summary of Recommendations by the EESC (JDV Box 91)
General Note: Box 23, Folder 1 ( Miscellaneous Water Papers, Studies, Reports, Newsletters, Booklets, Annual Reports, etc. - 1973 -1992 ), Item 25
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004522
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





FINAL DRAFT


A FINAL REPORT


BY




THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY STUDY COMMISSION


TO THE LEGISLATURE OF FLORIDA






AND THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA


February 1, 1988


F I A


DRAFT


F I A













FINAL DRAFT


TABLE OF CONTENTS



P A R T I, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................

MANAGING FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS ................
THE INTERLOCK OF FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES.......
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF OUR CHARGE AND OUR FINDINGS..........
AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ............
Developments of Regional Impact ...................
Department of Environmental Regulation............
Checks and Balances: A Final Comment ..............
To Summarize:...................................


P A R T I I, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............

FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT: THE GREATEST CHALLENGE FOR
FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS .....................
State Funding..................................
Water Management District Funding.................
Funding and Environmental Agency Personnel........
Enforcement. ....................................
WATER PROGRAMS TRANSFERRED TO THE WMD'S...............
Dredge and Fill in Wetlands .....................
Dredge and Fill on Sovereign Submerged Lands......
Non-Point Sources (Stormwater) ....................
THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) CHAPTER 380..
AGENCY PROGRAMS NEEDING STRENGTHENING ................
Department of Environmental Regulation ............
Point Source Discharge into Surface Waters...
Landfills................................
Drinking Water.............................
Water Reuse ................................
Septic Tanks...............................
Environmental Data Management and Research...
Department of Natural Resources ..................
Coastal Construction .......................
Oil and Gas................................
Well Construction..........................


FINAL DRAFT


FINAL








AREAS OF REASONABLY DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY...........
Fisheries...................................
Endangered Species..........................
Aquaculture...............................


PART II I,
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX


APPENDIX................................
I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF EESC, 1986-88......
II. EESC MEMBERS ........................
III. MEETINGS OF ESC, 1986-88..............
IV. CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS......














FINAL DRAFT


PART


EXECUTIVE


SUMMARY


Page 1


DRAFT


F IN AL D R F











FINAL DRAFT


MANAGING FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS




For almost two decades the people of Florida have told
their public officials that they want to protect the fragile and
beautiful environment of this state. And public officials have
responded, first with a body of ever-stronger environmental laws
and regulations, and most recently with a growth management
planning process that, when it is implemented, will be as
advanced as any in the nation.

Still the Florida growth phenomenon has continued to roll,
doubling our population every twenty years since the end of the
Civil War. Late in 1987 this growth made us the fourth largest
state in the nation. Only California, Texas and New York now
have more citizens than Florida. This continuing growth, and
the millions of tourists we host each year, are the bases of our
livelihood.

But why do they come here? They come here because Florida
is one of the most desirable places in this nation to live,
work and visit. In the day-to-day procession of our lives we
may take Florida for granted, but we should never forget that
week after week, millions of people who do not live here vote
for Florida, not merely with money, but with their even-more-
precious vacation time. And week after week thousands of those
former tourists uproot their old lives and move to Florida to
share the good life that we enjoy.

It has become a recent truism to say that we cannot stop
Florida's growth. But that is not so. There is one way to stop
it. We can trash our environment. We can jam up our freeways.
We can ruin our water supply, pollute our rivers, destroy our
beaches, slash our forests, destroy our fishery, pave our
wetlands.

We can make this an ugly, sordid, unseemly place to live.
We can destroy these many Floridas a piece at a time, from the


Page 2


I III I .


DRAFT


FINAL DRAFT










Keys to the Panhandle. Tourists can become disgusted. New
residents can slow their influx; the great growth boom can slow,
stop, and then, when work slows and jobs become scarce, there
can be an exodus. We can kill this goose, turn its golden egg
to lead, make this God-given paradise into a second-rate,
tawdry, unpleasant place that no one wants to visit.

So our only alternative is to manage our environment and
our growth. As we get bigger we have to get better. At the
very least we have to maintain a balance between man and the
natural systems that maintain us. That means hard, realistic
decisions on a daily basis by many people. Floridians have said
we don't want to see our environment ruined for a quick profit
that leaves the infrastructure bill to the taxpayer and the mess
to future generations. In other words, the old American pioneer
ethic of clearing the land, wearing out the soil and moving on
to the next place- of using up our land and water resources like
a consumable commodoty because there is so much of it and so few
of us, is long out of date in Florida.

The new American ethic that we Floridians are helping to
pioneer calls for a stewardship of our land and water resources.
The body of laws, the agencies we have created, the dedicated
personnel who act to protect the broad environmental interests
of all Floridians is a twenty-year investment in that
stewardship. For all of its problems, and certainly they are
there, this Commission would be greatly remiss if we did not
begin by saying that Florida's present environmental protection
system is a legacy that does credit to all who have helped to
create it. It is an asset that this Commission seeks to enhance
and make better.


Page 3












THE INTERLOCK OF FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES



Florida's system of government, like the state itself, is
complex, diffuse and sometimes insular. It has been said that
there is no Florida, just many Floridas. The system of
government that we have evolved reflects the turbulent history
and the variegated nature of our state.

Our system of environmental regulation is shaped by the
complex government of this complex state. At its best, it is a
multifaceted system of interlocking responses capable of dealing
directly and cooperatively with the complex problems of the
interlocked ecosystems that make up the many Floridas. At its
worst it is unresponsive, contradictory and incompetent.
Florida's regulation of the environment occurs at three levels:
statewide, local, and regional.

First, there is the statewide perspective, the point at
which we are all tied together. Like it or not, the pollution
of south Florida's water supply, or the ecological death of the
Keys, or Appalachicola Bay, are not just the problems of the
people who live in those areas. The degradation of any part of
Florida affects all of us. Such ruin directly affects our
taxes, our economy, and very quickly, our own quality of life,
regardless of which Florida we live in. And so there are
statewide agencies that look after those particular aspects of
each local environment that affect all of us.

There are four departments of state government and two
commissions directly concerned with regulation of the
environment. As might be expected, there are areas of overlap
between these different units of state government. The overall
goals and duties of each is quite broad, and each is designed to
protect and enhance a particular facet of state concern.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is headed by
Florida's unique elected collegial body, the governor and
cabinet. The governor and cabinet also comprise the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, and hold title to and
serve as the custodians of state lands. DNR guards the overall
state interest in the marine fisheries and beaches, regulating
mineral extraction, and protecting the sovereign lands of the
state.


Page 4










The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), under an
appointed secretary serving at the pleasure of the governor,
enforces the state's environmental protection laws that guard
the quality of the state's air, water and land. Duties include
groundwater protection, dredge and fill projects, sewage and
industrial plant discharges, storm water, air pollution sources,
hazardous wastes, landfills and wetlands protection. DER has
extensive permitting responsibilities and enforcement authority.

The Environmental Regulatory Commision (ERC) is a seven-
member commission appointed by the governor to exercise the
exclusive standard-setting authority of DER relating to air and
water quality, and noise and solid-waste management. The ERC
has no staff, but relies upon the technical staff of the DER and
is a part of that agency by statute.

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is headed by a
secretary serving at the pleasure of the governor. It is the
state's planning agency, bearing the overall responsibility to
see that the state's new growth management laws are implemented,
and watching the state's interest in appropriate land use
throughout the state. Duties include review of large
development plans, called Developments of Regional Impact (DRI),
review of local government planning documents, and regulation of
planning in special "Areas of Critical State Concern."

The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFWFC) is a five-
member constitutionally established commission appointed by the
governor. It exercises the regulatory and executive powers of
the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water
aquatic life.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)
is headed by a secretary serving at the pleasure of the
governor. Although environmental regulation can be said to have
begun as a public health issue in Florida in 1916 with the
creation of a Sanitary Engineering Branch concerned with sewage,
water and sanitation, the role of public health in this area has
been eclipsed in the reorganizations of the '70's and '80's.
Still, epidemiological concerns of the environment are a part of
the programs of HRS. Today environmental health personnel in
state and local health agencies monitor drinking water, septic
tanks and smaller sewage disposal programs.

From a constitutional viewpoint cities and counties are the
the next level of government. The officials of cities and
counties are locally elected, but cities and counties themselves
are creatures of the state, deriving all of their powers from


Page 5










the state constitution. Except where specifically chartered by
constitutional amendment, cities and counties may be enlarged,
shrunk, merged or abolished by the state legislature.

At the environmental level, cities and counties through
their powers of zoning, building permitting and land use
regulation, as well as their provision of such infrastructure
services as water, sewer, solid-waste disposal, roads, and
recreational facilities, are truly on the front-line of both
environmental protection and degradation. In some areas local
governments are so protective that their restrictions are
tougher than the minimal regulations of the state. At the other
end of the scale, some areas of the state are so poorly
protected by local people that their potential ruination
transcends the local interest and they are declared "Areas of
Critical State Concern." The local planning and development
decisions in such areas are reviewed by the state so as to
protect an endangered statewide interest in their areas.

In between the state and local levels are two relatively
new regional bodies that combine some of the features of both
state and local interests.

Water Management Districts (WMDs) are special multi-county
districts with limited ad valorem taxing authority, headed by
nine-member governing boards appointed by the governor. They
were originally begun as flood control districts in south
Florida where a vast and shallow inland sea of interlocking
wetlands and lakes overwhelmed the ability of counties to
regulate or control their water resource. Today the WMDs are
sculpted from the natural drainage and floodplain patterns of
the state, at times even splitting the artificial political
boundaries of counties.

The five WMDs are responsible for water management,
including construction and operation of flood control projects,
acquisition of water management lands, and various water
regulatory activities. They have been delegated the exclusive
authority for requiring permits for consumptive use of water and
directed to implement such programs. They also have statutory
authority to regulate management and storage of surface water
and well construction. Most districts also have been delegated
stormwater protection programs and regulation of activities in
wetlands. They have responsibility for surface water quality
improvement programs and have been delegated other water quality
programs. The governing boards are independent of each other,
but are under the general supervisory authority of the secretary


Page 6










of DER. They are subject to the standards set by the ERC, and
may be reversed by the governor and cabinet sitting as the Land
and Water Adjudicatory Commission.

The other regional bodies with environmental concerns, the
eleven Regional Planning Councils (RPCs), are quite different.
They are formed around groupings of nearby cities and contiguous
counties with overlapping interests and problems. Geography
makes them neighbors, neighbors whose assets and drawbacks often
spill over county lines, forcing them (sometimes reluctantly) to
become concerned with what goes on beyond their own local
borders.

Created by state law in each "comprehensive planning
district" of the state, and funded by the legislature, the RPCs
have members representing each local government as well as
representatives appointed by the governor. Duties include
preparation of comprehensive regional plans, review of local
government actions for conformance, review of DRIs, and special
long-range studies. As creatures of state government with a
preponderance of locally-elected officials on their boards, the
RPCs represent a statewide effort to encourage local officials
to look beyond their own borders at the opportunities for
concerted action, as well as the regional implications of what
each unit is doing to the other in the daily process of running
its own business.


Page 7
















A BRIEF SUMMARY OF OUR CHARGE AND OUR FINDINGS


In establishing the Environmental Efficiency Study
Commission, the Legislature expressed concern that the state's
environmental permitting process has become inefficient,
confusing and overly complex. In addressing this concern, the
Commission has been charged with the responsibility of
recommending appropriate steps to make it more efficient,
dependable and equitable.

The Commission entered into our study a year and a half ago
with a large background of experience and many different ideas.
We reviewed the current environmental laws and regulations. We
heard the testimony of everyone: environmentalists, developers,
agency personnel, and concerned citizens. We listened to the
complaints and suggestions, formed a consensus on the problems
and debated potential solutions.

This Commission has reached a consensus that although
complex, Florida's multi-level environmental regulation system
is basically sound, but it can be made to work more efficiently.

It should come as no surprise that the system has shown
weaknesses and inefficiencies. In the first place, it was not
designed as a system. Instead there was a rapid pile-up of new
environmental solutions as two decades of legislatures and
governors tried to deal with a growing awareness of what was at
stake for Florida. Many sound and comprehensive environmental
bills have been passed over the years. But the environmental
regulatory system itself has grown up on an ad-hoc basis as
problems have arisen and officials have sought to hammer out
solutions in the forge of legislative debate amidst a host of
competing interests.

Considering that we have, in effect, continued to build and
redesign the airplane as we fly it, it is a testament to the
many dedicated people in the agencies that the system works as
well as it does. And so, operating on a consensus basis we have
reached the following conclusion: In spite of its problems,


Page 8


r











Florida's environmental regulation system is "more operative
than broke." In other words there is far more to be saved and
preserved than to be changed. But changes ARE necessary.

As we concluded in our interim report of last year the
concerns expressed by the Legislature in the creation of the
Commission are justified. We have heard testimony that the
environmental process as currently maintained is inefficient,
sometimes inequitable, frequently duplicative, expensive to both
taxpayers and property owners, confusing and, at times,
punitive.

There are multiple jurisdictions performing the same
function, duplication in permitting and unnecessary delays.
These conditions are not protecting the environment, and in fact
may be contrary to the best interests of the environment. If
uncorrected over the years such a system can breed developer
hostility to all environmental laws. This kind of muddled
disorganization is unhealthy both for the environment and for
the long-term American spirit of business within the law.

Unless our regulatory system is improved, we are convinced
that the State's goal of protecting its environmental assets may
not be fully realized, that precious financial and human
resources may be inappropriately allocated, and the prosperity
of the State endangered.

The history of environmental regulation in Florida reveals
two recurring conditions that have created many of the
environmental management problems detailed in our reports.
Those conditions are continual expansion of programs and
consistent underfunding.

Through the '70's and '80's programs expanded as the
state's environmental concerns grew. New programs were
sometimes fitted badly into, and on top of, other programs.
Responsibilities would be switched and personnel juggled.
Organizational confusion and inefficiency were often the
understandable byproducts. Programs often grew rapidly because
legislative mandates were written so broadly that several
agencies legitimately wrote differing rules governing the same
area.

The second condition that has afflicted state environmental
agencies has been consistent underfunding. Not only have
agencies been understaffed because of budget restraints, but
salaries and career opportunities have been much lower than in


Page 9


I










the private sector. Recent legislatures have begun to upgrade
environmental funding, especially salaries, but there is still a
long way to go.

Lack of adequate funding leads directly to an inability to
attract and keep experienced people on the job. Experienced
people mean consistent, top-grade service. They act to preserve
the institutional memory of the agency and to train new people.
Most important, from the wellsprings of their experience and
wisdom, they can often prevent the duplication, and work out the
foolish glitches between agencies that form the basis of so many
of the problems that we have examined.

Every private business person knows that competent,
experienced personnel are the vital key to making any operation
go smoothly and to do what it is supposed to do intelligently
and efficiently. An old sage once said, "Good people can make a
bad system work. Incompetent people can't make anything work."

Consequently there was a feeling among some of the
commissioners that adequate funding and some stability might, in
themselves, do much to make the present environmental regulatory
system work smoothly. Certainly it was the consensus of all
commissioners that adopting the reorganizational changes we
recommend without adequate funding would insure that many of the
same problems would continue.

What kind of problems are we talking about? A few
examples:

- Public access to a county park is held up for 18 months
because two state agencies can't agree where to put the ferry
landing.

- An agency's planning staff signs off on a DRI, but the same
agency's permitting staff knows nothing about it, forcing
another "permitting DRI" all over again.

- A county can't stabilize a creek entrance because of a three-
way information deadlock between agencies (one state, two
federal). No one will process the application until they get a
report or a permit from the other.

- DNR's parks agency awards boating ramp grants in an area where
DNR's manatee protection program is trying to restrict boating.


Page 10










- Taxpayer's money is caught up in legal squabbles between
public agencies when a city sewage treatment permit is the
subject of a multi-million dollar dispute between DER and a WMD.

- A developer under a DRI is forced to set aside 20 acres of
land for gopher tortoises when, if the development were not a
DRI, no such requirement could have been made.

- One agency requires a high level of chlorine in sewage
treatment while another agency won't allow that much chlorine to
be discharged into a body of water.

- Six independent environmental agency reviews are required for
one project, with four reviews for hydrologic concerns alone.
When one agency requires minor changes, revised engineering
drawings must be resubmitted to all agencies which then review
and request more information.

The list could go on and on. Florida's environmental
permitting system may not be "broke," but it needs "fixing-up."


Page 11














AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS


After a year and a half of hearings, analysis and debate
we have reached consensus that there are some changes the
legislature should adopt to make the environmental permitting
system more rational, fair and efficient:


FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT

We cannot stress too strongly the need for both adequate
funding and full enforcement of environmental permitting
activities. Both the general public and the applicant will
benefit. Permitting activities can never be adequate where
staff turnover is a major problem. But there is more to
environmental regualtion than permitting. We currently have a
"front loaded" system where most of the attention is paid to
permitting, and little follow-up is devoted to compliance with
the permits.

It is the strong belief of this Commission that permitting
and enforcement should be supported by fees paid by the
applicant wherever practical.

We also recommend that adequate professional career ladders
for technical and other personnel be created in order to attract
and hold good people.


WATER PERMITTING.

The major problem area for duplication and conflicting
authority is surface water management. The confusion develops in
the many areas where authority for storm water, dredge & fill,
isolated wetlands, connected wetlands, surface water storage,
and WMD projects overlap.

After lengthy testimony and analysis, the Commission
reached an early consensus that all surface water permitting and
management should be in one agency: either in DER or the WMDs.
But which one? It is important to realize that there was much


Page 12


I~I -









debate within the Commission over which agency should handle it,
with some commissioners favoring one and some the other.

Finally at the December, 1987 meeting the argument that
proved conclusive was that Water Management Districts must have
control over the amount of water that goes into the flood
control system, and that this is not possible if DER has the
authority for MSSW and stormwater permitting. The Commission
then reached the consensus that except for point source
permitting, which should remain with DER, all other water
permitting activities should be consolidated in the WMDs.

Therefore the two major organizational changes that we
recommend to the legislature will serve to consolidate most water
permitting activity in the Water Management Districts.

The first recommendation is to transfer all Henderson
Wetlands Act, and other dredge-and-fill permitting authority now
under the Department of Environmental Regulation in Chapter 403
to the Water Management Districts under Chapter 373.

The second recommendation is that administration of the
sovereign submerged lands and aquatic preserve rules of the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund also be placed
under the WMDs with rulemaking, appeal rights and review
authority retained in the Governor and Cabinet.

In making these organizational shifts of authority from DER
to the WMDs, the commission also recognizes the need to make the
Water Management Districts financially capable of carrying out
their new responsibilities. This means an equalization of the
constitutional millage cap on WMD levies by a constitutional
amendment raising the constitutional millage cap for northwest
Florida to the one mill level of the other districts. It also
means general revenue funding should go with the program
transfer to the WMDs, and that authority to levy fees that will
cover the costs of processing and enforcement be granted to the
WMDs.

The state should not expect the WMDs to fund these new
permitting and enforcement actities through ad valorem taxes.


DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT

The Commission also took a long look at the Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) permitting system under chapter 380. As a


Page 13










tool to encourage developers to adopt broadscale environmental
planning practices into large developments, this is a system
that has broken down. Almost unanimously developers said they
would do anything that could legally be done to avoid the DRI
process.

The problem is not with the DRI concept, but with its
administration. Developers offered testimony that the DRI
process is a frustrating nightmare of numerous agencies with
conflicting goals and procedures. It is not uncommon for DRI
approval to take over a year and to cost the developer as much
as a million dollars.

With that problem in sight, the Commission has made several
recommendations for change that are intended to integrate the
agency permitting process into the D.R.I. review and to prevent
the D.R.I. review from overlapping on issues dealt with by the
permitting agencies. These changes, which were adopted by
consensus, deal with making the pre-application conference and
the conceptual review process more attractive, and to provide
incentives for a developer to utilize rather than avoid the DRI
process. Where the conceptual review process is utilized,
Regional Planning Councils would continue to be able to comment
on the regional implications of an agency's conceptual approval,
but would not be able to make conflicting recommendations or
findings in its report to local government.

Another recommendation designed to achieve equity between
DRI and non-DRI developments was adopted by a close vote. It
would prohibit local governments from placing conditions in a
development order that are not contained in the adopted local
comprehensive plan or local land development regulations, and
would further prohibit local governments from placing conditions
on a DRI development that could not be placed on a non-DRI
development.

The Commission also recommends that the Department of
Community Affairs be directed to revise the procedural rules for
DRI review and, in consultation with the appropriate agencies,
to revise the Application for Development Approval.


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

DER should retain authority over all point source
discharges, which includes industrial and domestic waste, as
well as hazardous waste, air quality and solid waste. By 1992


Page 14









the legislature should again examine the areas of water
permitting, evaluate how the WMDs have fared and whether any
further changes are proper to further consolidate all water
permitting. DER should retain all present authority for
drinking water programs. And we also recommend that all septic
tank permitting be placed under DER with authority to delegate
and contract back with local health departments or local
environmental agencies.

DER should truly become the state center for water data
management and research as presently mandated by statute.
Reliable and accurate data is crucial to competent standard
setting and decision making. There is a great deal of
information in the universities, the water management districts,
private reports and other state agencies that is currently not
being collected and made accessible. DER should also take the
lead in coordinating original water research. A vital key to
Florida's ability to produce and use the best water information
is a reliable source of recurring funds for water research.


CHECKS AND BALANCES: A FINAL COMMENT

There has been comment that keeping water permitting
authority splintered among several agencies has created a form
of checks and balances which would be eliminated by a
consolidation of permitting. In fact some have even offered
this rationale as a reason to oppose any change. We disagree.
This duplication is merely duplication. But if it were in fact
being used as a tool to check development, it would be nothing
more than a frustrating and expensive shell game that wasted
public money and resources as well as the money and time of the
private sector. Controlling development in this manner is
basically dishonest. It builds bad will for governmental
regulators and eventually results in higher costs for the
consumer and lessened protection for the environment.

True checks and balances lie in strong, clear laws and
regulations fairly administered by knowledgeable public
employees, It lies in complete public access to proceedings, and
in a strong appeals process.


TO SUMMARIZE:


This Commission could have recommended massive
reorganizations of environmental regulation. This was not our


Page 15









charge and we do not believe it is necessary. We began our work
with an examination of the full scope of Florida's environmental
regulation activities. We considered a proposal to totally
restructure the system. And although interesting, we decided to
bypass a global approach and agreed to address the specific
problems of the existing system.

It is also important to note that after extensive study
there were a number of areas where we have recommended only
funding support, modest change, or no change at all. Many of
the changes that we discussed at length, such as combining the
Marine Patrol and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission into
one big "critter agency" would not hold up under close
examination. The efficiencies would be small, the costs large,
and the problems created would be greater than the ones solved.

In summary, this Commission feels our specific
recommendations will accomplish five broad, general goals.
Those goals are to:

- Make the program assignments more rational and give the
assigned agencies the people and money to do the job.

- Strengthen the enforcement of environmental permitting.

- Initiate closer communication and cooperation between the
governmental agencies.

- Make better information more accessible to all parties.

- Clarify who does what by statute, thereby eliminating so much
delegation, and; where there is delegation, to make it by rule
rather than memoranda of understanding.

The next section of our report contains the body of our
specific analyses and recommendations. We offer this report to
the Legislature and to the People of Florida in the belief that
what we propose here will eliminate the worst problems in an
otherwise good system.


Page 16














FINAL DRAFT


PART


FINDINGS


AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Page 17


DRAFT


FINAL DRAFT











FINAL DRAFT


FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT:


THE GREATEST CHALLENGE FOR FLORIDA'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS




This Commission spent a great deal of time taking testimony
and analysing the financing of Florida's environmental
regulation and permitting activities. If it can be said that
there is one overall deficiency that most greatly affects the
quality of all environmental programs, inadequate funding is
that problem.

We cannot stress too strongly the need for both adequate
funding and full enforcement of environmental permitting
activities. Both the general public and the applicant will
benefit. Permitting activities can never be adequate where
staff turnover is a major problem. But there is more to
environmental regulation than permitting. We currently have a
"front loaded" system where most of the attention is paid to
permitting, and little follow-up is devoted to compliance with
the permits.



State Funding


Finding:

The Commission finds that not only have environmental
agencies been understaffed because of budget restraints, but
salaries and career opportunities have been much lower than in
the private sector. Recent legislatures have begun to upgrade
environmental funding, especially salaries, but there is still a
long way to go.

All of the Commission's recommendations to transfer
permitting duties to the WMDs are based upon continued adequate


Page 18


DRAFT


FINAL DRAFT









state funding, and no decrease in general revenue funding for
environmental regulation.


Recommendation:

This Commission recommends that a very high priority be
given to providing the agencies adequate resources,, personnel,
salary levels, and equipment.

New program assignments should be conditioned on adequate
funding, which should include general revenue. There is strong
Commission sentiment that support for the state's environmental
programs should not be shifted from the state general revenue
fund to local ad valorem taxes.

The Commission also recommends that if a local
government, WMD or a region chooses to be more restrictive than
the minimum state standard, they should accept the burden of
financial responsibility for their chosen path.



Water Management District Funding


Finding:

For WMDs to undertake a broader mission in environmental
management, companion issues arise concerning funding inequities
among the WMDs, particularly that of the Northwest Florida WMD
whose millage levy is constitutionally limited to 0.05.

The Commissioners also discussed whether the Governing
Board of the WMD should be allowed to determine Basin Board
existence, boundaries, and revenues including percentage
allocation of tax-generated revenues to Basin Boards

Finally it has been suggested that permits become self-
supporting through equitable application of permit and user fees
and that governmental applicants also bear a reasonable share of
the permit evaluation costs.


Recommendation:

The commission recommends an amendment to the
constitution to "equalize the constitutional limitation on ad


Page 19










valorem taxes by authorizing and limiting the same amount for
northwest Florida for water management purposes as exists for
the remainder of the state".

It is the strong belief of this Commission that
permitting and enforcement should be supported by fees paid by
the applicant wherever practical.




Funding and Environmental Agency Personnel


Findings:

This commission finds that there can be no efficient or
predictable level of quality in the environmental process until
personnel issues are addressed. The need for adequate funding
is essential. Funding needs include both the number of
personnel needed to do a job, and adequate compensation for
doing it.

Adequate and motivated staff is fundamental to the
efficient operation of the state environmental agencies. The
often technical process of regulating and enforcing
environmental affairs requires well trained managers, scientists
and administrative personnel.

The Commission has reviewed abundant testimony identifying
personnel problems, which present every evidence that the high
turnover rate, inadequate compensation of talented individuals
and a lack of career opportunity severely compromise the
efficiency of these agencies.

State personnel policies do not adequately address career
development for employees involved in the environmental process;
particularly those whose major field of emphasis is scientific
or technical.

The wage scale earned by both scientists and managers does
not reflect the value of the service the individual performs, as
determined by the open marketplace. As a consequence, staff
shortages and turnovers occur because valuable employees choose
to move into the private sector.

Tenures are so short in some areas that process time for a
permit or enforcement decision outlasts the period of


Page 20










employment. The result is that issues that could be effectively
handled by one scientist or manager are passed from employee to
new employee.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that the legislative
appropriations committees, acting with the appropriate agency
committees identify the costs necessary to fund enough well-paid
personnel to execute Florida's environmental regulation
programs, and through an appropriate blending of fees and
general revenue provide the necessary funding.



Enforcement


Finding:

Monitoring and enforcement are the weak links in Florida's
environmental protection process. The conditions placed on
permits, compliance schedules and mitigation are meaningless
without persistent monitoring and enforcement. These require
onsite inspections by trained and knowledgeable personnel.

Follow-up of permit conditions is often inadequate.
Because of insufficient personnel and limited time frames for
permit issuance, little effort is given to checking on projects
after and during construction to determine if permit conditions
are being followed. It would appear that many permit violations
are occurring with little agency enforcement. Enforcement and
monitoring are particularly critical when the reasons for permit
issuance are found in the permit conditions.

Throughout the state many unpermitted activities go
undetected. Although ongoing surveillance of jurisdictional
areas is necessary, the expense of such methods can be reduced
by educating citizens to report violations and developing
systems that ensure such reports are investigated.

Agency policies about fines are inconsistent. There are no
rules and few written agency policies that provide guidance to
agency personnel when applying fines. The Commission studied a
suggestion that administrative fines be given to DER and other
agencies, but rejected it. Administrative fines are a non-


Page 21










negotiated remedy which provide for a set fine per violation.
Presently, settlements can be negotiated by the legal staffs of
state agencies, but these staffs are small and expensive, and
the negotiation process is time consuming. The Attorney
General's office is developing a unit to train government
attorneys for environmental enforcement.

Agencies often require extensive monitoring by the
applicant, and then pay little attention or give an inconsistent
review of the data.


Recommendations:

The preservation of Florida's unique environment requires
that the state's environmental permitting laws be strictly
enforced. Where this means additional staffing of the agencies
charged with the responsibility to do so, such staffing should
be assured by appropriate state funding. The recommendations
for adequate compensation of personnel stated earlier under the
funding section bear repeating here in the enforcement section.
We recommend that environmental agency personnel be compensated
at sufficient levels to make public service attractive. The
drain of experienced and dedicated people to the private sector
must also be slowed by ensuring adequate salary and career paths
for qualified environmental professionals. The skilled insights
of qualified scientific and enforcement personnel also may be
retained by ensuring satisfactory career ladders that do not
force ambitious experts to abandon their expertise to pursue
advancement as administrators.

If fines are retained as a method of enforcement, rules
should be written and procedures established.


Page 22














WATER PROGRAMS TRANSFERRED TO THE WMDs


Dredge and Fill in Wetlands


Findings:

Testimony before the Commission reflected that the
permitting activities that affect wetlands have created the
greatest number of problems for permit applicants. DER, DNR,
WMDs, RPCs, ACOE and local government consider, permit or make
recommendations that impact wetlands use.

DER issues dredge and fill permits, while all except one
WMD issue surface water management permits and consider isolated
wetlands. RPCs issue recommendations for wetlands use in DRIs.
DNR considers impacts on vegetation and submerged grasses when
deciding to lease or allow the use of sovereign submerged lands,
and in doing so conducts its own biological assessment.

Three areas were identified that were considered
duplicative or conflicting: 1) jurisdiction, 2) standards for
approval and 3) mitigation requirements. Each agency has a
different jurisdiction, often requiring the establishment of a
different boundary line for the same project. The standards for
approving and denying permits appear to be different for each
agency, with little interagency coordination. The DER, WMDs,
and RPCs accept or require different mitigation proposals that
may conflict with each other or with a permitting requirement
of another agency. DER examines water quality impacts of
developments in "waters of the State", which includes their
associated wetlands. WMDs permit development impact on all
"waters in the State" including isolated wetlands, though their
primary concern is surface water management. RPCs consider
wetlands as one part of a large planning process that protects
natural resources. DNR regulates wetlands below the mean and
ordinary high water mark.


Recommendations:


Page 23


I I -.











The Commission recommends the transfer of dredge-and-fill
permitting authority now under the Department of Environmental
Regulation in Chapter 403 to the Water Management Districts
under Chapter 373 effective October 1, 1989. This statutory
change should be in a bill to become effective by July 1, 1988.

Policy conflicts may arise in attempting to consolidate the
diverse authorities of Henderson Wetlands Act and other dredge-
and-fill legislation. These policy issues may evolve around
standards for mitigation, grandfathering, cumulative impacts,
and determinations and may need to be reviewed and resolved by
the legislature since they are inherent in the programs. By
October 1, 1989, each WMD shall adopt a rule which consolidates
permitting criteria for wetlands protected under the two acts
for the purposes of dredging and filling.



Dredge and Fill on Sovereign Submerged Lands


Findings:

The state exercises a dual role--one is "regulatory," based
on jurisdictional lines, the other is "proprietary," based on
ownership of state owned uplands and sovereign submerged lands.
DER protects waters of the State and associated wetlands.
TIITF, through DNR, also consider impacts on wetland areas and
other natural resources when deciding whether to grant their
consent for the use of sovereign submerged lands. Both DER and
DNR field inspectors review proposed activities involving
sovereign submerged lands, particularly in Aquatic Preserves.
In some cases, DER has recommended approval of an activity and
DNR has recommended denial of a lease.

DNR can and has applied higher standards than DER's rules
require in interpreting its responsibility to protect the public
trust. This duplicative review and application of different
standards has led to serious misunderstandings and
dissatisfaction for permit applicants.

DNR can require an easement, dedication, lease, and/or
consent of use approval for sovereignty lands. As a part of its
regulation of sovereign submerged lands, DNR imposes specific
criteria for the construction of a residential single-family
dock, as well as docks that are part of marinas.


Page 24


I










Construction of a dock is permitted by DER as a dredge and
fill activity. DER requires reasonable assurance that water
quality standards will be met. Docks are exempted from DER
permit when smaller than a size thought to have a "de minimus"
impact.

News reports of failings in the marina permitting process
provide an example where two state agencies failed to
communicate. While preparing for an administrative hearing on a
permit challenge, DER staff learned about DNR's position that
the marina was a polluter that could force a new ban on oyster
harvesting. DNR has the power to close polluted shellfish-
producing waters in order to protect public health. DER had
granted the permit, but reverted to its original intent to deny.
The applicant had spent a tremendous amount of money and time.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that the TIITF continue to adopt
rules pertaining to submerged lands and aquatic preserves.
These rules should be administered by the WMDs. The decisions
of the WMDs pursuant to these rules should be final after a
certain time unless there is an appeal pursuant to s. 373.114,
F.S., or unless review is initiated by the TIITF pursuant to
rules adopted by the TIITF.



NON-POINT SOURCES (STORMWATER)


FINDINGS:

DER, WMDs and local governments have the statutory
authority to issue stormwater management permits. RPCs evaluate
stormwater systems that are part of a DRI. DER has delegated
stormwater permitting to four of the WMDs (excluding the
Northwest Florida WMD), but continues to require permits for
those stormwater systems that would require a dredge and fill
permit in waters of the state.

The Commission also discussed the adoption of minimum
statewide standards for non-point source programs, under which
the WMDs may set more stringent standards subject to review and
approval by the ERC. The Commission accepted the wisdom of


Page 25


I I










retaining the appeal processes of both Chapter 120 and s.
373.114, F.S.


RECOMMENDATIONS:

In an effort to resolve this duplication the Commission
proposes that original jurisdiction for non-point source
programs be placed in the WMDs effective October 1, 1989. This
statutory change would be in a bill to become effective by July
1, 1988. The Commission expects that within a year, by July 1,
1989, the WMDs working in conjunction with DER will take this
original authority and consolidate all non-point source programs
into one rule citing diverse authorities that will then be used
for the WMDs to implement the new responsibilities they will
assume October 1, 1989.


NOTE: The licensing of water well contractors was discussed
also, it was determined that this program should remain with the
WMDs.





THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI), CHAPTER 380



Findings:

In its preliminary report to the legislature in April,
1987, the Commission noted that there is redundancy in
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Review. Under the existing
law the local government and regional planning council review all
activities for which a developer must also obtain a permit from
a state agency or water management district. In order to
decrease redundancy, and to make the DRI process more efficient
and attractive to developers, the Commission developed
recommendations to integrate agency reviews with DRI reviews
through improvement to the conceptual agency review found in
Section 380.06(9), Florida Statutes.

The Commission has two objectives: (1) To better define
the relationship between permitting agencies, the Regional
Planning Council, and the local government in DRI review; and


Page 26


I I










(2) To require greater coordination between the Regional
Planning Council, the applicant, the local government, and all
agencies reviewing a DRI development, and; (3) to insure that
DRI developers are treated fairly in comparison to other
developers.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that all DRI reviews should begin
with a pre-application conference attended by representatives of
all affected agencies. The Regional Planning Council is charged
to coordinate this joint conference. The developer is given the
opportunity to withdraw from conceptual agency review by giving
written notice to the Regional Planning Council no later than 90
days after the pre-application conference. If the developer
chooses to continue with conceptual review, the Commission also
recommends at least one additional mandatory meeting of all
reviewing agencies between 45 and 60 days after the application
is filed.

The Commission recommends that conceptual review continue
to be a licensing action subject to Chapter 120. In order to
expedite conceptual review, the Commission recommends that the
90 day review specified in Section 120.60 (2) shall not be
delayed by a request for additional information. This
limitation will not handicap a reviewing agency because the
extent of conceptual agency review depends entirely upon the
amount of information provided by the developer. A review based
on scant information will have little or no value to the
developer, and could even result in denial.

In addition, the Commission considered the impact of a
conceptual agency approval on the Regional Planning Council and
the local government that issues the DRI development order. In
order to benefit developers who undergo conceptual review and to
reduce overlap and duplication in the review process, the
Commission recommends that a Regional Planning Council be
allowed to comment on the regional implications of the
conceptual approval but not be allowed to make conflicting
recommendations or findings in its report to the local
government. Similarly, the local government is directed to
consider the agency report on issues within the agency's
jurisdiction and to issue a development order consistent with
the conceptual agency approval or permit unless the development
order would conflict with the local government's adopted
comprehensive plan or land development regulations. To be


Page 27










entitled to these benefits, a developer must obtain a conceptual
approval as part of the coordinated review process.

The Commission considered and thoroughly debatedthe issue
of equity between DRI and non-DRI developments. The Commission
discussed the impact of stronger and more comprehensive local
government plans and land development regulations which apply to
all developments, and must now be reviewed and approved by the
State Land Planning Agency, and whether a local government
should be allowed to impose conditions on a DRI development,
based on Chapter 380, that the local government could not impose
on a similar non-DRI project. In a close vote, the Commission
recommended that limiting language be added to Chapter 380,
specifying that all development order conditions shall be based
upon the local government's adopted local comprehensive plan and
land development regulations. Once a local comprehensive plan
is found to be in compliance with the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of
1985, the local government may not impose development order
condition on a DRI development that could not be imposed on a
similar non-DRI development.

Finally, the Commission recommends that the Department of
Community Affairs be directed to revise the Application for
Development Approval and the procedural rules for DRI review
under guidelines designed to accomplish the following:

a) maximize coordination efforts between the DRI review
and permitting process.

b) facilitate the review of developments of overriding
state benefit such as areawide and downtown DRIs
and other developments as identified in the State
Comprehensive Plan. The criteria to identify such
developments shall be developed by the approved
agency in consultation with the applicable agencies.

c) designate types of development or areas suitable
for development in which modified information
required for DRI review shall apply.

d) update the types and level of information required
in the Application for Development Approval (ADA)
in order to eliminate unnecessary information
submittals. Representatives from all regional and
state agencies which participate in the DRI review
process shall attend all rule workshops and public


Page 28










hearings held pursuant to these rule revisions.


Page 29


I -













AGENCY PROGRAMS NEEDING STRENGTHENING


Department of Environmental Regulation



Point Source Discharge into Surface Waters


FINDINGS:

Although DER sets wasteload allocation for effluent
discharge into surface waters, this allocation process is also
reviewed by some WMDs in connection with their management of
surface water permits.

DER classifies surface waters by their most beneficial
present and future use. DER district offices issue a discharge
permit requiring use of the best technology and compliance with
water quality standards based the classification of the
receiving water body. A federal NPDES permit is issued upon
review for compliance and certification.

Local governments regulate the extent of pretreatment
required of industrial effluent prior to its discharge into
public systems.

While there is a general feeling that there should be a
single regulatory agency for water-related permit programs,
there is a split in the public reactions as to whether there
should be a transfer of water quality programs to the WMDs.
Even those who appear receptive to the idea of transferring
permit duties condition it upon a complete interim study, a
phased in approach and an increase in staff, as well as the
retention of the s. 373.114, F.S. appeal to the Governor and
Cabinet.


RECOMMENDATIONS:

Point source discharge programs should remain in the
Department of Environmental Regulation. By October 1, 1992 an


Page 30









interim study should be conducted to determine the extent and
efficacy, if any, of transferring additional water quality
programs to the WMDs.




Landfills


Findings:

DER considers surface and ground water quality and the
impact on wetlands, while the WMDs review surface water
management for flooding, thereby examining ground water quality
and wetlands degradation.

Recommendations:

Landfill programs should remain in the Department of
Environmental Regulation. By October 1, 1992 an interim study
should be conducted to determine the extent and efficacy, if
any, of transferring additional water quality programs to the
WMDs.




Drinking Water


Findings:


Public water systems draw principally from ground water and
are permitted by DER if they have at least 15 service
connections or regularly serve at least 25 persons daily at
least 60 days a year. DER certifies operators for public water
systems. DER has delegated to some counties the permitting of
non-community public water systems.

HRS regulates smaller systems with administration by county
or local health departments. The drinking water program may be
delegated to local pollution control programs as well as county
public health units.

Any well to be used for public purposes must also comply
with the DER rule which implements the Florida Safe Drinking


Page 31









Water Act. DER is also responsible for non-community systems.
DACS is responsible for monitoring pesticides residues in the
water in areas where targeted pesticides are in volume use.

In May 1987, the Auditor General's office conducted an
audit of the Safe Drinking Water Program and found its
administration to be inadequate. Problems included delayed
enforcement of violations, lack of standardized sampling
criteria, irregular engineering inspections, lack of
standardized, comprehensive chemical testing, non-integrated
data management systems between DER and HRS as well as
noncohesive budget and cost procedures.

In an effort to avoid communication and accountability
problems, the Auditor General recommended that HRS assume full
responsibility for the Safe Drinking Water Program. Drawbacks
in that recommendation include the need for HRS to hire
engineers to conduct/plan reviews and sanitary surveys as
environmental expertise would be lost. HRS will also need to
achieve eligibility to administer the United States
Environmental Protection Act Program grant.

In addition, the Auditor General suggested a division of
program responsibility by function between DER and HRS, as it
would increase accountability as responsibility would be more
clearly defined. The only disadvantage cited was the potential
for continued fragmentation.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that the responsibility for the
entire drinking water program be placed in DER, with the
authority to delegate to local health departments or local
environmental agencies as appropriate.



Water Reuse


Findings:

In its regulation of wastewater treatment, DER's concern
for water quality becomes a factor in choosing disposal
alternatives for treated effluent discharges. Presently, DER is
initiating a reuse policy for recovered water.


Page 32










WMDs usually only review the discharge of recovered water
during their review of related consumptive use permits.
Discharging water through deep well injection also requires a
WMD permit.


RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Commission recommends D.E.R. be required to consult
with the WMDs in the process of adopting a statewide reuse rule
that considers each district's individual needs. DER should
also consult with the appropriate district on each individual
reuse case.

In addition, the Commission recommends that the planning
process be strengthened, that wasteload allocation standards
continue to be set by DER, and that water reuse/supply decisions
after the water comes out of the pipe become the responsibility
of the WMDs.

Exclusive statutory authority for water reuse should
eventually be placed in the WMDs. This would be concurrent with
continuing studies and transfers of such other programs as point
and non-point discharge, which, if feasible, would transfer all
water quality programs to the WMDs by 1994.



Septic Tanks

Findings:

DER permits sewage disposal systems with a capacity greater
than 5000 gallons per day, while HRS permits onsite sewage
disposal systems with less capacity. Installation in wetlands
necessitates a mounded system for which a DER dredge and fill
permit is required. HRS issues its permits through local county
health units based primarily on health concerns.

An interagency variance board reviews denials of HRS
applications when requested.


Recommendations:


Page 33









The Commission recommends that the responsibility for the
entire septic tank program be placed in DER, with the authority
to delegate to local health departments or local pollution
programs as appropriate.




Environmental Data Management And Research


FINDINGS:

There is a need for more complete scientific information to
support environmental policy making. The Commission found that
there is a lack of shared information on environmental
permitting between the agencies. Permit decisions are often
made by one agency without the benefit of useful information
developed by other agencies. This creates an unnecessary
duplication of effort for agencies as well as for permit
applicants. Numerous databases exist within DER, DNR, WMDs
RPCs, the universities and the private sector that can be used
effectively if made available to all agencies.

The state is continually implementing new programs designed
to improve and/or restore the quality of natural systems.
Decisions are being made that involve significant expenditures
for these programs, sometimes on the basis of limited data and
the incomplete understanding of how these systems actually
function. No matter how well-meaning it may be, human
intervention in the workings of natural systems are ill-advised
if not based on an adequate knowledge of the impacts that will
result from the proposed intervention.

The final report of the Governor's Growth Management Data
Network Coordinating Council pointed out a lack of information
that is accurate, timely, and reliable. This inadequacy
hampers Florida's efforts to manage growth at the state,
regional, and local level. The Commission finds the
establishment of a statewide network of regional information
exchange programs to be an important environmental management
issue.

In addition to its duties under s. 373.026(2) which directs
DER to be the central repository for scientific and factual
information relating to water resources generated by local
governments, WMDs, and state agencies, DER is authorized to


Page 34









prescribe the format and ensure quality control for data
collected or submitted. One of the prime data needs identified
was an integrated geographic information system that would
include a statewide base map, and the adoption of spatial
standards- especially site locators, so that everyone is talking
about the same place, using the same geographic language.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that DER's statutory
responsibility for environmental data management and research be
made a reality. DER should be responsible for: marshalling the
state's many research resources in a manner designed to more
effectively aid the environmental decision-making process,
establishing, maintaining, and administering a state-wide
environmental resources data bank, and acting as a clearing
house for environmental information. A comprehensive research
program directed at issues of concern to the Legislature and the
principal environmental agencies would be a principal objective.
It is essential that this program be well funded from an
earmarked revenue source.


Page 35













Department of Natural Resources


Coastal Construction


Findings:

Construction of a permanent structure on a sandy beach
seaward of the coastal control line established by DNR requires
a DNR permit.

DNR makes a coastal engineering assessment to review a
project's structural integrity and the impact of the design and
siting on the beach-dune system. Construction seaward of the
control line is prohibited if erosion is expected landward
within 30 years. The Governor and Cabinet, as the
head of DNR, issue permits.

DER is required to assess water quality and biological
impacts of coastal construction as they affect State waters.
DNR generally uses DER's biological assessment, but a separate
study is made if the location is within one of
Florida's forty aquatic preserves.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends the retention of coastal
construction regulation in DNR. DNR will be bound by the
assessment of the WMD (if and when water management programs are
transferred to the WMDs as recommended) as such assessment
pertains to waters of the state.



Mining in Wetlands


Findings:

DNR requires a comprehensive reclamation plan for mining.
Because of the comprehensive nature of the DNR reclamation plan,


Page 36










review is given to the storage, management and consolidation of
waste products and mandated restoration of the terrain. Dredge
and fill permits are required from DER and surface water
management permits from a WMD. Large mines may also require
approval as a DRI.

This overlap of regulation in the wetlands involves less
than 5% of the phosphate land mined since 1975. DNR has the
authority to delegate regulation of the mines to local
governments, and intends to pursue a course of full delegation.

In an effort to eliminate overlap by DNR reclamation
requirements, SWFWMD has adopted rules which exempt phosphate
mines from the surface water management requirements provided
that they have a DNR approved reclamation program. This is in
effect a cooperative effort between DNR and SWFWMD and has no
jurisdictional effect.

DER's mitigation rule provides for the presumption that
approved DNR reclamation plans will be acceptable as mitigation
for waters addressed in those plans.


Recommendations:

The Commission recommends that the reclamation program
remain in DNR, but when mining occurs in wetlands DNR will be
bound by the WMD decision relating to activity in wetlands.



Oil and Gas


Findings:

A duplication of permitting for oil and gas drilling and
seismic activities occurs for wetlands areas and waters of the
State. Both DNR and DER require permits for the same activity.
though DNR does so as a part of the resource management role.

DNR regulatory authority covers all seismic and drilling
activity whether or not on sovereign lands and relates to the
management and location of nonrenewable resources.


Recommendations:


Page 37














AREAS OF REASONABLY DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY


Fisheries


Findings:

DNR controls saltwater fisheries, marine mammals, and
plants on state lands. The GFWFC controls fresh water fisheries
and game and non-game wildlife.

Marine and freshwater management practices differ according
to species needs, and reflect the conflicting fishermen's
interests as a constituency and user group.

The DNR seafood marketing program is totally funded by the
licensing of saltwater product producers and wholesale and
retail seafood dealers. The program's goal is to promote the
human consumption of little-used species and to promote products
of the seafood industry.

In 1976, the GFWFC issued a report by an independent
evaluation committee that is briefly summarized here. The
report said that Article IV, s. 9 provides adequate authority
and responsibility to the Commission. It was recommended that
the Commission be increased to seven members and that each have
knowledge and interest in wildlife management. It was further
suggested that the Commission should be given departmental
status as the Florida Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources.
A need for change at the divisional level of the Commission was
cited. Enforcement, it was said, should shift emphasis from
punitive to preventative enforcement; fish management should be
expanded to assume roles in non-game and endangered fish species
protection, aquatic weed control and marine resources research
and management; game management should be renamed and include
land acquisition and leasing effort responsibilities; finally,
the Division of Information and Education needed reorganization
with definite objectives, sufficient personnel and adequate
funding.


Page 39










The report also recommended recodification of its statutes
in an effort to remove conflicting and meaningless details and
to incorporate new legal rulings. It said that habitat
management, preservation and restoration were critical problems,
and all its divisions should share these responsibilities.

Finally, the GFWFC report cited a need to eliminate
duplication in law enforcement networks of the GFWFC and DNR, by
unifying functions and empowering them to one agency (GFWFC
renamed as the new Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources).
This agency would assume responsibility for research and
management of aquatic programs as well as aquatic weed control
which would be unified under its Division of Fishery Management.
Permitting conflicts with DNR, DER, DOT and the WMDs would be
coordinated.

This Commission initially liked that report. The entire
issue was discussed on many occasions, and at one time the
Commission proposed that the Marine Fisheries Commission, the
Marine Patrol and the Division of Marine Resources be
transferred from DNR to the GFWFC by statutory revision, without
altering GFWFC's constitutional status; and that the seafood
marketing program should be transferred from DNR to DACS.
However upon further reflection we found this approach to be
unworkable as we had envisioned it.


Recommendations:

The Commission was unable to find a method of merging the
duties of DNR and other agencies into the constitutionally
created GFWFC that did not in the end create more problems than
were solved. We therefore recommend that the programs we have
grouped under the broad heading "Fisheries" remain as presently
constituted.



Endangered Species


Findings:

DNR, GFWFC, RPCs and DACS each have a role in the
protection of endangered and threatened species. Each agency's
jurisdiction is delineated by species. DNR protects manatees
and five types of marine turtles, GFWFC protects all other


Page 40










animals while DACS is required to maintain a list of endangered
and threatened plants.

In 1975, the legislature passed the Native Flora of Florida
Statute, ss. 581.185-.186, F.S. to protect endangered plant
species, especially from commercial exploitation. The statute
further provided that DACS would serve as the enforcement agency
with assistance provided by DNR, GFWFC and DOT.

There has been public concern and suggestions that the
regulating authority under this statute be combined with
protecting endangered animals under one agency. It has further
been suggested that to provide complete protection of endangered
plants habitat protection has to be part of the effort.

There is some public concern about whether the endangered
plant program at DACS should be combined with protecting
endangered animals in one agency. DACS points out that it
should reamin responsible for detecting illegal commercial
handling of plants through nurseries.


Recommendations:

Again, as with "Fisheries," the Commission was unable to
find a justification for grouping endangered species into one
agency when two agencies administer the marine and fresh water
environments. A majority of the Commission felt that the
problems that were created by trying to forge one large "Critter
Agency" were greater than the problems such an agency would
solve.



Aquaculture


Findings:

DER regulates the water quality of dredged aquaculture
ponds and controls their wastewater discharge into waters of the
state. Discharge rules do not distinguish between biodegradable
wastes produced by aquaculture operations and chemical wastes
produced by other industries. DER rules do not address the
recycling of effluent as fertilizer in spray irrigation or for
the production of ornamental aquatic plants.


Page 41









In 1968 the governor and cabinet sitting as the TIITF
opened submerged lands for aquaculture leasing. The grant of a
submerged land lease cuts off public access to that area.
Leases can be for areas no larger than 10 acres.

GFWFC rules do not differentiate between a species as a
cultured, domesticated aquaculture crop and its existence as
native wildlife, or as an exotic species. GFWFC regulates the
filtration of discharge during the production of exotic species
to ensure that eggs do not escape from a closed production
system. DACS promotes the marketing of aquaculture crops,
whether as a food product or aquarium pets. However, DNR
promotes seafood marketing. DNR, GFWFC and Marine Fisheries
Commission prohibitions on the possession of certain threatened
species becomes inappropriate for controlled production. Such
prohibitions are useful in preventing protected species from
entering the market through the conduit of aquaculture.


Recommendations:

The Commission finds no compelling reason to consolidate
the differing agency control and regulations under one agency
merely because of aquaculture.

The Commission does recommend that DER explore rule changes
that recognize the differences between bio-degradable wastes and
industrial chemical waste where such differences are practically
detectable and would be of assistance to aquaculture. DER rules
should also address the recycling of aquacultre effluent as
fertilizer and other uses where practical.


Page 42
















FINAL DRAFT


PART


III


APPENDIX


Page 43


DRAFT


FINAL DRAFT















A BRIEF HISTORY OF EESC, 1986-88


Appointed equally by the Governor, the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
fifteen-member Environmental Efficiency Study Commission has
researched public opinion and measured this evidence against
their own experiences.

The Commission was appointed in late 1986 to study problems
perceived by the public in the operation and administration of
state environmental and related public health laws and rules.
The first enabling legislation Chapter 86-186, Laws of
Florida, provided for comment from members of the public and
directed six state agencies and all WMDs and RPCs to submit
reports that identified inefficiencies and duplication in
environmental program administration and that offered specific
recommendations for solutions to these problems.

The Commission researched public opinion by holding five
public meetings between December, 1986 and February, 1987 at
locations around the state. Unscheduled members of the public
as well as invited speakers representing well-known development
firms and environmental groups offered their comments. The
Commission received a great deal of documentation of testimony,
and several members made personal studies of operating programs.
In addition, the staff developed digests of agency reports, and
digested and categorized all written recommendations by topic.

After developing a consensus regarding problem areas, the
Commission produced an April, 1987 report to the Legislature
identifying duplication, with specific recommendations for
efficient enforcement and administration of environmental
policy. The report found that the problems within the study
mandate were so complex that they required further research and
analysis, and so requested that the Legislature extend its
existence for further study.

The extension granted by the Legislature continued the
Commission with its present membership until June 1, 1988.
Chapter 87-297, Laws of Florida, requires the Commission to


Page 44


APPENDIX I









propose legislation to implement their recommendations, to show
any required staff transfers on agency organizational charts and
to submit this report to the Legislature by the end of January,
1988. The scope of the Commission's inquiry was expanded to
include local government programs.

To organize their work, the members divided into
subcommittees, analyzed agency functions, and questioned agency
staff. Panel discussions were held in those instances where
multiple agency staff were involved in overlapping programs.

The Commission is a current example of a form of citizen
participation in government much used in Florida. The members
were chosen from diverse backgrounds in order to represent all
viewpoints and constituent interests on environmental policy.
This use of volunteer citizens inside government involves the
public in decision making and uses private sector expertise for
the benefit of the state. The Commission's goal is to produce
recommendations for public policy that address practical
problems while planning for future growth and change.

A Few Final Points:

Because the Legislature directed the Commission to examine
only state and regional administration programs, the overlap
with federal government programs was not considered at length.
However, the Commission was educated by public testimony that
federal mandates complicate all levels of permitting programs.

Environmental laws protect the environment by providing for
the issuance of permits to limit or place conditions on
activities that may degrade water, land, or air quality.
Planning for appropriate land use is accomplished by prospective
comprehensive plans and by the issuance of a development order
for those large projects which have a regional impact. Public
health laws considered in this study are those which
tangentially relate to the environment because of the impact of
the governed activity on environmental quality. These laws are
examined to determine if they efficiently implement the intent
of public policy.

This document is the result of more than a year of
productive dialogue in the free marketplace of ideas. It is
written in light of the reminders of history in which revision
of law was followed by unanticipated and unappreciated
consequences; with an awareness of the possibility that
reorganizational trauma might outweigh any benefit of


Page 45









restructuring for the sake of logical design. It is
respectfully submitted by appointed Florida citizens with years
of experience watching the lobbying process in which a new
vision can be sculpted by innumerable opinions.

The Commission meetings were open door, well noticed and
attended. Commissioners were always in hearing range of agency
personnel, local government representatives, environmentalists
and business interests. These recommendations were not made in
a vacuum but are the result of intensive study. One value of
the Commission's existence to the Legislature is this research
document. The best hope of the Commissioners is that their work
will inspire further labor on behalf of the Florida environment.


Page 46














EESC MEMBERS


Mr. L.M. Buddy Blain
Attorney, Blain & Cone
202 Madison Street
Tampa, Florida 33602
Business Phone 813/223-3888


Dr. Leslie G. Bromwell
Professional Engineer, Bromwell & Carrier, Inc.
202 Lake Miriam Drive
Lakeland, Florida 33803
Post Office Box 5467
Lakeland, Florida 33807
Business Phone 813/646-8591


Ms. Marilyn E. Crotty
Faculty and Administrator, Valencia Community College
190 South Orange Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32801
150 Spring Cove Trail
Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Business Phone 305/299-5000 Extension 3153
Suncom 339-3153


Dr. John M. DeGrove
Director, FAU-FIU Joint Center for
Environmental and Urban Problems
University Tower, Room 709
220 Southeast Second Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Business Phone 305/355-5255
Suncom 238-5255


Mr. Frank X. Friedmann
Attorney, Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay
1300 Gulf Life Drive, Suite 800


Page 47


APPENDIX II










Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Business Phone 904/398-3911


Mr. David Gluckman **
Attorney, Gluckman & Gluckman
Route 5, Box 3965
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Business Phone 904/421-0152


Mr. James L. Lafrenz
Professional Engineer, Lafrenz Engineering, Inc.
Bay Point Office Park
2605 Thomas Drive, Suite 105
Panama City, Florida 32402
Business Phone 904/234-6600


Mr. Jay Landers *
Attorney, Landers, Parsons & Uhlfelder
Barnett Bank Building
Suite 320
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Business Phone 904/681-0311


Ms. Susan R. Lubitz
Environmental Control Officer, Palm Beach County
901 Evernia Street
Room 210
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Business Phone 305/820-3136


Mr. Jack Maloy
Vice-President, Land/Environmental Planning: Duda & Sons
P.O. Box 257
1975 West State Road 426
Oviedo, Florida 32765
Business Phone 305/365-2111
Home Phone 305/365-9040


Mr. Frederick C. (Ted) Prior
Attorney/Governmental Liaison:
T. MacArthur Foundation


John D. and Catherine


Page 48









4176 Burns Road
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Business Phone 305/626-4800


Ms. Carol Rist
Vice President, Kendall Plastics
18014 Southwest 83 Court
Miami, Florida 33157
Business Phone 305/238-2864
Home Phone 305/255-5275


Mr. Theodore C. Taub
Attorney, Taub & Williams
100 South Ashley Drive
Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
Post Office Box 3430
Tampa, Florida 33601
Business Phone 813/228-8000


Dr. Warren (Bud) Viessman, Jr.
Chairman, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
217 Black Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Business Phone 904/392-0841
Suncom 622-0841


Representative Peter Rudy Wallace
Member, House of Representatives
Attorney, Greene & Mastry
251 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
P.O. Box 3022
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
Business Phone 813/823-2167
Suncom 552-7620


* Chair
** Vice-Chair

Appointed by:


Page 49












Senate President


Jay Landers
Susan Lubitz
Theodore Taub
L. M. Buddy Blain
Dr. John DeGrove


Marilyn Crotty
Frederick Prior
Carol Rist
Frank X. Friedmann
Jack Maloy


James Lafrenz
Dr. Leslie Bromwell
Hon. Peter Wallace
Dr. Warren Viessman
David Gluckman


Page 50


Governor


House Speaker















MEETINGS OF EESC, 1986-88


Date


Location


October 31, 1986

November 21, 1986

December 12, 1986

January 8, 1987

January 9, 1987

February 6-7, 1987



February 12-13, 1987



March 3, 1987


April 3, 1987


May 8, 1987

June 19, 1987

July 24, 1987


August 14-15, 1987


Tallahassee, Fl

Orlando, FL

Tampa, FL

Orlando, FL

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Jacksonville, FL



Panama City, FL



Tallahassee, FL


Tampa, FL


Orlando, FL

Miami, FL

Orlando, FL


Captiva, FL


Agenda


Organization

Commission role

Public Comment

Public Comment

Public Comment

Public Comment &
Sub-committee
discussion

Public Comment &
Sub-committee
discussion

Discussion of
Commission report

Relationship of
DER & DNR

Chapter 380

DER & WMD issues

Sub-committee
issues

Commission
Concept
Discussion


Page 51


r


APPENDIX III










September 11-12, 1987 Ponte Vedra, FL


October 8-9, 1987



November 3, 1987


November

December


20, 1987

10-11, 1987


January 7-8, 1988

February 01, 1988


Tampa, FL



Tampa, FL



West Palm Bch, FL

Tallahassee, FL



Tampa, FL

Tallahassee, FL


Discussion of
Non-Final
Recommendations

Discussion of
Preliminary
Recommendations

Discussion of
Preliminary
Recommendations

Public Testimony

Discussion of
Final
Recommendations

Review of Report

Final Review of
Report


Page 52















CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS


1965

1967

1970


1971

1972


1972

1972


1975

1975


1975

1977


1978

1980

1983

1984


1985

1985


Page 53


Beach and Shore Preservation Act 161.011

Florida Air & Water Pollution Control Act 403.011

Florida Water Pollution Control and
Sewage Treatment Plant Grant Act 403.1821

Environmental Protection Act of 1971 403.412

Environmental Land and Water Management
Act of 1972 380.012

Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 373.013

Florida State Comprehensive Planning
Act of 1972 186.001-(

Aquatic Preserves Act 258.35

Local Government Comprehensive Planning 163.316
and Land Development Act

Environmental Reorganization Act of 1975 403.801

Water Resources Restoration
and Preservation Act of 1977 403.0615

Coastal Management Act of 1978 380.20

Florida Regional Planning Council Act 186.501-'

Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983 376.30 et

Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection
Act of 1984 403.91

State Comprehensive Plan 187.101-

Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 161.52-58


-1832









)31



1-3211


513

seq.


201
I


APPENDIX IV












Underground Petroleum Environmental
Response Act of 1986

Environmental Efficiency Act of 1986


Chpt. 86-159

Chpt. 86-138,
86-186, 86-191


Related Sections


Salt Water Fisheries

Pesticides

Pollutant Discharge Prevention
and Removal


Chapter 370

Chapter 487


Chapter 376


Page 54


1986


1986


r







State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION


Interoffice Memorandum

For RouUtng To Ohw Than The Addrese
Lca:b _Loaon:___
T:o Location:

Prw: O:__



TO: Dale H. Twachtmann
Secretary

FROM: Barton L. Bibler, P.E.&
Water Management Liaison

DATE: February 2, 1988

SUBJECT: Environmental Efficiency Study Commission
Recommendations


Per discussion with Randy Armstrong and John Wehle, two
substantive changes were made to the Environmental Efficiency,
Study Commission (EESC) recommendations at their February 1, 1988
final meeting:

Water Reuse

Revised Recommendations: The DER should develop reuse
requirements for point sources and the WMDs should develop
requirements for agriculture and non-point sources.

Septic Tanks

Revised Recommendations: Keep the septic tank permitting
responsibility as it currently exists.

Although many clarifying revisions were also made, these two
items were the most significant changes. Enclosed is a copy of
the EESC's Final Draft Report, and an order form for the Final
Report which is now being prepared.

RECEIVED

BLB/cg FE"I i

Enclosure umWs MM


cc: February 8th Governor's Meeting Attendees








STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION


TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2400


BOB MARTINEZ
GOVERNOR
DALE TWACHTMANN
SECRETARY


Summary of Recommendations
by the EESC



Funding and Enforcement


1. Need for adequate funding and full enforcement of
environmental permitting activities. Staff turnover is a major
problem for the public and the applicant.

2. Permitting and enforcement should be supported by fees paid
by the applicant, wherever practical.

3. Adequate professional career ladders for technical and other
personnel should be created to attract and hold good people.


Water Permitting


1. Transfer all Henderson Wetlands Act. and other dredge & fill
permitting authority, now under DER in Chapter 403 to the WMD's
under Chapter 373.

2. Administration of the soveriegn submerged lands and aquatic
preserve rules of the TIITF should be placed under the WMD's,
with rulemaking, appeal rights and review authority retained in
the Governor and Cabinet.

3. Equalize the constitutional millage cap of the NWFWMD with
the 1 mill authority of the other WMD's.

4. General revenue funding should go with the programs
transferred to the WMD's as well as authority to levee fees to
cover the costs of processing and enforcement. The State should
not expect WMD's to fund the new permitting and enforcement
activities through ad valorem taxes.


Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life


- --i---cl-~e~i -r












DER


1. DER should retain authority over: point source discharge
(industrial, domestic, hazardous and solid waste and air quality).

2. By 1994, the legislature should again review whether further
changes in WMD responsibilities should be made.

3. The entire drinking water program should be placed in DER.

* 4. Septic tank permitting should continue as currently
structured.

5. Reuse rules for point sources should be established by DER.
Reuse rules for non-point sources should be established by WMD's.

6. DER should become the state center for water data management
and research.


Development of Regional Impact


1. Where the conceptual review process is utilized, Regional
Planning Councils would continue to be able to comment on the
regional implication of an agency's conceptual approval, but
would not be able to make conflicting recommendations or findings
in its report to local government.

2. Local governments should be prohibited from placing
conditions in a development order that are not contained in the
adopted local comprehensive plan or local land development
regulations or from placing conditions on a DRI that could not be
placed on a Non-DRi development.

3. DCA should revise the procedural rules for DRI review and
should revise the Application for Development Approval.


Reflects changes made at the Feb 1, 1987 EESC meeting


r










\. Col.Ct.JL3 4PaovT i CCk


I. C4VE 2aC Ai oPr Av i0.u~t rL5to5r. od. cch. 60ou'r
CauiD n1tWSrT Mon O OYu-'ma 5Jrsm R>$s 1t2E
woo LD o 4Vu 9 4t s RespoS mtut t .

JAM
I. PfTU.ArirsVS $stOu pAlt (eBZL PtnnMs rn t, C-oCessZFsx.

2. Deb-tAnouS Tb L.oCAtC (UTS .



OuiaAT-noJ.
'5tDrJbbtvO CTh6.
Z. WMD VArt

3g. D for. MC SoMG t/ ,C\1n OY1.SIh
4, Lt tvn U66e-i (of- DtEtfno iUr t t twiLU E lAnt. .. C-A636 OF
PfertfaRuNd.).

DtEA_- -t-butib 5 LEh- Q

UAN4f foANJ
1. MUr D i L.-. C.P.
DAV4> -RVWi
I. 1Its uw rS "to 'rtPLr-- -Rte Pet~rfmu Prtcs.S.

-IbUM curwMCMt
1. Ntmsb TTiMIDaln e PftU6trvart -- c MAN n^6
CTT4 tY TH r w 6 teur t ir24cuou
J. Mu* 7rr VsE FLeD-)(ft4L
.. ( E-EVAL-A-ou R Pa opet.o a.u,

JA-
(. lone t '5mtij66T*)r -nmjA4S$ wS( LOCAL 6a6 T.


I. LLVu's IM

6w/
E, U L tU W0/ Utk~uMolAN CLc-
e2.. Lo-L<. TV Srve PIeDPLs -- PC--az itm (ksou s aI Li .


-k 6tT capes OF Drt.,pr w-ztscSAnoLj.




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