Title: Water Resources Decision Making : Perception, Polarity, Personalities and Power
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004708/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Resources Decision Making : Perception, Polarity, Personalities and Power
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Institute of Science & Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Water Resources Decision Making : Perception, Polarity, Personalities and Power
General Note: Box 28, Folder 9 ( Water Resources Decision Making : Perception, Polarity, Personalities and Power - 1980 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004708
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

















WATER RESOURCES DECISION MAKING:
PERCEPTION, POLARITY,
PERSONALITIES AND POWER





















WATER RESOURCES DECISION MAKING:
PERCEPTION, POLARITY,
PERSONALITIES AND POWER





PHASE I PROGRESS REPORT





Submitted by


Edward A. Fernald, Ph.D.
Chairman, MAB 5-A
Directorate, Freshwater Resources


Ane D. Merriam, M.A., M.S.
Water Resources Project Director


Steve Paikowsky
Research Assistant


Sara Henry
Research Assistant










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


We wish to acknowledge a few of the many people who contributed to this
report. Research assistants Steve Paikowsky and Sara Henry provided highly
valuable technical and research skills to the project. Mr. Bill McCartney,
Executive Director of the Northwest Florida Water Management District provided
much needed advice and consultation on the development of the water survey and
several other aspects of the study. In addition, Chuck Littlejohn, Dan Fernandez,
George Griffith, Paul Parks, David Gluckman, Jake Varn, George Fisher, Vance
Kidder, Rich McWilliams, Dr. Donald J. Patton and Jack Merriam offered valuable
criticism of the survey during its evolution. Additionally, Buddy Blain's comments
and experience, coupled with Dr. John DeGrove's sagacity, rendered the survey
more comprehensive in scope.

The editing and process skills contributed by Hunter Barnett and Betsy
Purdum, and the graphic and cartographic assistance directed by Jim Anderson and
Frank Unger improved the quality and readability of the report substantially.
Furthermore, Dale Friedley's acute computing sense enabled sophisticated analy-
tical treatments on a very limited budget. Pat Jones provided endless hours of
digitizing and she and Mary Melton were chiefly responsible for the packaging and
transmittal of the surveys.

Additionally, the five water management districts, the eleven regional
planning councils, and the Department of Environmental Regulation provided
significant contributions through staff assistance, open public records and con-
structive criticism over the past six months.

Finally, we wish to acknowledge the many water managers and interested
industry and general public participants in the water survey who provided a
significant portion of information for this report.

This project was funded through the U.S. State Department Man and the
Biosphere program for six months duration.









TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . .. i

OVERVIEW . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION ......................... 2

METHODOLOGICAL PROCESS . . . . 7

DISCUSSION OF PHASE I METHODOLOGIES . . . 9

RESULTS . . . . . . . 19

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .. . . ... 60

SUMMARY........ .............. ...... 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 72

APPENDICES .... .. .. .. .... ..... .... ... 78

Information Matrix
Water Resources Survey and Transmittal Letter































OVERVIEW








OVERVIEW

In September 1980, the U.S. State Department contracted with us to develop a
water resources decision-making model which might be applicable to water
projects in third world countries.

By mutual agreement, it was decided that the study would be divided into two
phases, each for six-months duration. Phase I would be the information gathering
phase and beginning of the testing; Phase II would be the analytical and model
development phase.

Good decision making in complex resource issues is a function of the right kind and
degree of information within a critical time frame. Therefore, the first phase of
study, reflected in this report, focuses on three general informational methodolo-
gies:

Conceptual Systems Diagram

Information Matrix

Confidential Survey

Of the three methods above, the confidential survey was tested completely, and as
such offered the first opportunities for analytical work. The information gathered
by the survey comprises the Results chapter of this report and is the basis for the
Discussion, Conclusion and Summary sections.

The information matrix process is presented fully in this report and the application
is begun, with slightly more than one-third of the matrix filled in, and included in
the Appendix. In Phase II, the matrix will be completed, enabling analysis, critique
and recommendations.

The conceptual systems diagram is presented in the methods section and will
provide the basis for comparing water management strategies and techniques to be
developed in Phase II.

Phase II is expected to include:

Complete testing of the methodologies cited in Phase I

Analysis of information gathered by the Phase I methodologies

Synthesis of all information from Phases I and II, with summary models

Development of a generalized, step-by-step, decision-making process
for water resources management.

Phase II is anticipated to be completed by October 1, 1981.
































INTRODUCTION










WATER RESOURCES DECISION MAKING:
PERCEPTION, POLARITY, PERSONALITIES AND POWER


INTRODUCTION

Water managers in the West are incredulous when they hear of the need to better
manage and conserve water in Florida. The average 54 inches of rainfall each year
falling on Florida is almost 6 times the average in many states in the West. Yet in
October of 1980, Florida Governor Bob Graham warned that Florida has "played all
the tricks on Mother Nature we can get away with". At a meeting of statewide
water managers, Governor Graham noted that "we have already seen the 'water
war syndrome' in the Tampa Bay region, and we're beginning to see signs of it in
Charlotte Harbor, Brevard County, Destin-Fort Walton, and along the urban East
Coast."

Although Florida is recognized nationally for the model water resources legislation
(Chapter 373, Florida Statutes) in which Governor Graham played a major role
while in the Florida Senate, the Governor called for the need of a statewide water
policy, citing the following 6 elements critical to policy development: (1)

"It should protect 'natural' water management systems, particularly wetlands
and floodplains."

"It should clarify the statutory meaning of 'reasonable beneficial use', the
cornerstone of water management in Florida." (State water law specifies
that water management boards should consider the "reasonable beneficial
use" in handing out water use permits).

"It should require that permitted uses of water be limited to reasonable,
beneficial uses... "

"It should contain restrictions on flood hazard area development... "

"It should be required that beneficiaries pay for water management works
where appropriate."

"Finally, it should provide for the control and treatment of stormwater
runoff."

The Governor and then Secretary of The Department of Environmental Regulation
Jacob B. Varn, moved rapidly in the development of a statewide water policy, to be
adopted by current Secretary Victoria Tschinkel as a formal rule, thus providing
some legal strength to the policy. The draft rule for the statewide water policy
was presented in a public hearing on February 19, 1981 in Tallahassee, and formal
adoption by Secretary Tschiniel is expected to occur on March 27, 1981, just four
days prior to the opening of the 1981 Florida Legislative session.

While the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Governor's Office
tackle the new statewide water policy language, the newspapers continue to cite
water management problems daily. For instance, in November 1980, former
Secretary Varn was quoted as saying that South Florida's failure to safely dispose
of hazardous waste makes it only a matter of time before the chief source of









drinking water becomes contaminated. "If it makes it into the Biscayne Aquifer, I
don't think anybody has any idea what it's going to cost to clean. But we're going
to find out first hand down here sooner or later," Varn said while in the Miami
area.(2)

The Orlando Sentinnel in December 1980 published a full spread on water
management problems focused in the Central Florida area, but with reference to
the need for the kind of statewide water policy alluded to in Governor Graham's
October 1980 speech. (3)

In a recent issue of "Business and Economic Dimensions," (4) published by the
Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, Florida, the journal was devoted to 'managing Florida's water resources'.
Salient points include Professor S.F. Shih's overview to general water problems in
Florida.

Five characteristics of Florida's rainfall pattern which attribute to water manage-
ment problems include:

1) Storm events which dump substantial quantities of rain in a short period
of time. For example, in 1950 in Yankeetown, 39 inches of rainfall
were recorded during a 24-hour period.

2) Uneven distribution of rainfall within the year, wherein approximately
75% of the total annual rainfall occurs during the wet season (May
through October) and the remaining 25% in the dry season (November
through April), for most of the state.*

3) There are extreme deviations of rainfall on a yearly basis. For
example, 37 inches have been recorded in a 'dry year', and 109 inches
for a 'wet year'.

4) Spatial disturbance is recognized throughout Florida**. For example,
the normal annual rainfalls for Miami Beach and for the Miami airport
are 46 inches and 60 inches, respectively. Yet the distance between the
two sites is approximately 10 miles.

5) The trend of decreasing rainfall since 1960.* *

Thus, Shih asserts that the inputs, or quantity of water provided through rainfall
are not as predictable and reliable as we might expect or certainly prefer in order
to manage water throughout the state.




*The Northwestern part of the State frequently experiences two wet seasons.

**Some would say the differences in rainfall patterns between North and South
Florida could be the single most difficult factor in water management coordination
in the State.

***There are many researchers studying the earth's climate changes resulting
from human industrialization and urbanization. (5)













FIGURE 1(a). CLIMATE VARIABILITY DATA


J MM J SN J M

Apalachicola
JMMJS N







Normal Rainfall

Variability

by Month


rJMndo
J M M J S N


JTamp
JMMJ


J MM J SN
A AA U E O
N RY L P V


Source: Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center.


J M0
Key West
JMM J S N


U













FIGURE 1(b). CLIMATE VARIABILITY DATA


60 56


52 52


Mean Annual

Rainfall

Inches











Source: Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center.


oQ~
od













FIGURE 1(c). CLIMATE VARIABILITY DATA




13
12
11 10
9






8






Mean Winter

Rainfall
7
Inches







60



Source: Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center. o


I -












FIGURE 1(d). CLIMATE VARIABILITY DATA


--, -10







Mean Spring
Rainfall
Inches










Source: Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center.


8




































Mean

Rai

Inc











Source: Florida Resources an


FIGURE 1(e). CLIMATE VARIABILITY DATA






20
20






20

24
20




Summer 24

infall

ches
24 20
24
24

20


d Environmental Analysis Center.


o a 20
c3 16











FIGURE 1(f). CLIMATE VARIABILITY DATA


10 12


Mean Autumn

Rainfall

Inches


Source: Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center. 18
^o ^








Additionally, Shih comments that the flip side, or the output side of the equation,
water use has its share of problems and complications as well. Primarily, of the
four major consumptive water users, two are predictable and measureable, and two
are not. Self-supplied industry and thermoelectric power generation can be
estimated quite accurately, year after year. However, domestic water demand
varies due to the fact that it is not confined only to the permanent residents but
also includes tourists, whose number vary within a year, between years and by
location. The major user, agricultural water demand, perhaps presents the most
pressing problems in terms of predictability due to the fact that it varies with
season, crop types, location, and water management schemes throughout the state.

Furthermore, in the same journal, Professor John DeGrove provides an up to date
overview and historical account of water management in Florida, pointing out that
"while much has been accomplished, it is certainly true that substantial problems
do remain" regarding water management in Florida. Dr. DeGrove identifies two
broad areas that still need refining: (4)

(1) "A clearer and more effective link between the implementation of the
Water Resources Act and the Environmental Land and Water Manage-
ment Act;" and

(2) "A more effective and efficient melding of water quality and water
quantity responsibilities of DER is also needed, including a clearer
picture of the role that Water Management Districts will play with
regard to water quality as well as water quantity management."

Parenthetically, Dr. DeGrove adds two additional aspects:

(3) that in the implementation of water management there needs to be a
more simplified permitting process, (but he cites that the simplification
process has already begun); and

(4) that "the importance of the planning process of the regulation effort is
difficult to overestimate."

Thus, it is apparent that Florida's top water managers and commentators on water
management are as concerned about the future of the state's water resources as is
any drought ridden Western state. And what's more, Florida may be in a more
tenuous situation than the Westerners regarding water resources management,
because for so many years water was an over abundant commodity, such that
'water management' became equivalent to drainage. So the notion of increasing
supplies is a new one, whereas in traditionally water short states, it is a familiar
cornerstone in water management practices. Now it appears that the supply
problems of today are setting the stage for even more water problems in the very
near future, and the experts do not appear to agree as to when Florida will reach
an irreversible situation in its management of the precious resource, water.

Despite the fact that Florida is perceived to be a water rich subtropical peninsula,
the issues facing Florida's decision makers on water management continue to be
complex, and never ending. There are numerous accounts of Florida's water









program, but another look into how water is managed in Florida might readily focus
on the following areas:

which issues continue to be unresolved;

which new ones are appearing on the scene;

which issues are lacking technical information;

which ones need to incorporate social aspects;

where do the economic aspects fall short (i.e., when considering threats
to human lives, or in assessing damages to environmental natural
systems, etc.);

where do we need to focus new research attentions;

what is the cost of solving the persistently old and the new water
problems facing the state;

what kind of time do we have to achieve workable solutions within a
political framework; and

how do water managers in local, regional and statewide levels view
water problems in the state, and how do their perceptions compare with
the perceptions of industry representatives and generally concerned
citizens throughout the state.

In September 1980, the U.S. State Department Man and Biosphere program
provided us with the opportunity to add to the body of literature on Florida's water
program. As a result the purpose of the project is two-fold:

(1) To present a comprehensive overview or summary perspective of the
above 9 study items; and

(2) To put the analysis and review of water management into a broader
context, with the intention of developing a generalized process by
which to evaluate water management situations in other locations, and
where necessary provide a logical process for decision making to occur.

The ultimate interest of the Man and Biosphere program is to develop a decision
making process which may be used across the country and in developing countries,
for water management purposes. Therefore, since Florida represents a model
legislative program for water management in the nation, it provides an excellent
example from which to begin the larger search for a generalized, comprehensive
logical process for assessing decisions regarding water management. Additionally,
we are hopeful that in reviewing Florida's program we might provide a new
perspective or some new information helpful to Florida's water managers and
decision makers.































METHODOLOGICAL PROCESS








METHODOLOGICAL PROCESS


The study of water management decision making is divided into two separate
phases. The phases are distinct in scope and design, but the results of Phase I feed
directly into Phase I. This report constitutes the work of Phase I. The two phases
of work are discussed below.

Phase I: Project Assessment

This phase focuses on the key issues, goals and objectives of the water
resources decision makers in the state. It provides an inventory of the
individual and institutional objectives, the levels of understanding of the
major factors affecting those objectives including data assessments. At best,
this phase presents the various positions regarding water management in the
state, and begins the task of determining which issues enjoy agreement, and
which offer conflicts. This first Phase brings together the many variables,
and begins the organization of those variables into a comprehensive matrix,
ultimately to feed into a decision making model.

Phase I: Project Evaluation and Model Development

This Phase is the more analytical phase, and puts together the information
gathered in Phase I into simplified and generalized flow diagrams, relating
the various decision makers with one another and each to the resources being
managed. The anticipated end-product would be several generalized models
of operation with associated costs and benefits for each. In this Phase the
research recommendations would be presented, for maximum efficiency in
decision making, balanced by equity considerations.



The general procedural steps to be performed in the overall research plan of study
includes:

Phase I

1. Conceptualization:

Development of a conceptual model of the natural and social subsystems of
the overall water management system of Florida.

2. Information Gathering:

Development and application of a logical progression of information gather-
ing regarding the major components of the natural and social subsystems of
the water management system in Florida.









3. Analysis:

Analytical treatment and objective evaluation of the information provided in
step 2 above, in order to characterize the following:

a. Which aspects of water management decision making are running
smoothly and orderly.

b. Where conflicts occur between and among the various decision making,
consuming, and management sectors of the Florida water system.


Phase II

4. Conflict Resolution:

Development of one or more conflict resolution models) for resolving the
above noted (3.b.) conflict areas.

5. Generalized Decision Making Process for Water Management Systems

Development of a generalized decision-making process (or processes) to be
comprised of the following two major components.

a. Generalized study and analysis process (i.e., Conceptualizing, Informa-
tion Gathering and Analysis)

b. Generalized conflict resolution modelss.

The first three tasks listed above will constitute the scope of this report, or Phase I
of the overall study plan. Phase II will be undertaken after the funding agency and
others are able to respond to the initial work contained in this report. Therefore,
the first three methodological steps will be presented and discussed in the next
section, and implementation of these procedures will be reported in later sections
of this report.






























DISCUSSION OF PHASE I METHODOLOGIES








DISCUSSION OF PHASE I METHODOLOGIES


1. Conceptualization:

Perhaps the first step in studying a complex resource issue such as water
management is to conceptualize or visualize the general process of water flowing
into and, water flowing out of Florida, as well as what is done with the water
while in Florida.

Figure 2 provides a general diagram of the major flows of water in the state, and
how water flows cause other flows to occur. A distinction is made between the
physical components (such as surface waters, ground waters and natural systems,
which receive rainfall first) and the human components, characteristically consum-
ing the water. This distinction is provided for two reasons:

(1) to clearly point out where work is done by the natural systems and
where work is done by the human systems in the state, respecting that
the two systems are not separated, in fact, but in many cases are
separated perceptionally; and

(2) to demonstrate where water management decision making is currently
taking place.

In the Flow line labeled #1, the process is clearly a physical one, and is not as
easily tampered with by human decision making directly. However, there has been
some considerable body of literature recently devoted to the indirect effects of
human activities on the world weather cycles. For example, the "heat island"
affects of over urbanized areas remiss of water pervious surfaces, filtering and
transporting systems are causing greater water supply losses due to increased
evaporation, and thus adding to the high humidity problems common to high rainfall
areas. In the broader picture, it would be obvious that some decision making needs
to exercised in the way we build our cities, considering the adverse affects that
might result in changes to the weather cycles.

However, this report focuses more on the second and third flow lines which link the
human social systems of man with the water holding and storing systems of nature.
The flow line marked #2 is clearly a water resources decision making one,
regardless as to whether it is done actively or passively. This second flow line is
the major interest of this study, and while this overview diagram presents it in a
very simplified manner, the components of this process are far from simple.

The flow line labeled #3 is added for emphasis, to show how closely water and
money are linked in the state. It is perhaps unnecessary to go into any detail in this
day and age of economic concerns as to why the economic aspects are singled out
for display purposes. Perhaps this process is an even stronger, more influential one
in water resources decision making than is process #2.

Flow lines #3, #4, and #5 are added to show some of the "costs" or repercussions of
certain water management decisions. These flows highlight the processes that are
directly related to water management in the state, but which may be hidden to
most reviewers, or masked from obvious accounting.




FIGURE 2. CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCE SYSTEM.


Physical Components and
Natural Freshwater Uses.
PRODUCTION


#1


Social Components and Human Daily Freshwater Uses.
CONSUMPTION


Thermo-
electric


=21%


Domestic = 19%


SIndustry


= 14%


#3


Losses to
the Natural
Subsystems


Losses and
Inefficient
Uses by the
Human Subsystems


Losses, Poor
Investments
and Inflation


KEY


O


= Outside Sources


S= Flow or Process

- = Grouping of Similar Functions


* = Water Resources Decision Making


D


= Interactions


= Losses, Inefficiencies









Inherent in the flow diagram, however, is an understanding that water resource
management involves a complex, ever-changing set of man/land/water relation-
ships. What may not be apparent from looking at Figure 1 is that water
management problems can arise because of either a breakdown in or a lack of
communication among the various participants in the often numerous steps leading
toward decision making (flow line #2). For example, scientists may not weigh
highly the political and social repercussions of management options which may be
justified when viewed solely from their scientific perspective. Likewise, public
officials often have difficulty in understanding the symbiotic relationships among
land and water uses and the other resources they ultimately manage.

The public decision maker plays a critical role in water management, for his or her
decisions result in the use of our environment in either a socially responsible or
exploitative manner. What may not be apparent in those decisions is the price of
choosing one path or option over another. Additionally, many decisions are made
without the benefit of the thinking and perspectives of other water users, other
water managers, or the general public at large.

2. Information Gathering

In order to gather information on water management in a logical, unbiased manner,
an information matrix is described below and is used in this report. The matrix
provides a checklist approach to categorizing information and materials already on
hand, while also pointing out which categories are lacking information.

The matrix is comprised of seven major categories or topical headings making up
the horizontal axis and five levels of investigation making up the vertical axis.
Each axis is discussed below, beginning with the horizontal axis.

-a. Horizontal Axis

(1) Individual Objectives. Water management objectives of various
individuals in the state, certainly including the key decision
makers in the major water use sectors in Florida, (agriculture,
industry, thermoelectric power generation, and the general public)
need to be listed in an inventory manner. Recognition of the
diverse water management objectives of various segments of
society would be one of the first steps in the development of a
water management plan, and should provide the beginning basis
for a study such as this one.

Additionally, identification of individual objectives provides ne-
cessary information in the development of conflict resolution
techniques. It should be noted that no problems are solved in this
initial element, but it does provide a starting point from which to
begin.


(2) Institutional Objectives. This set of objectives may or may not be
reflected in item #1 above. First, not all individuals concerned
with water are members of an institution that directly affects
water management decisions. Second, not all individuals agree
with the objectives set forth by the institution for which they
work. Third, this element would generally encompass the water








management plans for future water uses and activities that
hopefully would be broader in scope than a single individual set of
objectives. Ideally the institutional objectives would be esta-
blished considering several competing individual needs and objec-
tives.

The reason more than one institution's objectives would be inven-
toried is that we do not have one single agency responsible for
all the water management aspects in the state. Florida's Water
Resources Act of 1972 provides a better framework than most
states, but there are still different agency perspectives and
objectives to be considered in decision making.


(3) Data Assessments. This element focuses on the complex, but
fundamental aspects of the data available about the resource, in
this case water. It includes an inventory of the kind of data,
citing of the scale, manner of collection and the way the data is
handled. Once the data aspects are lined up with the individual
and institutional objectives cited above, it becomes obvious as to
which issues or objectives are lacking in data. In addition, after
the other elements are filled in, the researcher can refer back to
this element during the analytical phase of the study and deter-
mine some research and data needs, categorizing them with
priorities, urgencies, budgetary restraints, and where the data
should be housed and managed.

Since the overall emphasis of the matrix is on information
gathering and categorizing, the data element is a major feature of
study, and is one where there is constant updating, and cross
referencing, later on during the analytical work.

In addition, this element has the greatest likelihood of bias and
subjective work, due to the fact that the data may come from
various disciplines (such as law, engineering, biology, geography,
planning, chemistry, physics, etc.), and in many forms (such as
computerized modelling, colored or coded maps, mathematical
equations, laws, administrative policies, etc.). Due to the fami-
liarilty of the analyst and other more subjective aspects of the
analyst, there could very easily be some biases in this element.
Therefore, it is important to let others review this element
frequently.


(4) Water Laws, Policies, Regulations and Other Cultural Considera-
tions. In many states this is where a review of water management
begins and ends. Certainly there are those who would consider
Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to clearly state the individual and
institutional objectives for water managers in the state, to
provide the data needs and scope for water management deci-
sions, and finally to provide the policy framework for implemen-
tation. However, if this were the case, then the deluge of water
problem type newspaper headlines would not be upon us.









There are two ways to use the information in this element during
the analytical phase of the study. First to match it up with the
individual and institutional objectives, and note where there are
conflicts or commissions. Secondly, to search for data to substan-
tiate the assertions made in the legal framework or cultural
concerns.

In elements 1 and 2 (individual and institutional objectives) a set
of operational goals is reflected. Element 3 provides the
parameters of study and investigation into any of the stated
objectives. Then in element 4 the formal laws, policies and
regulations are identified and evalutated in terms of their positive
and negative contribution towards the achievement of the water
objectives. As will be discussed at length in the section on the
vertical axis, the various levels of government, and the different
types of laws, rules, ordinances, and business practices scattered
throughout the state, make this element a very complicated, but
again, fundamental one, indeed.


(5) Policy Influences and Tools. This element differs from #4 above,
in that element 4 deals with formalized laws, policies, regula-
tions, and formalized mores. However, this element considers
influences, trends and tools which affect the stated goals and
objectives of elements 1 and 2. The analyst needs to consider
physical and cultural trends, such as a predicted drought or a
change in population growth, as well as planning strategies that
have potential or have been used successfully elsewhere.

This element could also include some personality and political
influences, as well. For example, if a key decision maker is
friendly with an influential public official, there is a greater
likelihood of formalizing some mutually acceptable management
strategies.

Additionally, various planning strategies would be included in this
element, thereby providing information necessary in the analyti-
cal phase of the research.

(6) Water Use Changes. This element would provide an inventory of
the various water use options and tie them into the individual and
institutional objectives set forth in the first two elements. The
pros and cons of each methodology would be cited, and expected
tradeoffs would be established up front.

This element would function as an objective assessment and pre-
testing ground for management strategies prior to final decision
making. It would point out which options are well established and
which ones still need further refining before implementation. It
would also alert decision makers as to whether the option is slated
for a short term emergency type solution or a longer, more lasting
one.









The type of options to be included in this element is almost
limitless. It could include new legislation, new water conserving
practices, new ways of communicating between water users and
managers, or even different ways data would be handled and
shared among consumers and managers.

Once this element is filled in, the analyst may use any number of
evaluation techniques for comparing the resource changes and
predicting the resultant impacts of that change. Several types of
anayltical procedures should be demonstrated, again to lessen the
burden of the analysts' prescribed biases.

(7) Implementation. This element is where all the single objectives
are brought together and treated as a functioning whole. Upon
analysis, it is this element where the conflicts become clear, and
the necessary steps for implementation all feed back into the
other elements, providing a refining mechanism for the entire
matrix.

This element is not meant to be a stopping point for water
management decision makers, but should in fact provide a spring
board for future considerations and ultimately, decisions.

b. Vertical Axis

The seven topical areas described along the horizontal axis of the
information gathering system are combined with the following spacial
elements comprising the vertical axis to form the resultant matrix.

The horizontal axis describes the type of information to be gathered in
the study, whereas the vertical axis describes the sources from which
the information would be gathered, at least initially.

The categories of interest for this study, in the vertical plane are the
following:

(1) Local Aspects

County Engineer

County Planning function

County Administrators

County and City Commissions

General Public Interest Groups

Environmental Groups

Industry and Commerce








(2) Regional Aspects

Water Management Districts

Regional Planning Councils

Regional Industry such as power development and port authorities

Regional public interest groups

(3) State Aspects

State governmental agencies involved in water management deci-
sions, such as Department of Environmental Regulation, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture, etc.

Statewide Public Interest groups

Statewide Industry representatives, such as Electric Power Coor-
dinating Group, The Fishermans Association, etc.

(4) Multi-state Programs

The Appalachicola is the most notable consideration in this
category.

(5) Federal Aspects

The many federal programs affecting water management are
generally reflected in the state programs somewhere, but they
need to be integrated into the whole picture including PL 92-500,
NEPA, CZM, etc.

Additionally nationally recognized public interest coalitions need
to be included, as well as national industrial interests pertinent to
the study.

From each of the above five levels of government, industry and the
general public data will be compiled using the topical headings from the
horizontal axis, with data categorized separately, where possible, with
respect to surface water and ground water systems. A flow diagram
depicting the relationships and order of the information matrix is shown
in Figure 3.

c. Information Extraction Methods

The following techniques will be used to acquire information for the
matrix:

(1) Water resources decision making, confidential, "mailed out", sur-
vey.

(2) Letters, telephone calls, special visits and interviews with repre-
sentatives of the groups listed in the vertical axis.





FIGURE 3. INFORMATION MATRIX TO BE USED IN WATER RESOURCES DECISION MAKING.


Individual Institutional
Objectives Objectives


Data
Assessments


Laws,
Policies


Policy
Influences
and Tools


Water Use
Changes


Implementation


FEDERAL
* Government
* General
Public
Industry
STATE
Government
General
Public
* Industry
REGIONAL
* Government
* General
Public
Industry

LOCAL
Government
General
Public
Industry


4 4


iKH









(3) Literature and library reviews (governmental, institutional and
academic)

(4) Discussions with knowledgable experts who have participated in
water resources decision making and are high level advisors; or
who have published formally or informally on the subject of water
management in Florida.

(5) Attendance at major water management seminars, workshops,
public hearings and conferences.

(6) Other sources of information that may become available in our
search for the above sources.


3. Analysis

The analytical treatments to be used in evaluating the information contained in the
information matrix may be summarized by the following:

a. Organizational analysis, by pairing up objectives provided in the first
two elements with information received in the latter elements.

b. Standard statistical analysis testing for variances, degrees of compati-
bility and significant differences both within and between the various
levels of sources, and sectors of the state.

Phase I focuses on organizational analysis and information extraction for the first
three horizontal cells of the information matrix: individual objectives, institutional
objectives and data assessments of the local, regional and statewide vertical
components.

Since the water resources survey is featured as a major technique in gathering
information, this phase also focuses on statistical analysis of the survey results.
Standard statistical treatments for analysis of variances are performed.

In the second Phase of the study, the following analytical treatments will be added
to the above two:

c. Flow charts showing processes which follow a logical pathway without
measureable disruptions or conflicts.

d. Flow charts showing conflicts both at the horizontal element level, and
at the various spacial levels of the vertical axis.

In addition, there will be a summary section, highlighting the most interesting or
noticeable aspects of the study, in both Phase I and Phase II reports.








Upon completion of Phase I, there would be two directions from which to proceed:

1. Directly go to the Generalized Model stage in Phase II; or

2. Test the process in another situation with clearly different variables for
reassurance that the first three steps provide as clear a process possible
before moving into the more generalized scope.
































RESULTS









RESULTS


The main sources of information in filling out the information matrix came from
the following:

Water resources decision maker survey;

Public documents from Industry, Government and Environmental groups
in the state;

Personal communication with the various recognized leaders in water
management in the state;

Scientific and resource management technical and popular literature.

By far, the most applicable information was gathered by the survey. Thus the body
of the results section will focus on the results of the survey. A copy of the survey
and the transmittal letter may be found in the Appendix. The survey results are
presented in this section in question order, by sectors, and then by levels as
follows:

A comparison of responses by government, the general public and
industry.

A comparison of the combined responses of government, the general
public and industry broken down into statewide, regional and local
levels.

The implications of the survey results are presented in the Discussion and
Conclusions section of the report. Additionally the Summary section presents the
highlights of the survey, focusing on the areas of extreme compatibility and the
areas of conflict.

In addition to the the survey results presented here, the Appendix contains the data
gathered in the literature and public document search, as well as personal
communication.

WATER RESOURCES DECISION MAKER SURVEY RESULTS

The survey was sent out to the following groups or individuals:

Government:

Statewide: Department of Environmental Regulation
Department of Natural Resources
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
State Auditor General
Governor's Office
State Legislature
Governor's Resource Management Task Force









Regional: Water Management Districts
Water Management District Board of Directors
Regional Planning Councils

Local: To every County Engineer
To every County Planning Director, or equivalent
West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority

General Public

State, Regional and Local:

Environmental Groups:

Audubon Society
Sierra Club
Florida Wildlife Federation
Florida Defenders of the Environment
Izaak Walton League
Florida Conservation Foundation
Suwanee Coalition
Southeastern Fisheries Association
Nature Conservancy
Florida Trail Association
Kissimmee River Coalition
Florida League of Anglers
League of Women Voters
Florida Conservation Council
Florida Forestry Association
Collier County Conservancy

Other Groups:

Members of the academic community, and researchers in
institutions in the state with experience in water resource
management.


Industry

State: Florida Home Builders Association
Florida Engineering Society
Florida Water Users Association
Electric Power Coordinating Group
Florida Municipal Power Agency
Florida Rural Electric Coop Association
Florida Sugar Cane
Florida Citrus Industry
Phosphate Industry
Organized fishermen of Florida
Florida Chamber of Commerce


__









Regional: Port Authorities
Gulf Power Co.
Florida Power Corp.
Florida Power and Light
General Development Inc.
Offshore Power Systems
Tampa Electric Co.


Local: Bechwith Electric Co.
New Smyrna Beach Commission

For each survey sent, there was a cover letter explaining the reason for the survey
and the larger implications of using Florida as an example for the M.A.B. program.
The surveys were sent to the head of the organization with instructions to pass
them out to the people who would normally be involved in water resources decision
making, thus leaving the final selections of participants with the head decision
maker in each case. This was done to:

1) Help eliminate bias on the part of the research team;

2) To better represent the decision making process from the chief decision
maker's perspective.

The only problem with giving the agency and group heads the ultimate
responsibility in distributing the surveys was that some agencies passed out all of
the surveys sent to them, and others passed out only a few. Some agencies
returned unused surveys; others did not. But that reflected the level of input from
staff and management of that organization, which improves the survey process.
However, it makes it difficult to get an exact percent return rate, since the
surveys are confidential Based on the number of surveys sent out (500), there was
a return rate of 35% or 177 surveys. However, on inspection of the levels of
returns, the fact that only 280 groups received surveys, and with knowledge of how
many participants requested copies of the surveys, it appears that the survey
return rate may be as high as 60%. Regardless, the rate of return was good, and
with most surveys only experiencing a rate of 10%, this one was considered
successful indeed.

Each question is presented below in two main parts. The first part displays the
summary of the answers broken down by sectors: Government, General Public, and
Industry. The second part displays summary answers broken down by levels: State,
Regional, Local. Therefore, the first part combines all the state, regional and
local responses of government, the general public, and industry into the three broad
categories.









Survey Responses for Government, General Public, and Industry Participants


1. Given the following resource areas, which do you consider to be the MOST
significant area of natural resource management in Florida today? Rank in
descending order, with 1 as the most important. (If you feel that several of
the resources are of equal importance, then a number may be used more than
once.)

ANSWERS:

Total Government General Public Industry

1. Water 1. Water 1. Water 1. Water
2. Wetlands 2. Wetlands 2. Wetlands 2. Energy
3. Energy 3. Energy 3. Energy 3. Air; Beaches
4. Beaches 4. Beaches 4. Air 4. Wetlands
5. Air 5. Air; Forests 5. Beaches 5. Forests
6. Forest 6. Wildlife 6. Forests 6. Wildlife
7. Wildlife 7. Wildlife


2. Please rank in order (with number 1 representing the greatest) the sources of
water pollution in your area. A number may be used more than once.

ANSWERS:

Total Government General Public Industry

1. NPD 1. NPD 1. NPD 1. MPSD
2. MPSD 2. MPSD 2. MPSD 2. IPSD
3. IPSD 3. ST 3. IPSD 3. NPD
4. ST 4. IPSD 4. ST 4. ST
5. SLF 5. SLF 5. SLF 5. SLF
6. LIS 6. LIS 6. LIS 6. LIS

KEY:
NPD = Non-point discharge
MPSD = Municipal point-source discharge
IPSD = Industrial point-source discharge
LIS = Leachate from industrial storage sites
SLF = Sanitary Landfills
ST = Septic Tanks








3. Do you feel that water quality and water quantity should be separated with
respect to:

ANSWERS:


Total


Programs

No = 64%

Regulations


No = 60%


Government



No = 66%



No = 63%


General Public



No = 68%



No = 58%


Industry


Yes = 56%



No and Yes
= 50% each


Organizational Responsibility


No = 74%

Funding

No = 64%


No = 80%



No = 63%


No = 66%



No = 71%


No = 58%


No and Yes
= 50%


4. Which of the
management?


following best represents your viewpoint with respect to water


ANSWERS:


Government

B = 55%
A= 19%
D= 14%
C=6%
F = 5%
E = 1%


General Public

B = 68%
D= 13%
A= 11%
C=5%
E = 1.5%
F = 1.5%


Strong centralized state control of water management
Strong regional control with state oversight
Strong regional control without state oversight
County control with state or regional oversight
County control without state or regional oversight
Other (please specify)


Total


B = 56%
A = 19%
D = 13%
C=5%
F = 4%
E = 1%


KEY:
A=
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =


Industry

B = 44%
A = 39%
D= 11%
F =6%








5. Do you agree with the statement: "The water should be taken to the
people--not the people to the water?"

ANSWERS:


Total


A = 28%
D = 20%
C= 19%
B = 18%
E = 16%


Disagrees = 46%
Agrees = 36%


Government

C = 26%
A= 22%
B = 21%
D= 16%
E = 15%


Disagrees = 43%
Agrees = 31%


General Public

A = 41%
D = 20%
C= 15%
B = 13%
E = 11%

Disagrees = 54%
Agrees = 31%


Industry

D = 39%
E = 33%
B = 17%
A= 11%


Agrees = 72%
Disagrees = 28%


Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mildly agree
Strongly agree


6. Please list three (3) goals concerning
the most important for Florida.


water management that you consider to be


ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order of most frequent first.*


Government


General Public


ENV
WS


ENV
WS


WQ
ENER
GWP
POLHLTH
AD

EC
POLIT
GROW
QWM
WTRANS
STRUC
REC


GWP
WQ
AD
POLIT
POLHLTH;
GROW
QWM
STRU
EC; WTRANS
REC


ENV
WS


ENER
WQ
AD
GROW
GWP; POLHLTH


8. EC; POLIT
9. QWM
10. WTRANS; STRU


GROW; POLIT
GWP; ENV;
POLHLTH
AD
WQ
EC
WS
ENER; QWM;
WTRANS


*Key on next page.


KEY:
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =


Total


Industry









KEY:

AD = Administrative and Regulatory Aspects
a. Permitting programs (existing)
b. Interagency coordination/cooperation
c. Long-range problems v. short-term management
d. Public input to daily agency decision making

EC = Economic aspects and Concerns
a. Traditional
b. Natural resources

ENER = Energy Concerns
a. Power plant siting
b. Traditional energy resource exploration
c. Alternative energy resource development

ENV = Environmental Protection Concerns
a. Protection laws; more protection policies and regulations
b. Research/education
c. Conservation: wetlands, floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, natural
systems

GROW = Growth Pressures and Growth Management Planning
a. Development pressures
b. Increasing population
c. Growth focusing in certain areas
d. The need for comprehensive land use planning/zoning and a growth
management plan

POLHLTH = Health Aspects of Pollution

POLIT = Political Type Decision Making
a. The need for fairer decisions
b. The need for "good" decisions instead of "political" ones
c. Resolution of the centralized vs. decentralized decision making without
"turf" struggling

QWM = The need for a quality, integrated program of water management
a. State water use plan
b. Enhancement of existing programs

STRU = Structural Management

WQ = Water quality

WS = Water supply
a. Existing mechanisms and practices
b. Recycling and recharge activities

WTRANS = Water transfers









7. Please list three (3) goals concerning water
your organization considers to be the most important
refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order of most frequent first.


management that
for Florida. (Please


Government


General Public


1. ENV

2. ENER


1. ENV

2. GWP


POLIT
WS
WQ
EC
AD; GWP
POLHLTH
GROW
QWM
WTRANS
REC
STRU


WS
GROW
WQ
POLHLTH
QWM
AD; POLIT
EC
WTRANS
STRU
REC


1. ENV

2. WQ; ENER;
POLIT
3. WS
4. EC; AD
5. POLHLTH
6. GWP
7. REC
8. QWM
9. WTRANS; GROW
10. STRU


1. GROW; ENV; POLIT;
ENER
2. POLHLTH


GWP
WS
EC; AD; WQ


8. Rank the following water uses according to your priority, with number 1 represent-
ing the highest priority. (If you feel that several of the items are of equal
importance, then a number may be used more than once.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order of most frequent first.


Government


PS
NS
RU
IRRIG
ISS
REC
TP


General Public


PS
NS
RU
IRRIG
REC
ISS
TP


Industry


PS
RU
IRRIG
ISS
TP
REC
NS


Public supply
Rural use (includes domestic use and livestock)
Industrial self-supplied
Irrigation
Thermoelectric power
Recreation
Natural systems/environmental quality


Total


Industry


Total


PS
NS
IRRIG
ISS
REC
TP


KEY:
PS
RU
ISS
IRRIG
TP
REC
NS









9. What is the main public water supply in your living area?


ANSWERS:


Government


General Public


deep aquifer
shallow aquifer
lakes
rivers


5. impoundments

6. shallow and deep
aquifers
7. lakes & rivers;
don't know;
lakes, rivers
and impoundments


deep aquifer
shallow aquifer
impoundments
rivers


5. lakes

6. shallow and deep
aquifers
7. lakes & rivers

8. don't know


deep aquifer
shallow aquifer
lakes
rivers


5. shallow and deep
aquifers
6. impoundments

7. lakes & rivers;
don't know
8. lakes and
impoundments
9. lakes, rivers and
impoundments


1. deep aquifer
2. lakes
3. shallow aquifer
4. rivers;
don't know


10. Who is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th
for water management for your area?


and 7th influential authority in deciding goals


ANSWERS: The answers are presented in order of most frequent responses first.


Government


WMD
ST
LEGIS
CO
FED
CITY


General Public

1. WMD
2. ST
3. CO
4. CITY
5. LEGIS
6. FED


City management
County management
Water management district
State DER/DNR
State legislation
Federal agencies


Total


Industry


Total


WMD
ST
CO
LEGIS
FED
CITY


Industry


WMD
ST
LEGIS
CO
FED
CITY


KEY:
CITY
CO
WMD
ST
LEGIS
FED









11. Has federal 208 water quality planning made a significant contribution to water
management in your area?

ANSWERS:


Total


Government


No = 54%
Yes = 24%
Don't know = 22%


12. Has your area
and 1980)


No = 56%
Don't know = 22%
Yes = 21%


General Public

No = 48%
Yes = 29%
Don't know = 23%


Industry


No= 56%
Yes = 22%
Don't know = 22%


encountered a water supply shortage in the last two (2) years? (1979


ANSWERS:


Government

No = 70%
Yes = 30%


General Public


No = 68%
Yes = 32%


Industry

No= 78%
Yes = 22%


13. Which of the following would best describe your water supply situation?

ANSWERS:


Total


Government


1. AD = 43%
2. OQP = 28%
3. CACT = 16%
4. OPP = 7%

5. AD & OPP = 2%
CACT & AD = 2%


6. NP = 1%
OTH = 1%


1. AD = 51%
2. NP = 26%
3. CACT = 13%
4. OQP = 3%
OTH = 3%
5. OPP = 2%



6. AD & OPP = 1%
CACT &AD= 1%


General Public

1. AD = 38%
2. CACT = 23%
3. NP = 20%
4. OQP = 13%


Industry


1. AD = 44%
2. NP = 33%
3. CACT = 17%
4. OQP = 6%


5. OPP = 2%
OTH = 2%
AD & OPP = 2%
CACT & AD = 2%


Crisis at certain times
Adequate supply of water
No problems at any time
Only a pricing problem
Only a quality problem
Other


most of the time


Total


No = 70%
Yes = 30%


KEY:
CACT
AD
NP
OPP
OQP
OTH









14. Does your area have an adopted Emergency Water Supply Plan?

ANSWERS:


Government


Don't know = 45%
No = 39%
Yes = 16%


No = 43%
Don't know = 36%
Yes = 21%


General Public

Don't know = 90%
No = 5%
Yes = 5%


Industry


Don't know 78%
Yes = 17%
No = 5%


15. Do you feel that there are conflicts involving land use and water management: (a)
in your area; or (b) in the state?

ANSWERS:

(a)


Government


Yes = 87%
No = 10%
Don't know = 3%


Yes = 87%
No = 12%
Don't know = 1%


General Public

Yes = 90%
No = 5%
Don't know = 5%


Industry


Yes = 78%
No = 17%
Don't know = 5%


Government


Yes = 90%
No = 7%
Don't know = 3%


Yes = 90%
No = 7%
Don't know = 3%


General Public

Yes = 93%
No = 3%
Don't know = 3%


Industry


Yes = 83%

Don't know = 17%


Total


Total


Total









16. If you answered yes to Question No. 15 (a or b), please briefly describe those
conflicts and how they should be resolved. (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed with the most frequent first.

(a) Conflicts


Total


1. GROW


ENV
ENER
AD
GWP
POLIT
EC

POLHLTH
WS
WQ
WTRANS
QWM
STRU


Government

1. GROW


2. ENV
3. AD
4. GWP
5. WS; ENER
6. EC
7. POLIT;
POLHLTH
8. WQ; QWM;
WTRANS


General Public


1. GROW


ENV
POLIT
WS; AD
GWP
POLHLTH
EC; WQ

WTRANS
STRU; QWM


Industry


1. AD; GWP
POLIT; ENER;
POLHLTH
2. GROW
3. EC


(b) Resolutions


Total


Government


1. WQ


1. ENV


2. ENV
3. EC
4. ENER
5. GROW
6. STRU
7. WTRANS
8. AD
9. QWM
10. POLIT;
POLHLTH
11. GWP
12. WS


GROW
AD
QWM
ENER; POLIT
GWP
STRU
WS; WTRANS
POLHLTH


General Public

1. GROW;
POLHLTH
2. WQ
3. POLIT
4. AD; QWM
5. EC
6. GWP
7. WS


Industry


1. AD; GROW;
ENV
2. QWM
3. POLIT









17. Please rank the following freshwater-related RECREATIONAL uses in order of
importance in your area. Number 1 shows the highest priority. A number may be
used more than once.

ANSWERS:


Government


Scuba diving or snorkling
Swimming
Fishing
Boating, sailing, canoeing
Water skiing
Nature hiking (fish and wildlife
Hunting (waterfowl)


General Public

1. F
2. B
3. SW
4. WS
5. SD; NH; HU


habitat observations and appreciation)


18. The following are functions of water management agencies. Please give this your
serious concern and professional judgment and then rank in order of importance.
This being a difficult question, you may use a number more than once, with 1 being
the most important.

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.*


Government


General Public


WQP
WRP
PWS
WCU
WP; SWM
FC
FWH; HI
AR/I
WC
WPLUG
REC
AWC
PD; NAV


WRP
WQP
PWS
WCU
SWM
WP
FC
HI
FWH; AR/I
WC
WPLUG
REC
AWC
PD
NAV


*Key on next page.


Total


KEY:
SD
SW
F
B
WS
NH
HU


Industry


F;B
SW
WS
HU
SD; NH


Total


Industry


WQP
WPR
PWS
WP
WCU
SWM
FWH
HI
FC
AR/I
WC
WPLUG
REC
AWC
PD
NAV


PWS
WQP
FC
WRP
WCU
SWM
WP; HI
FWH
AR/I
NAV
REC
PD
WC
AWC
WPLUG








KEY:


FC = Flood control
WCU = Regulating water consumption and use
PWS = Public water supply
WRP = Water resource planning
PD = Power development
WQP = Water quality protection
WP = Wetlands protection
FWH = Fish and wildlife habitat
SWM = Surface water management
WC = Well construction
WPLUG = Well plugging
HI = Hydrological investigations
NAV = Navigation
AR/I = Regulation of artificial recharge/injection
AWC = Aquatic weed control
REC = Recreation


19. Do you agree with the statement: "He who benefits, pays."? Or, in other words,
the individuals who receive the benefits from water management activities should
be the ones to pay for them.

ANSWERS:


Total


Government


Yes = 64%
Not totally = 29%
No = 7%


Yes = 66%
Not totally = 31%
No = 3%


General Public

Yes = 67%
Not totally = 23%
No = 10%


Industry


Yes = 44%
Not totally = 39%
No = 17%


20. Briefly describe your concerns, if any, on: (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.

(a) the energy impacts of water management


Total


Government


1. EC


1. EC


2. ENV; WTRANS 2.

3. ENER 3.
4. AD 4.
5. WS; GROW; GWP; 5.
POLHLTH; STRU;6.
QWM 7.
6. WQ 8,
7. POLIT


ENV

ENER; AD
WS; WTRANS
QWM
WQ
STRU
GROW;GW


General Public

1. EC; ENER


2. GROW; ENV;
WTRANS; STRU
3. GWP
4. WS; POLHLTH
5. WQ
6. POLIT


Industry


1. EC; AD;
POLHLTH;
WTRANS;
ENER









(b) the water impacts of energy development and management


Government


General Public


1. EC; REC


WS
ENV
GWP; ENER
WQ
GROW
AD
QWM
POLHLTH
POLIT


1. WS


1. EC; AD; ENV;
REC


ENER
WQ; ENV
GROW
AD
POLIT; QWM


ENER
WS; GWP
POLHLTH
GROW; WQ
POLIT


1. WS; EC;
GROW;GWP;
ENER; QWM


21. (a) Do you feel that water may be a "limiting" factor to growth?

Total

Yes = 88%
No = 12%


22. Briefly, what criteria would you consider in determining a "reasonable and
beneficial use" of groundwater? (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: Responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.


Government


1. WS


EC; ENV
WQ
POLIT
GWP
AD
WTRANS
POLHLTH
QWM
GROW
ENER
REC


1. WS


ENV
WQ
EC
AD
GWP; QWM
POLIT; ENER
POLHLTH
GROW
REC
WTRANS


General Public

1. WS; WTRANS


WQ
ENV
POLHLTH
POLIT
EC
GROW
AD
GWP


Industry


1. WS; GROW;
GWP;
POLHLTH
2. EC
3. ENV
4. WQ


Total


Industry


Total


2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.









23. How well do you think the permitting system works?


ANSWERS:


Government


General Public


Water Quality

1. MW = 62%
2. VW = 13%
3. NAA = 12%
4. NOP = 5%
NVW = 5%
5. MO = 3%


MW = 69%
NAA = 11%
VW = 9%
NOP = 5%
NVW = 3%
MO = 3%


1. MW = 61%
2. NAA = 15%
3. NVW = 9%
4. NOP = 7%
5. VW = 4%


1. MW = 71%
2. NAA = 18%
3. NOP = 11%


Government


General Public


Water Quantity


MW = 65%
NAA = 11%
VW = 10%

NOP = 7%
NVW = 4%
MO = 3%


MW = 65%
NAA = 12%
VW = 10%

NOP = 8%
NVW = 3%
MO = 2%


MW = 64%
NAA = 11%
VW = 9%
NOP = 9%
NVW = 5%
MO = 2%


1. MW = 71%
2. VW = 18%
3. NAA = 5.5%
NOP = 5.5%


Government


General Public


Water Quality and Quantity as a Unit


MW = 58%
NAA = 23%
NVW = 6%
NOP = 5%
VW = 4%
MO =- 3%


MW = 59%
NAA = 23%
NOP = 7%
VW = 4%
NVW = 3.5%
MO = 3.5%


MW = 49%
NAA = 24%
NVW = 12%
NOP = 8%
VW = 3.5%
MO = 3.5%


1. MW = 71%
2. NAA = 12%
NOP = 12%
3. VW = 5%


Very well
Moderately well
Not at all
No opinion
Not very well
Moderate


Total


Industry


Total


Industry


Total


Industry


KEY
VW
MW
NAA
NOP
NVW
MO








24. Which of the following do you feel should "own" groundwater?

ANSWERS:


Total


1. GP = 44%


2. SG = 19%


0 = 18%
LG = 8%


5. PS = 6%
6. FG = 1.5%
PS & GP = 1.5%
LG & GP = 1.5%
7. SG,LG,GP = 1%


Government

1. GP = 42%


2. SG = 23%

3. O = 21%
4. LG = 8%


5. PS = 3%
6. PS & GP = 2%


7. LG & GP = 1%


General Public

1. GP = 44%


2. 0 = 17%


SG = 15%
PS = 7%
LG= 7%
FG= 5%
PS & GP = 1.6%
LG & GP = 1.6%
SG,LG,GP = 1.6%


Industry


1. SG = 22%
LG = 22%
GP = 22%
2. PS = 17%
0= 17%


Private sector
State government
Federal government
Local government
General public
Other


25. Do you think water supply is a greater or lesser problem than water quality?

ANSWERS:


Government


E = 52%
L = 32%
G= 12%
0=4%


General Public


L=
E =
G=
O=


37%
34%
24%
8%


Industry

1. E = 44%
2. L = 33%
3. G = 23%


KEY
PS =
SG =
FG =
LG =
GP =
0 =


Total


E = 45%
L = 34%
G= 17%
0=4%


KEY
G =


Greater
Lesser
Equal
Other









26. Briefly, what do the terms "structural" vs. "non-structural" water management mean
to you?

All participants responded the same on this question.


27. Do you agree with the statement: "People should be discouraged from settling and
residing on the coast rather than inland, as a means of managing water."

ANSWERS:


Government

1. MD = 26%
2. N = 21%
MA = 21%
3. SD = 17%
4. SA = 13%


5. 0=2%


General Public

1. MA = 34%
2. SA = 23%

3. SD = 16%
4. MD = 10%


5. N = 8%
0=8%


Industry


1. SD = 50%
2. MD = 17%
MA = 17%
3. N = 5.3%
SA = 5.3%
O = 5.3%


Disagrees = 40%
Agrees = 39%


Disagrees = 43%
Agrees = 34%


Agrees = 57%
Disagrees = 26%


Disagrees = 67%
Agrees = 22.3%


Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Other


28. Briefly, how would you define "the value of natural systems"
management? (Please refer to key in question #6.)


with respect to water


ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.


Government


General Public


ENV
QWM
WQ

WS
GWP; REC;
POLIT
GROW
AD
EC
POLHLTH


1. ENV
2. WS; WQ
3. EC; GROW;
GWP; POLIT; REC
4. AD; POLHLTH


ENV
QWM
WS


1. WS; WQ
2. ENV


4. AD; WQ
5. GROW


6. EC


Total


1.
2.

3.
4.


MD = 25%
SA = 20%

MA = 19%
N = 16%

SD = 15%
0=5%


KEY
SD =
MD =
N =
MA =
SA =
O =


Total


1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.


Industry


--









29. Do you agree with the "water crop theory" used as a regulatory tool?


ANSWERS:


Total


Government


MA = 30%
SA = 22%


3. N = 17%

4. SD = 13%


0=9%
MD = 9%


Agrees = 52%
Disagrees = 22%


1. MA = 37%
2. SA 17%

3. SD = 13%
0=13%
4. N=11%

5. MD = 9%


Agrees = 54%
Disagrees = 22%


General Public

1. MA = 28%
2. N = 26%

3. SA = 23%

4. MD = 9%
0=9%
5. SD = 5%


Agrees = 51%
Disagrees = 14%


Industry


1. N = 41%
2. MA = 24%
O = 24%
3. MD = 5.5%
SA = 5.5%





Disagrees = 29.5%
Disagrees = 5.5%


KEY


Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Other


30. In your opinion, what is the best mechanism with which to regulate groundwater?
(Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.


Government


General Public


1. WTRANS


1. AD


AD
ENV
GWP
GROW


QWM
WS
POLHLTH
POLIT
STRU
EC; WQ


ENV
GROW
WS
GWP; POLHLTH;
QWM
EC
WQ; POLIT


1. GWP;
POLIT


2. AD
3. WS
4. GROW; POLIT
5. WQ;STRU


1. AD; GWP;
ENV; POLIT;
WTRANS; QWM
2. GROW


SD
MD
N
MA
SA
O


Total


Industry


2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.









31. What are the top five discharge problems with groundwater? (Please refer to key in
question #6).

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.


Government


General Public


POLHLTH
STRU;
ENER

WQ; ENV;
WS; GWP
EC

GROW
AD
WTRANS


1. GWP
2. POLIT:
POLHLTH;
STRU; ENER
POLIT 3. ENV
4. EC
5. WS; GROW;
WQ
6. AD


1. GWP
2. WQ


1. GWP; ENV
2. POLHLTH


ENV; POLIT
POLHLTH
EC


WS
GROW
AD
WTRANS


32. During the past four years, do you think people's concerns about water management
have increased, stayed about the same as prior to 1976, or decreased?

ANSWERS:


Government

1. I= 66%
2. S = 20%
3. D = 14%


General Public


1. I= 77%
2. S = 18%
3. D = 5%


Industry


1. I= 78%
2. D=17%
3, S = 5%


Increased
Decreased
Stayed the same


Total


1.
2.


3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.


Industry


STRU
WS
GROW


Total


I = 71%
S= 18%
D = 11%


KEY

D =
S =









33. Do you think the recent election of Ronald Reagan as President reflects a level of
concern regarding water management issues different than your answer in question
32 would suggest? Would you say the recent election is expected to have:

ANSWERS:


Government


V = 31%
A = 29%
D = 22%
N=10%
0=8%


General Public


A = 46%
V = 20%
D= 16%
0= 11%
N=7%


Industry

1. N = 50%
2. A= 28%
3. V = 22%


KEY
N = No impact on water issues
V = Very little impact
A = Anticipated significant impacts on water issues
D = Don't know
O = Other


34. What methods) would you recommend to prevent the "mining" of groundwater? Or,
in other words, what steps should be taken to ensure that we balance our "water
budget?" (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.


Total


Government


1. ENV


2. AD
3. WS
4. STRU
5. POLIT

6. GROW;GWP
7. WQ
8. EC

9. QWM
10. WTRANS
11. POLHLTH


1. ENV


2. WS; EC; WQ
3. AD
4. GWP
5. GROW; POLIT
QWM
6. WTRANS; STRU


General Public

1. ENV


2. AD
3. GWP
4. WS
5. GROW; WQ


Industry


1. AD; ENV;
POLIT;
WTRANS; QWM
2. GWP
3. WS


EC
POLIT
POLHLTH;
QWM


Total


A= 34%
V = 29%
D= 21%
0=9%
N=7%








35. Is there anything else you would like to mention about the water management
situation in your area or the state? If so, please use the space below. (Please refer
to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.


Total


1. QWM

2. AD; GROW
3. POLIT
4. ENER
5. ENV
6. WS
7. EC; GWP; WQ
8. POLHLTH;
WTRANS
9. REC


Government

1. WS; GROW;
GWP; WQ;
2. AD; POLIT
3. ENV
4. ENER
5. POLHLTH
6. REC;EC


General Public

1. EC; AD; ENV

2. GROW
3. POLIT
4. WTRANS
5. WS; GWP; WQ


Industry


1. WS; ENV;
ENER; QWM
2. AD
3. POLIT








Survey Responses From State, Regional, and Local Participants


1. Given the following resource areas, which do you consider to be the MOST
significant area of natural resource management in Florida today? Rank in
descending order, with 1 as the most important. (If you feel that several of the
resources are of equal importance, then a number may be used more than once.)

ANSWERS


Total


State


Regional


Local


Water
Wetlands
Energy
Air
Beaches
Forests
Wildlife


Water
Wetlands
Energy
Beaches; Air
Forests
Wildlife


2. Please rank in order (with number 1 representing the greatest)
pollution in your area. A number may be used more than once.


1. Water
2. Wetlands
3. Energy
4. Beaches
5. Air
6. Forests
7. Wildlife


the sources of water


ANSWERS


State


NPD
MPSD
IPSD
ST
SLF
LIS


Regional

1. NPD
2. MPSD
3. IPSD
4. ST
5. SLF
6. LIS


Local

1. NPD
2. MPSD
3. ST
4. SLF
5. IPSD
6. LIS


KEY
NPD = Non-point discharge
NPSD = Municipal point source discharge
IPSD = Industrial Point source discharge
ST = Septic Tanks
SLF = Sanitary Landfills
LIS = Leachate Industrial Storage


Water
Wetlands
Energy
Beaches
Air
Forest
Wildlife


Total


NPD
MPSD
IPSD
ST
SLF
LIS








3. Do you feel that water quality and water quantity should be separated with
respect to:

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


Programs


No = 64%


Regulations


No = 60%


No = 67%



No = 64%


No = 60%


Yes = 51%


No = 61%


No = 68%


Organizational Responsibility


No = 74%

Funding

No = 64%


No = 75%



No = 70%


4. Which of the
management?


following best represents your viewpoint with respect to water


ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. B = 56%


A= 19%
D = 13%
C = 5%
F = 4%
E= 1%


1. B = 62%


A= 22%
D=9%
C= 4%
F = 2%
E=1%


1. B = 60%


A =15%
C= 11%
D=9%
F = 5%


1. B = 34%
D= 34%
2. A =21%
3. F=7%
4. E = 3%


Strong centralized state control of water management
Strong regional control with state oversight
Strong regional control without state oversight
County control with state or regional oversight
County control without state or regional oversight
Other (please specify)


No = 71%


No = 56%


No = 71%


No = 57%


KEY:
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =








Do you agree with the statement:
people--not the people to the water?"


"The water should be taken to the


ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. A= 28%
1. D = 20%
3. C = 19%

4. B = 18%
5. E = 16%

Disagrees = 46%
Agrees = 36%


1. A = 33%
2. B = 21%
3. D=19%

4. C = 16%
5. E = 11%

Disagrees = 54%
Agrees = 30%


1. C = 25%
2. D = 22%
3. A= 18%
E = 18%
4. B = 16%


Agrees = 40%
Disagrees = 34%


A = 30%
E = 26%
D= 19%


4. C = 15%
5. B = 11%

Agrees = 45%
Disagrees = 41%


Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mildly agree
Strongly agree


6. Please list three (3) goals concerning
the most important for Florida.


water management that you consider to be


ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order of most frequent first.*


Total


State


Regional


1. ENV

2. WS


WQ
ENER
GWP


6. POLHLTH

7. ADMIN
8. EC
9. POLIT
10. GROW
11. QWM
12. WTRANS
13. STRU
14. REC


1. ENV


2. WS; ENER


WQ
AD
GWP


6. GROW;
POLHLTH
7. EC; POLIT
8. QWM
9. STRU
10. WTRANS


1. ENV

2. WS

3. GWP; WQ
4. AD
5. POLIT;
POLHLTH
6. QWM


1. WS; EC; WQ;
ENV
2. GROW;
POLHLTH
3. POLIT


EC
GROW
WTRANS
REC


*Key on next page.


KEY:
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =


Local








KEY:

AD = Administrative and Regulatory Aspects
a. Permitting programs (existing)
b. Interagency coordination/cooperation
c. Long-range problems v. short-term management
d. Public input to daily agency decision making

EC = Economic aspects and Concerns
a. Traditional
b. Natural resources

ENER = Energy Concerns
a. Power plant siting
b. Traditional energy resource exploration
c. Alternative energy resource development

ENV = Environmental Protection Concerns
a. Protection laws; more protection policies and regulations
b. Research/education
c. Conservation: wetlands, floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, natural
systems

GROW = Growth Pressures and Growth Management Planning
a. Development pressures
b. Increasing population
c. Growth focusing in certain areas
d. The need for comprehensive land use planning/zoning and a growth
management plan

POLHLTH = Health Aspects of Pollution

POLIT = Political Type Decision Making
a. The need for fairer decisions
b. The need for "good" decisions instead of "political" ones
c. Resolution of the centralized vs. decentralized decision making without
"turf" struggling

QWM = The need for a quality, integrated program of water management
a. State water use plan
b. Enhancement of existing programs

STRU = Structural Management

WQ = Water quality

WS = Water supply
a. Existing mechanisms and practices
b. Recycling and recharge activities

WTRANS = Water transfers









7. Please list three (3) goals concerning water management that your organization
considers to be the most important for Florida. (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order of most frequent first.


Total


State


Regional


Local


ENV
ENER
POLIT
WS


5. WQ


POLIT
ENV
ENER
WQ


5. WS


EC
AD; GWP
POLHLTH

GROW
QWM
WTRANS
REC
STRU


AD
GWP
GROW;
POLHLTH
EC
QWM
REC
WTRANS
STRU


ENV
WS
WQ; POLIT
GWP


5. EC;AD;
POLHLTH
6. QWM
7. GROW
8. STRU

9. WTRANS; REC


EC
ENV
GROW
WQ; WS;
POLIT;
POLHLTH;
WTRANS


8. Rank the following water uses according to your priority, with number 1 represent-
ing the highest priority. (If you feel that several of the items are of equal
importance, then a number may be used more than once.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order of most frequent first.


Total


PS
NS, RU
IRRIG
ISS
REC
TP


KEY:
PS
RU
ISS
IRRIG
TP
REC
NS


State


PS
NS
RU
IRRIG
ISS
REC
TP


Regional


PS
NS
RU
IRRIG
ISS
REC
TP


Local


PS
RU
NS
IRRIG
ISS
REC
TP


Public supply
Rural use (includes domestic use and livestock)
Industrial self-supplied
Irrigation
Thermoelectric power
Recreation
Natural systems/environmental quality


6.
7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.








9. What is the main public water supply in your living area?

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


deep aquifer
shallow aquifer
lakes


4. rivers


5. impoundments

6. shallow and deep
aquifers
7. lakes & rivers;
don't know;
lakes, rivers &
impoundments


deep aquifer
shallow aquifer
lakes


4. rivers; shallow
and deep
aquifers
5. impoundments

6. lakes and rivers

7. lakes & impound-
ments; lakes and
rivers;
impoundments


1. deep aquifer
2. shallow aquifer
3. rivers and
impoundments
4. lakes


5. shallow and
deep aquifers


1. deep aquifer
2. shallow aquifer
3. impoundments

4. shallow and
deep aquifers

5. rivers; lakes

6. rivers and lakes


10. Who is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th influential authority in deciding goals
for water management for your area?

ANSWERS: The answers are presented in order of most frequent responses first.


State


WMD
ST
CO
LEGIS
FED
CITY


KEY:
CITY
CO
WMD
ST
LEGIS
FED


Regional


WMD
ST
CO
LEGIS
CITY
FED


WMD
ST
LEGIS
CO
FED
CITY


Local


WMD
CO
ST
LEGIS
CITY
FED


City management
County management
Water management district
State DER/DNR
State legislation
Federal agencies


Local


Total









11. Has federal 208 water quality planning made a significant contribution to water
management in your area?

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


No = 54%
Yes = 24%
Don't know = 22%


No = 63%
Yes = 20%
Don't know = 16%


No = 38%
Yes = 13%
Don't know = 13%


No= 54%
Yes = 25%
Don't know = 21%


12. Has your area encountered a water
and 1980)


supply shortage in the last two (2) years? (1979


ANSWERS:


Total


State


No = 70%
Yes = 30%


No = 75%
Yes = 25%


Regional

No = 59%
Yes = 41%


13. Which of the following would best describe your water supply situation?

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional '


Local


AD = 43%
OQP = 28%
CACT = 16%
OPP = 7%


5. AD & OPP = 2%
CACT & AD = 2%


6. NP = 1%
OTH = 1%


AD = 39%
OQP = 27%
CACT = 18%
OPP = 11%


5. NP = 1%
OTH = 1%


CACT & AD = 1%
AD & OPP = 1%


1. AD = 55%
2. OQP = 18%
3. CACT = 16%
4. OPP = 4%
AD & OPP = 4%
5. OTH = 1%


CACT & AD = 1%


1. AD = 43%
2. OQP = 25%
3. CACT = 14%
4. NP = 7%
CACT & AD = 7%
5. AD = 4%


OPP = 4%


Crisis at certain times
Adequate supply of water most of the time
No problems at any time
Only a pricing problem
Only a quality problem
Other


Local


No= 76%
Yes = 24%


KEY:
CACT
AD
NP
OPP
OQP
OTH








14. Does your area have an adopted Emergency Water Supply Plan?


ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


Don't know = 45%
No = 39%
Yes = 16%


Don't know = 55%
No = 35%
Yes = 10%


Don't know = 41%
No = 41%
Yes = 18%


No = 45%
Yes = 34%
Don't know = 21%


15. Do you feel that there are conflicts
in your area; or (b) in the state?


involving land use and water management: (a)


ANSWERS:

(a)


Total


State


Regional


Local


Yes = 87%
No = 10%
Don't know = 3%


Total


Yes = 90%
No = 7%
No = 3%


Yes = 90%
No = 7%
Don't know = 3%


State


Yes = 96%
Don't know = 3%
No = 1%


Yes = 85%
No = 13%
Don't know = 2%


Regional

Yes = 88%
Don't know = 7%
No = 5%


Yes = 83%
No = 14%
Don't know = 3%


Local

Yes = 79%
Don't know = 17%
No = 4%


16. If you answered yes to Question No. 15 (a or b), please briefly describe those
conflicts and how they should be resolved. (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed with the most frequent first.

(a) Conflicts


Total


State


Regional


Local


GROW
ENV


3. ENER

4. AD


GROW
ENV


3. WS

4. AD; POLIT


GWP
POLIT
EC
POLHLTH


EC
GWP
POLHLTH
WQ


GROW 1.
AD; ENV; ENER 2.


3. EC; GWP;
POLIT
4. WS; WQ;
POLHLTH;
WTRANS


GROW
GWP; ENV;
POLHLTH


5.
6.
7.
8.








9. WTRANS; QWM
10. STRU


(b) Resolutions


State


GROW
ENV


3. ENER

4. AD


5. GWP
6. POLIT
7. EC
8. POLHLTH
9. WS
10. WQ
11.WTRANS
12. QWM
13. STRU


GROW
ENV


3. WS

4. AD; POLIT


EC
GWP
POLHLTH
WQ
WTRANS; QWM
STRU


1. GROW
2. AD; ENV;
ENER
3. EC; GWP;
POLIT
4. WS; WQ;
POLHLTH;
WTRANS


GROW
GWP; ENV;
POLHLTH


17. Please rank the following freshwater-related RECREATIONAL uses in order of
importance in your area. Number 1 shows the highest priority. A number may be
used more than once.

ANSWERS:


State


F
B
SW
WS
NH
HU
SD


Regional


1. F
2. B
3. SW
4. WS
5. NH
6. HU
7. SD


Local


F
B, SW
WS
NH, HU
SD


Scuba diving or snorkling
Swimming
Fishing
Boating, sailing, canoeing
Water skiing
Nature hiking (fish and wildlife habitat observations and appreciation)
Hunting (waterfowl)


WS
WQ
WTRANS
QWM
STRU


Total


Regional


Local


Total


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.


KEY:
SD
SW
F
B
WS
NH
HU









18. The following are functions of water management agencies. Please give this your
serious concern and professional judgment and then rank in order of importance.
This being a difficult question, you may use a number more than once, with 1 being
the most important.

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.*


Total


State


Regional


Local


WQP
WRP
PWS
WCU
WP
SWM
FC
FWH
HI
AR/I
WC
WPLUG
REC
AWC
PD
NAV


WQP; WRP
PWS
WCU
SWM; WP
FC
HI
FWH
WC; AR/I
REC
WPLUG
PD; NAV
AWC


1. WRP; WQP
2. PWS
3. SWM
4. FC; WCU
5. WP
6. HI
7. FWH
8. AR/I
9. WC
10. WPLUG
11. REC
12. AWC
13. NAV
14. PD


Flood control
Regulating water consumption and use
Public water supply
Water resource planning
Power development
Water quality protection
Wetlands protection
Fish and wildlife habitat
Surface water management
Well construction
Well plugging
Hydrological investigations
Navigation
Regulation of artificial recharge/injection
Aquatic weed control
Recreation


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.


WQP
WRP
PWS
WCU
WP; SWM
FC
FWH; HI
AR
WC
WPLUG
REC
AWC
PD; NAV


*KEY:

FC
WCU
PWS
WRP
PD
WQP
WP
FWH
SWM
WC
WPLUG
HI
NAV
AR/I
AWC
REC








19. Do you agree with the statement: "He who benefits, pays."? Or, in other words,
the individuals who receive the benefits from water management activities should
be the ones to pay for them.

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


Yes = 64%
Not totally = 29%
No = 7%


Yes = 70%
Not totally = 21%
No = 9%


Yes = 55%
Not totally = 38%
No = 7%


Yes = 63%
Not totally = 37%
No = 0%


20. Briefly describe your concerns, if any, on: (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: The responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.

(a) the energy impacts of water management


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. EC

2. ENV; WTRANS


ENER
AD


5. WS; GROW;
GWP;
POLHLTH;
STRU; QWM
6. WQ
7. POLIT


1. EC

2. AD; WTRANS


ENV
ENER


5. WS; GROW;
STRU; QWM


1. EC; AD;
POLHLTH
2. ENER; ENV

3. GWP
4. WS; WTRANS;
STRU; QWM
5. GROW; WQ


1. EC

2. GROW;
ENER
3. WS; WTRANS
4. AD


GWP; WQ
POLIT;
POLHLTH


(b) the water impacts of energy development and management


Total


State


Regional


1. EC; REC

2. WS

3. ENV

4. GWP; ENER

5. WQ


GROW
AD
QWM
POLHLTH
POLIT


1. EC; AD; ENV

2. ENER

3. WS

4. GROW; GWP;
WQ
5. POLIT;
POLHLTH


1. WS; EC; GWP;
ENER;REC
2. WQ; ENV

3. POLHLTH;
QWM
4. AD


1. WS; WQ;
ENV
2. AD; GROW
ENER


Local









21. (a) Do you feel that water may be a "limiting" factor to growth?

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Yes = 88%
No = 12%


Yes = 90%
No = 10%


Regional

Yes = 89%
No = 11%


22. Briefly, what criteria would you consider in determining a "reasonable and beneficial
use" of groundwater? (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS: Responses are listed in order with the most frequent first.


Total


State


Regional


Local


WS
EC; ENV
WQ


POLIT
GWP


AD
WTRANS
POLHLTH
QWM
GROW
ENER
REC


QWM
WS
ENV


EC; WQ
GROW;
POLHLTH
POLIT
AD
GWP; ENER


WS; WQ
ENV
EC

GWP
WTRANS


1. EC; WQ
2. WS
3. AD; ENV
GWP


6. AD
7. POLHLTH
8. GROW
9. QWM
10. REC


Local


Yes = 82%
No = 18%









24. Which of the following do you feel should "own" groundwater?

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


1. GP = 44%
2. SG = 19%

3. 0 = 18%
4. LG = 8%

5. PS = 6%
6. FG = 1.5%
PS & GP= 1.5%
LG & GP = 1.5%
7. SG,LG,GP = 1%


1. GP = 38%
2. SG = 25%

3. 0 = 14%
4. PS = 9%

5. LG = 7%
6. FG =3%


1. GP = 53%
2. 0 = 29%

3. SG = 7%
4. LG = 5%


5. PS &GP = 4%
6. PS = 2%


SG = 31%
LG = 23%
GP = 23%
0= 15%
PS = 4%
LG & GP = 4%


7. PS & GP = 1.3%
LG & GP = 1.3%
SG,LG,GP = 1.3%


KEY
PS = Private sector
SG = State government
FG = Federal government
LG = Local government
GP = General public
O = Other


25. Do you think water supply is a greater or lesser problem than water quality?

ANSWERS:


State


Regional


E = 40%
L = 35%
G = 20%
0=5%


= 48%
= 32%
= 14%
= 6%


Local


1. E = 54%
2. L = 32%
3. G = 14%


Local


Total


45%
34%
17%
4%


E=
L=
G=
0=


KEY
G =
L =
E =
S=


Greater
Lesser
Equal
Other









26. Briefly, what do the terms "structural" vs. "non-structural" water management mean
to you?

All participants responded the same on this question.


27. Do you agree with the statement: "People should be discouraged from settling and
residing on the coast rather than inland, as a means of managing water."

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. MD = 25%

2. SA = 20%
3. MA = 19%

4. N = 16%
5. SD = 15%
6. O =5%

Disagrees = 40%
Agrees = 39%


1. MD = 31%

2. SD = 18%
3. SA = 17%

4. N = 16%
5. MA = 12%
6. 0=6%

Disagrees = 49%
Agrees = 29%


1. MA = 26%

2. SA = 22%
3. MD = 17%
N= 17%
4. SD = 16%
5. 0 = 2%


Agrees = 48%
Disagrees = 33%


1. MA = 26%
SA = 26%
2. MD = 19%
3. N = 15%

4. 0=7%
SD = 7%


Agrees = 52%
Disagrees 26%


Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Other


28. Briefly, how would you define "the value of natural systems" with respect to water
management? (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS:


State


Regional


Local


ENV
QWM
WQ

WS

GWP; REC;
POLIT
GROW
AD
EC
POLHLTH


QWM
ENV
WS


4. EC;AD;
POLIT; WQ
5. GROW


1. WQ; ENV
2. WS
3. GROW; GWP;
QWM
4. AD;POLHLTH


1. WQ; ENV
2. WS


5. EC


KEY
SD
MD
N
MA
SA
O


Total









29. Do you agree with the "water crop theory" used as a regulatory tool?


ANSWERS:

Total

1. MA = 30%


2. SA = 22%

3. N = 17%


SD = 13%
0=9%
MD = 9%


Agrees = 52%
Disagrees = 22%


State


Regional


1. SA = 32%


2. MA = 29%

3. N = 17%


0=9%
MD = 7%
SD = 6%


Agrees = 61%
Disagrees = 13%


1. MA = 37%


2. N = 16%
SD = 16%
3. 0 = 12%

4. MD = 10%
5. SA = 9%


Agrees = 46%
Disagrees = 26%


Local


1. MA = 23%
SA = 23%
N = 23%
2. SD = 15%

3. MD = 8%
S= 8%




Agrees = 46%
Disagrees = 23%


KEY


SD = Strongly disagree
MD = Mildly disagree
N = Neither agree nor disagree
MA = Mildly agree
SA = Strongly agree
O = Other


30. In your opinion, what is the best mechanism with which to regulate groundwater?
(Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. WTRANS

2. AD
3. ENV
4. GWP
5. GROW
6. QWM

7. WS

8. POLHLTH
9. POLIT
10. STRU
11. EC; WQ


1. AD

2. ENV
3. WS
4. GWP
5. GROW
6. POLHLTH;.
QWM
7. WQ; POLIT;
STRU


1. WTRANS; AD;
GROW; QWM
2. GWP; ENV
3. POLIT
4. WS
5. EC
6. WQ


1. GWP; ENV

2. GROW








31. What are the top five discharge problems with groundwater? (Please refer to key in
question #6).

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. POLHLTH


2. STRU;ENER

3. WQ;ENV;
POLIT
4. WS; GWP
5. EC
6. GROW
7. AD
8. WTRANS


1. GWP


2. WQ; ENV;
STRU
3. POLHLTH


EC
GROW; POLIT
WS
AD
WTRANS


1. GWP


2. POLHLTH

3. ENV

4. WS;STRU
5. GROW;WQ
6. EC
7. AD


1. WS; EC;
WQ;POLHLTH;
STRU
2. POLIT

3. ENER

4. GWP


32. During the past four years, do you think people's concerns about water management
have increased, stayed about the same as prior to 1976, or decreased?

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. I=68%
2. S = 22%
-3. D=10%


1. I= 71%
2. S = 18%
3. D = 11%


1. I = 82%
2. D = 14%
3, S = 4%


Increased
Decreased
Stayed the same


I = 71%
S= 18%
D= 11%


KEY
I--
D =
S =









33. Do you think the recent election of Ronald Reagan as president reflects a level of
concern regarding water management issues different than your answer in question
32 would suggest? Would you say the recent election is expected to have:

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. A= 38%
2. V = 26%
3. D = 17%
4. 0 = 13%
5. N = 6%


1. V = 31%
2. A = 30%
3. D = 24%
4. N = 9%
5. 0=6%


1. V = 33%
2. A = 30%
3. D = 26%
4. N = 11%
5. 0=0%


KEY
N
V
A
DN
O


No impact on water issues
Very little impact
Anticipated significant impacts on water issues
Don't know
Other


34. What methods) would you recommend to prevent the "mining" of groundwater? Or,
in other words, what steps should be taken to ensure that we balance our "water
budget?" (Please refer to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


ENV
AD
WS


STRU
POLIT
GROW; GWP
WQ

EC
QWM
WTRANS
POLHLTH


WTRANS
AD
ENV

WS
GWP
GROW
EC; POLIT


8. QWM


ENV
WQ
WS; GWP;
STRU
AD
GWP; STRU
POLIT
POLHLTH
WTRANS


1. ENV; WQ
2. GWP; POLIT
3. AD; GROW


A = 34%
V = 29%
D = 21%
0=9%
N=7%








35. Is there anything else you would like to mention about the water management
situation in your area or the state? If so, please use the space below. (Please refer
to key in question #6.)

ANSWERS:


Total


State


Regional


Local


1. QWM

2. AD;GROW
3. POLIT
4. ENER
5. ENV
6. WS
7. EC; GWP;
WQ
8. POLHLTH;
WTRANS
9. REC


1. EC; QWM

2. AD
3. ENV
4. GROW
5. POLIT
6. ENER
7. GWP; WQ;
WS
8. WTRANS


1. WS; GROW;
POLIT
2. AD
3. ENV
4. POLHLTH
5. EC; REC


1. AD; GROW;
ENER






























DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS








DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS


In the February 9, 1981 issue of Sports Illustrated Florida's water resources issues
were discussed suggesting that the water wars are stronger and more precarious
than they might appear on the surface. Citing the 7,000 plus people flowing into the
State each week as an unfathomable drain on the seemingly abundant water
resources, the article pits development and growth with environmental health and
the well-being of Florida's essential natural resources. Strong criticism from
environmental leaders indicate extreme displeasure in the way Florida is managing
its water resources in response to the growth and population pressures throughout
the state.

Coupled with the Sport Illustrated article is the sharp criticism leveled at the
Department of Environmental Regulation at a recent public workshop discussing
the proposed state water policy rule to be formally adopted on March 27, 1981 by
the Secretary of the Department. In tandum, these two public outcrys strongly
suggest major conflicts between the populus' views and government's view of water
resources management anad decision making.

The water resources decision making survey soliciting public opinions used in this
study is timely in lieu of these recent public decrees. While the survey results can
not speak totally for the groups and sectors of the participants in the survey, it
does offer broad based perspectives and opinions upon which to compare some of
the water issues being discussed in the press and elsewhere throughout the state. It
also provides a level of information not available in departmental reports or
environmental group newsletters. The survey was intentionally set up to maximize
open, honest answers, with full confidentiality. The audience targeted to receive
the survey consisted of the major players in the water resources area today in
Florida, including government agencies, environmental groups, industry leaders,
renowned academicians, legislators, and others who have been active in the water
area just prior to and since the passage of the 1972 Water Resources Act.

From running political campaigns to researching complex issues, it is always
difficult to determine just how significant the results of a survey may be. In fact,
it is often convenient for researchers to believe that the results of any scientific
pursuit is THE answer they have been looking for. Yet, we prefer to note that the
results of the survey do reflect some trends and indications previously indicated by
other researchers, therefore, the results have been validated as best they can be.
However, it must be stated that the survey results cannot propose to speak for all
the various individuals in decision-making positions in all of the 280 entities
solicited for comments. It is assumed, however, that those participants that did
take the time to fill out the survey may be the very individuals that will put in the
extra hours on the job, and will continue to work on difficult issues to help advance
decision making in his or her agency or group. In addition, the number of telephone
calls asking for more information on the survey questions, and the number of
groups requesting copies of the results further indicates a good broad response base:
upon which to compare some opinions and perspectives of the various groups and
sectors of Florida's citizenry. Therefore, we are confident in discussing the results
by generalizing to the sectors represented by the survey respondents, but are
cautious to note that there may be other individuals in decision-making positions
who may have difficult views than those expressed by the majority of the
participants.









In general terms, the survey indicates that there are many areas of agreement on
the problems facing Florida's water managers today. Yet, there are a few areas of
disagreement in the priority rankings of these problems, their urgencies and
solutions.

For discussion purposes, the 36 questions in the survey will be presented in eight
general categories. These categories are as follows:

Significant Resource Issues
Water Pollution Sources
Water Supplies
Water Use
Water Management Functions
Organizational Responsibilities
Land and Water Management Conflicts: Growth
Public Relations

The various questions that address the above eight issues will be compared in an
effort to obtain trends of agreement, and areas of conflict on how well Florida's
water resources decision making is occurring.


Significant Resource Issues

The general consensus of the survey participants indicated that WATER is the
number one resource issue facing Florida today. Whether you look at the responses
from Industry, Environmentalists (primarily comprising the general public cate-
gory), Government, or even if you look at the responses at all scales: State,
Regional, or Local, the answer is the same. Water is ranked the most significant
area of natural resource management.

Close behind water, however, is WETLANDS as the second most significant natural
resource area in Florida today. The only exception to that ranking is by industry,
where wetlands received a number 4 ranking of 6, behind energy, air and beach
resources. Not only was wetlands ranked high in question number one, the subject
of wetlands protection appeared over and over in the essay questions.

With energy rated in the top three on everybody's list the three most significant
resource issues rated by the survey participants are:

1. Water
2. Wetlands
3. Energy

Since a very few participants mentioned that some of the questions were worded in
a biased manner, it is important to note that this was the first question, therefore
the incidence of bias could only be slight at this point. Yet these three themes of
water, wetlands, and energy did carry throughout the survey in other questions.

It is not surprising that water ranked number one as it is the subject of the survey
and most participants were solicited for responses due to their knowledge and
awareness of the water issues. Energy ranked in the top three is not all that
surprising, because like water, it is a primary resource that has recently received a
great deal of public attention.









What may be significant is that industry followed suit by listing the other primary
resource namely air ahead of wetlands. Industry's preferential ranking might
reflect a true opinion that wetlands is a less significant issue than some of the
other areas, or it may reflect a process hierarchy perspective, by aggregating
primary resources first.

The areas of wetlands, beaches, forests and wildlife represent a complex set or an
accumulation of several primary resources, and their significance may be more
subtle than the bare primary resources. Nevertheless, based on the level of
response from the majority of the participants, the issue of wetlands protection is
rivaling in significance the two basic and primary natural resources, water and
energy, throughout the state.

And what may be more significant, yet, is that despite Florida's highly recognized
water resources laws, there is no comprehensive environmental protection legisla-
tion in the state upon which to preserve or manage wetlands. Therefore, the
recent jabs at government by the environmental groups may be misguided. It
appears that government is just as concerned about wetlands protection as is the
general public. However, government's dilemma is that they have no legal
authority upon which to actively and directly protect wetlands. The concerns for
wetlands might better be directed at the law makers the legislature instead of
the regulators, as this survey would suggest. Particularly, since the only deviation
in a high wetlands response came from industry, the proper medium for general
public balancing of industry views, may very well be in legislative lobbying.


Water Pollution Sources

While the environmental regulatory laws of the 1970's have aided in some water
pollution clean-ups, others appear to remain a problem, according to our survey.
Non-point source pollution was rated number one by the majority of participants,
with the exception of industry who rated it in their top three. Additionally in the
question regarding the effectiveness of the Federal 208 program the majority of
the responses were either "NO" or "DON'T KNOW". Which again supports the
contention that non-point pollution is either still a major problem, or there has
been little public relations on the effective management. It is interesting to note
that the most positive answers on the 208 program came from the regional level of
all participants combined. Perhaps since the issue has been dealt with on a
regional basis, those closest to the program may be more aware of the benefits
derived from the program. Also, those closest to the problem may have a deeper
insight to the complexities of the problem, and may have seen some incremential
strides forward that others are not aware of. Yet the general comments
overwhelmingly suggest non-point sources the major water pollution problem.

The next most noted source of water pollution is Municipal Point Source Dis-
charges. This is somewhat disconcerting since much time, money and energy has
gone into this area of water pollution control in the recent past. Unlike non-point
sources, municipal dischargers have had to obtain permits for some time, and are
not plagued with the many uncontrollable variables common to the non-point
problem. Despite the advances in sewage treatment and the E.P.A.'s financing
programs, the negative image of municipal point source discharge remains high
with the survey respondents.









Another interesting note, is that industry rated its own pollution sources higher
than did any of the other groups. Either industry is more aware of their pollution
disposal problems since they are responsible for dealing with it, or the others
simply do not rate industrial sources as high, in spite of the recent hazardous waste
and chemical dumping problems popularized in the media.

However taken in total the combined rating for water pollution sources are:

1. Non-point source discharges
2. Municipal point source discharges
3. Industrial point source discharges
4. Septic tanks
5. Sanitary landfills
6. Leachate from industrial storage sites


Water Supplies

The issue of whether we have enough water is a reoccurring one, that is mentioned
in warning by those critical of the current water management program. Indeed the
early 1970's drought brought law makers into immediate focus resulting in a
model piece of legislation in 1972. Environmentalists espouse the need to deal with
Florida's dwindling water resources before another crisis. Several questions
addressed water supply and the majority of respondents suggest that water supplies
are adequate most of the time, and that they have not experienced a water
shortage in the past two years. Additionally groundwater is most often ranked the
chief source of water supplies.

When given a choice of whether water supply shortages might be attributable to a
pricing problem or a water quality problem the participants selected quality as the
larger problem between 2 and 6 times more often except in the combined
government section, where quality and pricing were rated about equal, and were
rated very low on the list. Furthermore, when asked in another question which
water issue was more significant, quantity or quality, most answered they are
equal, but the second most frequent answer reflected that quality is the greater
issue. And when asked in a separate question as to whether their area has an
adopted Emergency Water Supply Plan, most answered they did not know and the
second most answer was no. Therefore, the warnings of the leading environmental-
ists and others that Florida's water resources are dwindling, are perceived to be
caused by water quality problems by the majority of the survey participants.

Parenthetically, there has been some speculation that in order to make significant
strides in an area there needs to be an urgent, pressing crisis at hand, affecting a
large majority of the population. However, our survey indicates that most
respondents think their water supply is adequate, and they have not had a water
shortage in the past two years, yet they responded in majority that water issues
interest has increased in the populous in the past four years, even in the absence of
a drought or water crisis. This indication might place some doubt in what may be a
legislative myth that in order to pass meaningful legislation you need a crisis.
Admittedly it has shown to help. But perhaps understanding and publicizing of the
issue and anticipation of the inevitable may be just as strong a forcing function as
is a crisis.









Water Use

The survey respondents have indicated that the supply situation is, for the time
being, adequate, but how did they respond to preferred uses of water? For the
most part, there was more agreement that disagreement, with one shining
exception: natural systems. In all the categories except the industry category,
natural systems was rated in the top three, and in most cases number two, behind
public supply. The rest of the uses were in almost complete agreement, however,
suggesting that there may be some common grounds of understanding and prefer-
ences on water use.

The natural systems use reflects a significantly conflicting preference as industry
listed it in the last portion. There has been some considerable debate going on
between various public interest groups, government and industry over the issue of
water use. Perhaps the issue may be reopened based on the grounds of agreement,
finding out why they all do agree on the ranking of the others, and in finding out if
one group is lacking information held by others with respect to natural systems
functions.

The overall ranking of water uses by all participants is as follows:

1. Public supply
2. Natural systems; Rural use
3. Irrigation
4. Industrial self-supplied
5. Recreation
6. Thermoelectric power

An additional question asked for the ranking of fresh water related recreational
activities. There was almost complete agreement on this answer as well. Fishing
and boating were ranked the top two with swimming and water skiing next,
followed by nature hiking, hunting and scuba diving. The significance of the high
fishing ranking is that it is the single most use that would require the most critical
water quality and quantity management to maintain. Not only do the fish need
quality water, they need it at particular times of the year in particular quantities.
So eventhough recreation was rated low in comparison with public supply, natural
systems and irrigation waters, the most popular recreational activity is one of the
most sensitive to good water management.


Water Management Functions

Several questions addressed the various issues of the functions of water manage-
ment. One question proposed several functions and asked for a proper rating. The
top two functions selected among sixteen were Water Quality Protection and Water
Resource Planning. These two were the most "planning" or preventive functions
offered for consideration. In fact, in all cases except in industry, public supply was
rated third to those two. Industry selected public supply the number one function.

Other differences include industry's high rating of flood control functions, and no
rating of wetlands protection. Either industry does not see wetlands protection a
proper part of water management, or the no response indicates it is not valued very
highly. However, the other participants ranked wetlands protection in the top four,
and rated flood control in the number 6 slot.



64








Agreement was struck however, with most participants rating power development
and navigation low on the list of alternatives.

The top five water management functions ranked by the total participants are:

1. Water quality protection
2. Water resource planning
3. Public water supply
4. Consumptive use permitting
5. Wetlands protection; surface water management

Another question asked what they thought of the permitting system, which is
reflected in both the number 1 and 4 functions above. The permitting system has
been under fire for as long as it has existed. Some have said it is too cumbersome,
others say it is too easy to get permits, and thus is not effective. The survey
participants basically said it is operating moderately well.

Water quality permitting received moderately well marks by 62% of the respond-
ents, whereas water quantity permitting received moderately well marks by 65%.
However, treating water quality and quantity as a unit, the moderately well marks
fell slightly to 58%. What may be most notable is that many reviewers would
attribute the negative permitting remarks to industry, yet this survey shows
industry giving the highest marks for the permitting system. Perhaps the ratings
speak well for the much aligned permitting system.

Another aspect of permitting and regulation focused on the somewhat controversial
"water crop" theory as a regulatory tooL The respondents gave a majority position
in favor of using the theory. In all cases the agrees (admittedly moderate) were
more numerous than the disagrees. However, the industry response was the lowest
in agreement, and the government sector shared the highest agree responses with
the combined regionals.

Included in the investigation of water management functions were two other more
controversial questions. One asked whether people should be discouraged from
settling on the coast as a means of managing water. This question did not elicit
any general agreement in answer. The -regional- and- local -responses-favored
discouraging growth in the coastal areas, whereas the state responses did not. The
government and industry responses disagreed with the approach, whereas the
general public (environmentalists) favored discouragement of coastal settling. As
would be expected, this approach does not enjoy a consensus of opinion. It is
interesting to note that the locals and regionals are more inclined to discourage
coastal settling than is the state, and the environmentalists share the local and
regional preference.

The other controversial management option focused on whether water should be
taken to the people (as opposed to the people taken to the water). The combined
totals did not reflect a majority of opinion; but 46% (the closest to a majority) did
disagree with taking water to the people. However, again there is no clear
consensus of this issue, either. The locals and regional responses favored moving
water to the people more often than did the state responses. Yet government and
the general public line up once more against industry in their disfavoring of the
practice of moving water to the people.








Therefore, the general types of functions to be carried out by water managers is a
fairly agreed upon, non controversial concern, ranking water quality protection,
water resources planning and public supply in the top three. Yet when it comes
down to a conflict in application of those three functions, there is no clear general
agreement of the preferred path.

The questions focusing on top water management goals and objectives for indivi-
duals and institutions provided an interesting array of answers. The top five
answers for all participants taken as a whole for the individuals are:

1. Environmental Protection
2. Water Supply
3. Water Quality Protection
4. Energy Aspects of Water Management
5. Groundwater Protection

The differences occurred in the locals' ranking of economic concerns of water
management higher than the others, and industry's inclusion of trying to balance
the political decision making occurring in water management.

The top five answers from the participants citing their institutions' major goals are:

1. Environmental protection
2. Energy aspects of water management
3. Balancing political decision making in water management
4. Water supply
5. Water quality

The group generally agreed that economics was sixth in the list, with only a few
exceptions. But the fact that the participants sited balancing political decision
making ahead of water supply as an institutional goal is a strong indication that a
great deal of the efforts of these organizations go into lobbying, etc.

This is not a unique theme, to these questions alone. The essay questions reflected
the same compelling needs by all the players to influence and lobby the highest
decision makers, and often mentioned elected officials among the chief targets.

What is probably most interesting, however, is that environmental protection (most
often natural systems) was rated number one by individuals and institutions. Yet
none of the agencies are legally charged with protection of environmental
resources. Albeit they are able to work indirectly through various regulatory
functions.


Organizational Responsibilities

We have now begun to see some trends of agreement on water issues, and the
question of who should manage is no exception. This question reflected a majority
endorsement of the existing water management system of strong regional control
with state oversight. However, industry was notably separate in their almost as
strong preference for a strong state centralized system. Eventhough this issue gets
debated frequently in water management circles, it appears from the survey results
that the issue is one that enjoys reasonably high concurrence and support for the









water management district's strong control, with D.E.R.'s oversight responsibili-
ties.

In fact, in a later question asking who is the most influential in water management
in the participant's area, the water management districts received a majority of
responses.


Land and Water Management Conflict: Growth

This issue was asked directly in a couple of questions, but it kept cropping up in the
answers to essay questions throughout the survey. This issue drew the most
overwhelmingly similar responses of any of the questions in the survey. Considered
totally, the survey participants responded by 87% to, 'Yes there are conflicts
between land and water management in their living area,' and 90% to conflicts in
the state as a whole. All sectors gave the issue very high positive ratings, and the
answers citing the conflicts and resolutions were equally similar.

The conflicts focused on burgeoning growth and population increases, environment-
al degradation, energy crisis issues and political problems,in tough permitting
cases.

The resolutions most often suggested included the need for a strong growth
management plan, and a high quality water use plan for the state. Yet, the
previous questions addressing two controversial approaches to water and land
conflicts, namely moving people or water, did not reflect overwhelmingly similar
opinions. Therefore, it is understandable that government may be reluctant to
move ahead in the growth management planning area sensing that very kind of
conflict with some of the tougher decision. However, it appears that more public
participation might raise the level of understanding on the complexities of the
issue, and may provide the necessary support for a strong growth plan, since the
first step in acceptance is recognition of need.


Public Relations

There was an unspoken issue floating throughout the survey. That issue is public
relations, and resource management education. Some of the issues appeared to be
fairly well understood by the majority of participants, but others were not. For the
most part where the issues were well understood by the various sectors, there was
general agreement. It appears that the most conflictory opinions were in cases
where the knowledge and experience level of one group was significantly greater
than the other levels. This notion may sound a bit naive, and in some cases the
differences are genuine, based on different goals, etc. But it appears that we may
be overlooking a valuable water management tool in conflict resolutions, namely
information dissemination.

There will probably still be situations, particularly legal cases, where the opposing
sides will not discuss the issues openly and fully. In fact, the preponderance of
legal handling of many of the water management conflicts may have contributed
to the advocate approaches between industry, government and environmentalists.
Perhaps now the ground is beginning to show some significant points of agreement,
from which to develop some future dialogs on water resources. This combined









interest group dialog seems an appropriate approach because the participants
agreed on four things:

that we still have problems,

that water quality is very important,

that groundwater protection is extremely important, and

that we must develop a state water use plan and growth management
plan.

In several essay questions in the survey, the respondents mentioned the need for
"fairer" decisions, ones that are less political, in order to manage the resource
better. The issue of 'turf fighting' and protective administrative territory was
mentioned as a major forcing function in the political decisions, that ultimately
could harm the resource and thus the people's interests. Again, this is a public
relations job, in that when a decision maker gets boxed into a political corner on a
decision, there appears to be a constituency developing in the rank and file water
management area for supporting tough resource decisions for the betterment of the
resource. This issue was addressed strongly by the state responses, by listing the
need to help balance political decision making as a top goal and priority in water
management today.































SUMMARY









SUMMARY


This report began with a few simple questions on water management:

1. Which issues continue to be unresolved?
2. Which new ones are appearing on the scene?
3. Which issues are lacking technical data?
4. Which ones need to incorporate social aspects?
5. Where do the economic aspects fall short?
6. Where do we need to focus new research attentions?
7. What is the cost of solving the persistently old and the emerging new
water problems facing the state?
8. In what kind of time frame do we have to work to achieve workable
solutions within a political framework?
9. How do water managers in local, regional and statewide levels view
water problems in the state, and how do their perceptions agree or
disagree with the perceptions of industry, and environmentalists in the
state?

This first Phase report has addressed questions number 1, 2, and 9. These questions
outline the knowns of the water resources decision making processes, provides the
basis for finding out what remains unknown, how much it will cost to find out, how
long it will take to find out, and how much slack we have in order to find out.

The first study question asks which issues continue to be unresolved. We found few
but persistent answers.

Water quality protection (including point and non-point sources)

More integration and cooperation between water quality and water
quantity regulation

Water and Energy as two of the top three resource issues facing Florida
today

Growth and increased population requiring the need for a growth
management plan and Water Use Plan for the state

The second question also has few answers, but they are complex and controversial:

The immediate need for wetlands protection

The need for more preventive water management, such as water quality
protection and water resource planning.

Perhaps the need for more dialogue between interest groups, govern-
ment and industry over the controversial issues and decisions

The need for "fairer", less political decision making, in order to enhance
the resource base for the total populus.

The answer to question 9 is given more fully in the results, discussion and
conclusion sections, but the general highlights are as follows:









The top three resource issues are: water, wetlands and energy, with
industry representatives indicating significantly lower ratings for wet-
lands resources.

The issue of water supply is generally agreed to be adequate, but
anticipated shortages are expected to be attributable to water quality
problems.

The permitting system received moderately favorable remarks, unlike
the highly critical remarks often quoted by legislators from their
constituents.

The current organizational authority for water management is pre-
ferred by the majority of the participants.

The most pressing issues in water management are: growth and
development pressures causing land and water management conflicts;
and the obsession by the participants to constantly be balancing political
dec isions.

Groundwater is considered a major issue, and the need for a statewide
groundwater protection program was mentioned numerous times in the
open ended essay questions.

More emphasis was placed on preventive water management such as
water quality protection and water resources planning.

The beneficiary pays concept is favored by the majority of participants.

The top three criteria cited for "Reasonable and Beneficial Use" are:

1. Water Supply
2. Economic Considerations; Environmental Concerns
3. Water Quality

(with Industry the only sector adding Growth issues and pressures into the top
three).

The top three objectives of individual water managers are:

1. Environmental Protection
2. Water Supply
3. Water Quality

In general, the survey provided the most beneficial answers for the first two cells
of the information matrix. The most notable feature of the survey results was the
general areas of agreement by the majority of the participants. The main areas of
conflict were in ranking wetlands protection in the resource issues, and including
environmental protection as a major goal in water management. The minor
differences occurred in the specific areas of water management functions, such as
industry ranking flood control in the upper three and natural systems management
last, while government and the general public reversed the emphasis of those
functions.









While this first phase is just a beginning, it provides some clear areas where much
more information needs to be gathered, and where conflicts already occur. The
next phase is scheduled to present data and management alternatives to be
incorporated in the resolution of these conflict areas and in the persistently old
issues of concern. And where possible, point to where more research is needed,
how much that research might cost, how long it would take to research the issue,
and an estimate of how long we have before the issue reaches a crisis. As a result
of the findings in this report, primary in our investigations will be:

wetlands protection

political decision making in water resource management and the issue
of equity

how to better integrate land and water management and water quality
and water quantity.































BIBLIOGRAPHY










BIBLIOGRAPHY:
SOURCES CITED


(1) Northwest Florida Water Management District. 1980. "Fifth Annual Meeting
Summary." Public Information Bulletin 81-1, 31-35. Tallahassee, Florida.

(2) Pallesen, Tim. 1980. "Water in Danger, Official Says." The Miami Herald,
November 14. Miami, Florida.

(3) Orlando Sentinel Star. 1980. "Florida's Water Wars." A Special Report;
Insight Section, December 21. Orlando, Florida.

(4a) Shih, S.F. 1980. "An Overview: General Water Problems in Florida." Business
and Economic Dimensions 16(1): 3.

(4b) DeGrove, J.M. 1980. "How Florida Manages Its Water Resources." Business
and Economic Dimensions 16(1): 4-9.

(4c) DeGrove, J.M. 1980. "The System in Action: South Florida Water Manage-
ment District." Business and Economic Dimensions 16(1): 10-13.

(5) Frisken, W.R. 1971. "Extended Industrial Revolution and Climate Change."
E.O.S. Transactions American Geophysical Union 52 (July): 505.










GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY


Ackerman, W., D. Allee, J. Amarocko, Y. Haimes, W. Hall, R. Meserve, R.
Patrick, and P. Smith. 1978. "Scientific and Technological Considerations in
Water Resources Policy." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical
Union. 59: 516-27.

Anderson, T.L. and P.J. Hill. 1976. "Toward a General Theory of Institutional
Change." Frontiers of Economics, 1976: 3-8.

Ayres, R.U. and A. Kneese. 1972. "Economic and Ecological Effects of a
Stationary Economy." Resources for the Future #99.

Baden, John. 1979. "Politics and Western Resources: Introduction." Western
Political Quarterly 32: 254-5.

Blake, N.M. 1980. Land Into Water-Water Into Land. A History of Water
Management in Florida. Florida State University Press, Tallahassee, Florida.

Brand, Stewart. 1976. "Watershed Consciousness." CoEvolution Quarterly,
POINT, California, December.

Canby, T.Y. and Spiegel, T. 1980. "Our Most Precious Resource WATER."
National Geographic. August.

Carter, Luther J. 1974. The Florida Experiences: Land and Water Policy in a
Growth State. John Hopkins Press.

CH2M, Hill. 1980. "Water Resources of the Florida Power and Light Service Area:
Availability and Management."

Ciriacy-Wanthrup, S.V. 1967. "Water Policy and Economic Optimizing: Some
Conceptual Problems in Water Research." American Economics Review 57:
179-89.

Ciriacy-Wanthrup, S.V. and Bishop, Richard. 1975. "Common Property as a
Concept in Natural Resources Policy." Natural Resources Journal VoL 15:
713-27.

Council of Environmental Quality. 1978. "Environmental Quality." Ninth Annual
Report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Council of Environmental Quality. 1980. "Public Qpinion on Environmental
Issues." U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cuzan, A.G. 1979. "A Critique of Collectivist Water Resources Planning."
Western Political Quarterly 32: 320-26.

Dales, John. 1968. Pollution, Property and Prices. University of Toronto Press.

Daly, Herman E. 1977. Steady-State Economics. Freeman Press: San Francisco.








DeGrove, John M. 1978. "Administrative Systems for Water Management in
Florida." Southeastern Conference on Legal and Administrative Systems for
Water Allocations, V.P.I. and V.S.U., April 19-20.

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 1978. "Land Use Policy Guide."
Winter Park, Florida.

EPA. 1978. "Tools and Rules for E.P.A. Programs." Water Planning Division,
WH/554, EPA, 3rd Printing, October.

EPA. 1979. "Water Quality Management Bulletin." Water Planning Division.

EPA. 1979. "Recreation and the Environment." Office of Public Awareness.

EPA. 1980. "Innovative Technology: Meeting the Challenge of the 1980's." Office
of Water Programs.

Florida Chamber of Commerce. 1979. Director of Florida Industries. Florida
Chamber of Commerce, Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida, State of. 1979. "Work Papers for the Florida State Comprehensive Plan,
WATER SECTION." DSP-BCP-30-78. January.

Florida Water Resources Center. 1981. "Runoff Newsletter." University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

1982-86 Research Development Plan. Publication No. 51. Gainesville,
Florida.

Gallop, Earl G. 1978. "The Florida Environmental Land and Water Management
Act of 1972: A Partially Fulfilled Expectation." Florida Environmental and
Urban Issues VI(2): 6-9; 18.

Governor's Resource Management Task Force. 1980. "Final Report to Governor
Bob Graham. Vol. I: Recommendations."

Grow, Gerald. 1980. "The Most Important Issue in Florida." ENFO. Florida
Conservation Foundation. Winter Park, Florida.

Hirshleifen, Jack, J.C. DeHaven, and J. Milliman. 1969. Water Supply, Economics,
Technology and Policy. University of Chicago Press.

Howells, David H. 1978. "Southeast Water Resources." Summary report to
Southeast Conference on Legal and Administrative Systems for Water Alloca-
tion and Management. Water Resources Institutes, University of North
Carolina, ApriL

Ingram, Helen, Nancy Laney, and John R. McCain. 1979. "Water Scarcity and the
Politics of Plenty in the Four Corners States." Western Political Quarterly
32: 298-306.

Johnson, Larma. 1974. Beyond the Fourth Generation. University of Florida
Press. Gainesville, Florida.









Leach, S.D and Healy, H.G. 1979. "Estimated Water Use in Florida, 1977."
U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigation. 79-112.

Lehman, M.E. 1976. "Colier County: Growth Pressure in a Wetlands Wilderness.
Center For Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Lin, N., R.S. Burt, and J.C. Vaughn. 1976. Conducting Social Research. McGraw-
Hill.

Lynne, G.D. and Kiker, C.F. 1976. "Water Use In Southwest Florida--An
Economic Perspective." IFAS. Economics Report 82. University of Florida.
Gainesville, Florida.

Maloney, Frank E. 1974. "A Sound Water Plan for South Florida." Florida
Environmental and Urban Issues. VoL 1:4 (1-4).

McCaffrey, Patrick M. 1977. "The Kissimmee River: Progress in New Directions."
Florida Environmental and Urban Issues. Vol. V: 2 (1-4; 16-18).

Mernitz, Scott. 1980. Mediation of Environmental Disputes. A Source Book.
Praeger Publishers.

Milliman, J.W. 1959. "Water Law and Private Decision Making: A Critique."
Journal of Law and Economics 2: 46-57.

Murray, Phillip. 1978. "Industry, Economics and the Water Pollution Act."
Administration 26(4).

Nash, A.E. Kier. 1970. "Pollution, Population, and the Cowboy Economy." Journal
of Comparative Administration 2: 119-20.

Nelson, John 0. 1980. "Flow Reduction by Sensible Water conservation." North
Marin County Water District, California 94948.

Newsweek Magazine. 1981. "The Browning of America." February 23, 1981. 26-
37.

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 1979. "Natural Resources
Element." Gainesville, Florida.

Northwest Florida Water Management District. "Water Resources Management
Plan." Tallahassee, Florida.

Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Orbell and Wilson. 1978. "Institutional Solutions to the N-Prisoners Dilemma."
American Political Science Review 72: 411-21.

Orlando, SentineL 1981. "Waste Seepage Worries South Florida Water Experts."
January 19, 1981.

Orr, Lloyd D. 1979. "Social Costs, Incentive Structures and Environmental
Policies." Western Political Quarterly 32: 286-299.


i









Reynolds, H.T. 1977. Analysis of Nominal Data. Sage Publications.

Rhoads, Peter. 1978. "Developing a Water Resources Plan for South Florida."
Florida Environemtnal and Urban Issues. VoL V: 4 (11-15).

Robertson, Betsy. 1981. "Criticism Greets New Water Policy." Tallahassee
Democrat. March 1, 1981.

Sax, Joseph. 1969. "The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law." 68
Michigan Law Review 473: 484.

Schwenk, Theodore. 1976. Sensitive Chaos: The Creation of Flowing Forms in
Water and Air. Rudolph Steiner Press.

Searcy, Phil, Bob Butler, Chuck Cobb, and Shirley Taylor. 1979. "Governor's
Resource Management Task Force Committee Five: Water Quantity and
Quality Administration." Final Report, November.

Sports Illustrated. 1981. "There's Trouble in Paradise." February.

South Florida Regional Planning Council. 1978. "Water Management Chap-
ter--Regional Guide." Miami, Florida.

Southwest Florida Water Management District. "District Water Management
Plan." Ft. Myers, Florida.

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Rules, Chapter 291-1, Supp. No. 92,
Ft. Myers, Florida.

St. Johns River Water Management District. "District Water Management Plan."
Palatka, Florida.

Steel, R. and J. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-
Hill.

Suwannee River Water Management District. "District Water Management Plan."
White Springs, Florida.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning CounciL 1978. "Areawide Water Quality--A
Management Plan for the Tampa Bay Region." St. Petersburg, Florida.

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. 1978. "Coastal Zone Management."
Stuart, Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. "An Annotated Bibliography on Water
Conservation." Contract No. DACW-72-78-M-0752. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. "Before the Well Runs Dry: Vol. I: A
Handbook for Designing a Local Water Conservation Plan; Vol. II: A Workshop
on How to Design a Local Water Conservation Plan." Water Conservation
Project, New England River Basins Commission. Washington, D.C.









U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. "Alternative Waste Water Treatment:
Aquatic and Land Systems." Water Research Capsule Report. Washington,
D.C.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1973. "Laws of the U.S. Relating to Water
Pollution Control and Environmental Quality." Committee on Public Works,
March 1973 93-1), 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.

1980. "Interim Report of Ground Water Contamination." Committee
on Governmental Operations, 96th Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. No. 96-1440.
Washington, D.C.






























APPENDICES





























INFORMATION MATRIX:


PART I









I. INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES

LOCAL GOVERNMENT


Zoning

Point/non-point
permitting

Storm water management

Sanitary landfills

Natural structures

Coordinate government
levels

Implement regulation
procedures

Inform public

Coordinate agency policy
of water management

Prioritize water needs

Ground water protection

Meet legal requirements

Water distribution

Equitable charges to
consumer

Water system
availability

Adequate rate structure

Inter-agency
coordination

Enforcement sanctions

SMonitor water levels

Regulate discharge

Plan for water shortage


Leon

208


Dade


Hillsborough


208

208

208

208


ERMD
WM DIV

ERMD
WM DIV

ERMD
PC DIV
ERMD
PC DIV

208

208


"Water"

"Water"


"Water"


"Water"

"Water"


"Drainage"

"Drainage"


Collier


Pasco


NPR CP


74-50

74-50

74-50









Hillsborough


Inspections and surveys

User measuring devices

Master water plan


KEY

ERMD/PC DIV

ERMD/WM DIV

"Water"

"Drainage"
74-50
NPR CP

208


- Pollution Control Division of the Environmental Resource Management
Department, Dade County
- Water Management Division of the Environmental Resource Mangement
Department, Dade County
- Planning Document from City of Tampa Planning Agency. Hillsborough
County.
- Public Works Department Document, Tampa, Hillsborough County
- Collier County Ordinance # 74-50
- New Port Richey Comprehensive Plan, Pasco County

- Non-point source pollution plan


Pasco


Collier

74-50

74-50


NPR CP


Leon


Dade








REGIONAL GOVERNMENT


Conservation


Well field development


Back pumping


Demineralization


Deep aquifer


Storage research


Waste water reuse


Forward pumping


Water supply for human needs


Land use and water quality planning


Guarantee local supply


Water management that will minimize
adverse environmental impacts

Preserve and utilize storage and
recharge areas

Encourage multiple use of all water
bodies within the district

Implement and enforce floodplain
utilization

Promote efficient use of water


SFWMD

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS


Water Management Districts
SWFWMD SJRWMD SRWMD NWFWMD

Ch. 373 Ch. 373
FS


SWFWMD
Plan


Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS


Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS







Ch. 373
FS


Ch. 373
FS









SFWMD SWFWMD


considerr aspects of water quality/
quantity in its activities

considerr environmental impacts


Ion-structural management will be
considered over structural

consideration given to economic impacts


consideration to land management plans


Deserving water for navigation and
creation, and wildlife

comprehensive plan for land and water


Leasonable-beneficial use for water


support structural activities when
hey meet management goals, policies

address water problems in relation to
Environmental impacts, water resources
ind human safety

chance public welfare and health
standards

Formed public

fulfill provisions of Ch. 373, FS


after resources development and
practices which minimize pollution
d depletion of water

flooding


SJRWMD SRWMD NWFWMD

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373 Ch. 373
FS FS

Ch. 373 Ch. 373 Ch. 373
FS FS FS

Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS


Ch. 373
FS


Ch. 373
FS


Ch. 373
FS

Ch. 373
FS


Ch. 373
FS


EY

h. = Chapter
S = Florida Statutes









REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILS

East North Tampa Treasure South-
South Central Certral Bay Coast west Central Withlaeoochee
A balanced distribution of water "Regional
Guide"
(HUD)
Resources among uses to ensure a viable "Regional
long-term existence for both man Guide"
and nature (HUD)

High level of water quality throughout "Regional
to ensure a sustained yield for urban Guide"
and agricultural use and perpetuation (HUD)
of natural systems

Require sound development practices to "Regional
preserve natural system services Guide"
(HUD)

Support the best possible utilization "Coastal
of coastal zone resources Zone
Management
Plan"
To provide guidance for the "Areawide
preservation, protection, restoration, Water
improvement and enhancement of upland, Quality
submerged land and biological features Plan"
of the coastal, estuarine, and marine
environment of the state

Provide maximum feasible protection "Areawide
and enhancement of surface water Water
quality at lowest possible cost Quality
with most equitable distribution Plan"
of benefits and costs

Prevent degradation of water quality "Land Use
resulting from future activities Policy
Guide"
Monitor effectiveness of water quality "Areawide
management Water
Quality
Plan"
Achieve a balanced economy which can Rules
absorb and adapt to growth Ch. 291-2

Protect and enhance the water resources Rules
of the region Ch. 291-2

Support the attainment of "swimable Rules
and fishable" waters throughout region Ch. 291-2

Protect and manage surface and ground "208 Plan"
waters of the region.

Encourage the recognition of and "208 Plan"
respect of natural limitations
of water with respect to growth

Provide adequate quantity of water "Land Use
resources to meet regional needs Policy
Guide"
Provide sufficient quality water to Two funded
meetr apid population growth projects:
F.H.A.
Halt saltwater intrusion Section III
Program;
U.S.A.C.
Engineers
2030 report
Develop a planning process for continuous "Water
assessment of water management issues Quality
and detailed data base concerning water Planning
quality conditions Process"

Develop cost effective strategies for "Water
dealing with known pollution sources Quality
Planning
Process"


L




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