Title: Summary of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force, February 25, 1994 Meeting, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, Florida
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004766/00001
 Material Information
Title: Summary of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force, February 25, 1994 Meeting, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Summary of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force, February 25, 1994 Meeting, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, Florida (JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 2 ( Land Use and Water Planning Task Force - 1994 ), Item 7
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004766
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

February 25, 1994 Meeting
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
St. Petersburg, Florida


Task Force Chair Vicki Tschinkel introduced Jane Walker from Gainesville as a new
member to the Task Force. Ms. Walker has been an active member of Florida Defenders of
the Environment and has been involved in planning and land acquisition efforts on the
Suwannee River as a member of the Governor's Suwannee River Task Force. She has also
served as a County Commissioner for four years. Ms. Walker was appointed to the Task
Force to represent environmental interests.

Status of Legislation

Ms. Tschinkel presented an update regarding the Senate and House 1994 State Water Policy
bills. These particular bills are no longer focused on the entire water planning effort, but
now require the Legislature to review and ratify the State Water Policy.

Pam McVety clarified the intent of a current amendment to SB 258 which requires the
current version of the State Water Policy, adopted by the ERC in December 1993, to be
submitted to the Legislature in bill format for ratification.

There is also a Senate and a House bill requiring a Water Management District Review
Commission to be established. The Commission would overlap some of the Task Force's
work, in that one of the functions of the Commission would be to establish ways to improve
the planning activities for land and water resources by reorganizing and integrating the
responsibilities of the water management districts, regional planning councils, the
Department of Community Affairs and the Department of Environmental Protection.


Julia Greene, Executive Director, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC),
welcomed the Task Force to the Tampa Bay area. She distributed copies of the TBRPC
Annual Report and State of the Bay, 1993, prepared by the Agency on Bay Management.
The Agency serves as the Natural Resource Committee of the TBRPC and advises the
TBRPC in the development of regional impact (DRI) process and in its Dredge and Fill
review responsibility. Additionally, the Agency conducts an active public education

Ms. Tschinkel noted that the Task Force may want to look at the efforts discussed in the
Agency on Bay Management publication as a model in addressing the part of its charge
related to governmental entities, scientific information, and public participation.

Panel Discussion Land Use Planning Implications of Water Supply Management

Mr. Bob Stewart, immediate past Chairman of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council,
moderated the panel discussion.

The critical issue of water supply and land use planning has been demonstrated through the
regional planning council's review of over 200 DRIs that have been approved within the
region. The regional planning councils must address such questions as:
Where is the region going to get the water to meet the demand of the approved
Does the region have a water supply problem or a water transmission problem?

Are the water management districts prepared to provide all of the water needs
identified in the local plans?
If a proposed DRI has already obtained its permits, does the regional planning
council need to approve the DRI?
How much saltwater intrusion is tolerable?

Peter Hubbell, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Water Management District
Ninety percent (90%) of the State's and eighty percent (80%) of the SWFWMD region's
water use comes from the ground water system. The water management district governing
boards allocate water through permits or licenses. Around seven to eight years ago, the
SWFWMD began to see deteriorating water quantity and quality, and other environmental
features began to be impacted. The SWFWMD board requested the staff to come up with
minimum flows and levels.

The Water Resource Assessment Projects (WRAP) determine the safe yield of the aquifer.
The governing board continues to ask how much ground water is actually available and how
much of that is available for human consumption.

The SWFWMD is broken into 3 ground water basins and is totally dependent on rainfall.
Water that recharges within the basin, remains within the basin. Water level data from
monitoring wells in the region shows moderate seasonal fluctuations beginning in the 1940's.
As supplemental irrigation for agriculture became a big business in the area, the fluctuations
between wet and dry seasons became dramatic and now show an overall declining resource.
In some areas the water levels have declined 40 to 50 feet since the 1940's. During a dry
season, some areas declined more that 60 feet and some areas were below sea level.
Three major freezes during the 1980's destroyed the citrus industry north of Tampa Bay
causing many growers to move to the Bay area. In Polk and Highlands counties, there are a
lot of uses which have resulted in the lowering of lake levels. A concern in the Bay area is
saltwater intrusion.
Much of the Tampa Bay region is located above relic sea water which rises with the lowered
water pressure in the aquifer. The region is highly dependent upon a very thin lens of fresh
water that is subject to a great deal of competition from the agricultural industry, the

development industry, and other demands that high population increases place on the

The users to the south of Tampa Bay are primarily agriculture. In the three county area
surrounding Tampa Bay, the primary user group is the public (roughly 75 to 80 percent of
water use is public supply).

The WRAP has developed two models: one designed to project how water levels fluctuate
when you superimpose man's influence on the natural system; and a solutransport model, to
determine the saltwater intrusion rate.

The SWFWMD has determined that in a small portion of the Southern Water Use Caution
Area (SWUCA), the safe yield in the most stressed area is about 150 million gallons per
day. The governing board has defined "safe yield" as how much water can be withdrawn
while continuing to stop saltwater intrusion. The current permitted capacity in this region,
is 416 million gallons per day.

Ground water use projections for 2020, forecast a doubling of the current 800 million
gallons per day. The ground water system cannot support this level of withdrawals. The
SWFWMD has developed several strategies. For example:
* A set of new regulatory standards determining how water is allocated.

* Water management district financial and technical assistance to local governments,
agriculture and industry in the development and implementation of alternative water
supply (other than ground water).

For the strategies to be successful:

everyone must use water efficiently and effectively;

conservation strategies must be developed and implemented;

alternative sources need to be developed.

This summer, the SWFWMD will publish the WRAP for the Central Ground Water Basin.
This will focus on potable/public supply water use.

What does this mean as far as growth management? Will water supply be the limiting factor
in growth? Mr. Hubbell does not believe such a situation is unavoidable. There are
alternatives if the water management districts move away from the old way of supplying
water. It all revolves around the high cost of developing alternate water supplies (i.e. -
desalinization, etc.).

Harold Aiken, Executive Director, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority

There are currently 3 WSAs: Peace/Manasota WSA; Withlacoochee WSA; and the West
Coast Regional WSA.

The West Coast Regional WSA was formed 20 years ago through an interlocal agreement
between Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Pasco County, and the cities of Tampa and St.

Petersburg. New Port Richey is a non-voting member. The West Coast Regional WSA's
mission is to responsibly meet the water supply needs of the communities, and has been a
good forum for building consensus among the member governments concerning present and
future regional water management policy. The WSAs are the "wholesaler" of water as
opposed to a regulator or a municipal system.

There is often some confusion between the roles of the water management districts and the
water supply authorities. Accountability of the WSA is to the governments and citizens with
which it contracts to provide water. The WSA has no water supply authority unless
specifically provided for in the water supply contracts with its members.

Local governments provide the WSA with their respective comprehensive plans which have
been found in compliance by the State. The WSA then aggregates the water needs for its
member governments to determine the influence upon the regional water supply.

The WSA creates a range of demand for the future water use of the region. There must be
a balance between how far ahead a community is willing to invest in its capital
infrastructure, the size of investment, the length of preparedness horizon, and the ability to
raise capital.

In assisting the member governments in making these decisions, the WSA attempts to
provide a sufficiency analysis of costs for various water supply options. In doing so, the
WSA has historically lacked a water resource inventory. This information would provide
the local government with knowledge of the availability of water for future allocation.

A decade ago, the water management districts were directed to establish a water resource
inventory for the state which would serve as a roadmap for future water allocation
strategies. This effort has been completed in some areas. Without this water resource
inventory, the WSA is limited in the assurances it can provide its member governments for
future water.

Twenty years ago, the water allocation strategy centered around property rights and impacts
to adjacent land owners. A decade ago, the strategy shifted to minimizing environmental
impacts regardless of land ownership. Today, the SWFWMD is still struggling to determine
sound allocation strategy. Consistency and equity are still lacking in the process and could
cause the member governments to invest millions of dollars in water supply facilities to meet
their future demands only to be faced at some future date with mandated reductions in
allocation. The lack of focus is directly related to the current lack of an inventory of
available water. Given this information (inventory), the WSA would have the ability to
identify future capital requirements, know how rapidly and how much they should invest in
technology, and more accurately determine how much growth and water demand can be

Commissioner Ann Hildebrand, Chair of the Pasco County Commission and Chair of the
West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority.

Pasco County is the largest exporter of water in the region. Predicted population increases
will require an additional 26 million gallons per day by the year 2030. Pasco County relies
on the West Coastal Regional WSA to carefully monitor and balance pumping so as to
minimize any negative impacts.

The West Coastal Regional WSA has developed a management plan to assess the
environmental impacts associated with pumping, how to measure them, and a system of
options to mitigate the adverse effects. This plan also requires augmentation with reclaimed,
stormwater, ground water or stream flow diversions to mitigate further impacts.

Water planning is just one component of the growth planning and management. Growth is
important for creating and sustaining jobs and for the economic health of the region. If we
support a growth oriented government, are we condemning future citizens to dried wells and
poor water quality? Are we committed to an expensive research and development program
to develop alternate sources? What happens if the projected growth does not occur and the
resources have been spent? How do elected officials have to deal with the citizen whose
well has dried?

With the proper information, we need to adopt a water planning and management policy
which can be defended and supported. This information should be shared with the public so
that they may understand the consequences as well.

Commissioner Jan Platt, Hillsborough County; Chair, Agency on Bay Management
From a land use perspective, Hillsborough County has 80 square miles of phosphate mining
and about 40 percent of the county's property is greenbelted. Agriculture is a large water
user. Approximately 10,000 people move into Hillsborough County each year. There are
many conflicting users of water and the WSAs must also compete with these users when
they go to receive a consumptive use permit from the water management districts.

The Agency on Bay Management brings together the conflicting users and the regulators, the
potential polluters and citizens groups on an equal basis to share their perspectives. This is
not occurring today in the area of ground water.

The SWFWMD is viewed as a regulatory agency while the West Coast WSA is viewed as a
utility with the local governments caught in the middle.

The impacts of the decisions at the local level reach far beyond its borders and yet there is
no broad overview of these decisions when they are made. There needs to be a regional
approach to land use and water planning. This could be accomplished through integrating
local and regional plans with increased emphasis on land use decisions.

Hillsborough County citizens have voted to tax themselves to purchase environmentally
sensitive lands. To date, the county has acquired approximately $120 million worth of land
that is environmentally significant. Other counties throughout the state should be
encouraged to adopt land acquisition programs.

Addressing reclaimed water, stormwater, and potable water should be integrated into water
use planning. Plans should be made to collect, save, purify, and use stormwater.

Commissioner Stanley Stephens, Manatee County

The Task Force must focus on working together to solve the State's land use and water
supply problems. There must be a linkage between water issues and planning.
State and local guidelines often conflict.

Agriculture should be required to fall under concurrency guidelines due to its large level of
water use. Water use for agriculture and public consumption should be balanced.

How we expand and grow in the future will depend on our ability to find new and/or
alternate sources of water, surface and ground water.

The SWFWMD says ground water is being depleted and local governments must find new
sources. Commissioner Stephens emphasized that Manatee County has planned for its
growth and feels that they have done the necessary preparation (in terms of water supply) to
accommodate its communities' projected growth.

There must be cooperative watershed planning led at the local level (i.e. local
municipality, county, or regional agencies).

Commissioner Stephens shared a letter regarding the Southern Water Use Caution Area
(SWUCA) plan and Manatee County. The issues addressed in the letter include:
* the promotion of conservation, and the development and proper utilization of surface
and ground waters;
* development of new water sources; and,
* avoid adversely affecting existing legal users of water. Mr. Stephens also encourages
the coordination of planning and development activities between the local units of
governments with the planning activities of the region and the state.

He commented that the issues facing the Task Force will likely be:
* Water management district plans (DWMP) and their affects on the local government
comprehensive plans;
* maintaining flexibility in the programs to avoid being punitive;

* improved CIP program to identify the direction, funding and financial responsibility;

* Do not limit growth and development due to water resource availability.

Moderator Robert Stewart summarizes:

Peter Hubbell Money is the key factor.
Harold Aiken A west coast regional water inventory should be completed.
Comm. Hildebrand Growth needs to be balanced with the available water supply.
Comm. Platt Water management districts are water regulators, water supply
authorities are a utility, everybody else is in the middle.
There needs to be a broad overview and regional approach to land
and water planning.
Comm. Stephens Everybody cannot be pleased at once.

Panel Question and Answer

(Varn) The process may not be wrong, but people do not like the answers that they are
receiving. This Task Force is charged with looking at the process. The ICE may provide
the needed remedy to many of the land use water planning conflicts. To what extent have
water issues been considered in the ICE rules? A mandatory linkage is missing because
only voluntary coordination exists between the water management districts, regional planning
councils, and water supply authorities.

(Hubbell) The water management districts are required to comment on local government
comprehensive plans, DRIs, and provide technical information to local governments and
regional planning councils. The water management districts only become involved in the
process at the permitting stage, which is too late.

(Hamann) Is this conflict created because the information is not readily available or

(Hubbell) Historically, the information submitted to the local governments has been general
in nature. The WRAPs provide the detailed information on the sustainable yield of the
water. The water management districts have not generated the detailed site specific
information, although the information is improving.

(Stephens) The water management districts' involvement and the coordination of land use
and water planning should be a coordinated pro-active process.

(Aiken) The WSAs have attempted to commonize the water and infrastructure for the entire
community that: (1) provides cushion for all of the resource users; and (2) reduces the affect
that land use decisions made long ago have on today's water resources.

(Milledge) How can the situation arise in which the resource is permitted vastly greater
than its capacity?

(Hubbell) In the allocation process, permits are based on 2 and 10 year draught conditions
which over inflates the amount of water being permitted compared to what is actually being
used. In urban areas, the water management district permits are based on a 6 to 10 year

(Milledge) What is lacking is a plan that is binding on all of the users, established by the
region that is based on best evidence, and addresses resource issues so that local
governments do not over allocate the resource. The only tool that the water management
districts have ever had to work with is the permitting.

(Hubbell) The water supply authority and the water management district consider the Needs
and Sources plans from different perspectives. The water supply authorities look at
optimizing the water resource first and then the protection of the environment. The water
management districts look at natural resource protection before optimizing. Maybe there
could be some kind of binding relationship through these plans.

(Orshefsky) An issue that keeps recurring is the timing issue. If the water management
district permitting process is too late for a developer, and if the consumptive use issues are
too late for the WSAs, what types of information and when in the process would local
government decision makers rather see this type of information? Is it appropriate to bring

this information into the process early enough so that it may be considered in the EARs?
What kind of information would the local governments need?

(Platt) Local governments must understand the limitations of the resources that are
available and which recharge areas need protection. There is very little information on
recharge areas.

(Varn) The Needs and Sources studies are being developed and will give local governments
information that could be used to amend their comprehensive plans. What happens if a local
government does not amend the comprehensive plan pursuant to the information available?
There is no mechanism in the current process to require the local governments to address
these problems. If we look at the EAR process, a lot can be accomplished.

(Orshefsky) There are two types of information: (1) budgetary types of information that
the WRAPS will provide in terms of numbers of gallons, and (2) geographic and
characteristic information about the region's water resources. Will the WRAPS include
information which is geographically specific?

(Hubbell) The WRAPS could provide this type of information.

(Stephens) If a user developed reuse/reclaimed/brackish water sources, would the user
receive credit for additional potable water in their permit?

(Hubbell) Yes, the plan for the SWUCA recommends that if a local government has the
capability to distribute reclaimed water to golf courses, agriculture communities, etc., a
credit system could be established to give credits to the local governments for additional
potable water withdrawal from the ground water system. There is currently no mechanism
for systems that currently have the capability.

We must be careful when we speak in terms of geographically specific water supply areas.
Labelling areas as having a rich water supply could send the false sense that they can
support significant future of growth.

(Tschinkel) The discussion thus far emphasizes the fact that water is a regional resource.
Does the Task Force want to get into the water resource allocation responsibilities, which
leads toward the trading of rights rather than the management of natural resources?

(Varn) Do the water management districts consider the environment a water user? If
natural systems needs are accommodated, then the rest of the water may be used by people.
The current system can accomplish this task. Where do you draw the line of responsibility
for making decisions, i.e. local governments, water management districts, etc. This
question can be addressed in the local government comprehensive plan and the ICE.

(Malloy) Is there a process in place that works to resolve competition between water users?
Where do the issues become resolved? Does land use, water management, or both control
the decisions?

(Malloy) Question to panel: Would you prefer that the land use plan or the water
management districts regulatory actions control the decisions?

(Stephens) The local governments have control over the land use and no control over the
water issues, and therefore, the land use should control. Land without water is worth
nothing, water without land is worth something.

(Hildebrand) The land use should dictate the decisions. The cost of water will increase
significantly and the local governments will be looking towards alternative sources to
provide water to the public.

(Platt) The land use should conform to the water that is available. There are so many
competing interests, and the water management districts are the controlling factor.

(Hubbell) The districts hope to develop a plan that will show local governments where the
cheap water is and not dictate land use decisions. If cheap water is not available, alternate
sources need to be developed. Water does not need to be the lynch pin as long as people
can be creative. Technology is there, people must be willing to treat water better than they
have in the past.

Allan Milledge Weaknesses in the System

The current culture in water management has been that of adaptation and accommodation to
development. We must identify what natural systems are in need of protection. If the State
is to commit to the protection of natural systems, radical changes must occur. Water
management districts should have plans that are at least as specific as local government
comprehensive plans, adopted in a process similar to that of the local government
comprehensive plan, and have legal status and be binding on the decisions made by the
water management district and the local government. The standard would be consistency
between these plans. The permit process as a tool is a disaster, but without an overriding,
geographically specific constitution for a region, permitting decisions will continue to be
disastrous. Should the water management districts be responsible for protecting the natural

(Malloy) Are the water management districts statutorily charged with protecting natural
systems? Part of the problem is that the water management districts have responsibilities
that no other agency has which have become secondary to their efforts to participate in
natural systems protection.

(Hamann) It is the fundamental job of the water management districts to protect natural
resources and allocate them among the competing users. At the local government level,
there is a lot of competition among various land uses. The water management districts
should concentrate on protecting the natural systems, and should encourage or require local
governments to make decisions about land use that can be supported by the resources

(Malloy) What agency has as its primary responsibility, the provision of water for public

(Varn) This responsibility is assigned at the local and regional level.

(Walker) Should the DWMPs and the SRPPs be more closely linked? If so, would the
DWMPs duplicate the SRPP.

(Varn) There is nothing to prevent the water management districts from developing plans
such as those mentioned by Mr. Milledge. The water management districts are not currently
developing these plans. Should they be mandated?

(Milledge) Currently, the DWMPs have no legal status.

(Varn) What kind of plans/studies are needed?

(Milledge) In addition to determining the location and amount of natural resources, the
water management districts should determine where development is inappropriate. There
needs to be an advocate for the natural systems.

(Varn) That is exactly what a local government comprehensive plan does. An
identification of the needs/demands of the natural systems is missing. Mr. Varn would be
reluctant to give the water management districts additional responsibilities relating to
protection of natural systems.

(Tschinkel) There is agreement that all water management districts and local governments
have responsibility to identify safe yield levels of the resource. The water management
districts role should be strengthened, but is not possible without a strong technical base.
One question remains, whether the information is delivered in a meaningful way to the local
governments for their use and interpretation.

(Varn) There needs to be a separation from the water management districts and natural
systems protection and water supply. WSAs were created to address water supply.

Adequate information exists if someone will start making the decisions whether it is the local
governments or the water management districts that determine the most efficient use of

(Malloy) Who should be responsible for the decisions? If it is the purview of WSAs to
address water supply, then we need more WSAs. The agency charged with supplying water
for people, agriculture, and industry, should be the same agency that protects Florida's
natural resources.

(Moss) There needs to be some point of concurrency that has standing. If we are serious,
we need to take a look at our water supply in relation to our land use. At some point these
two components need to be coordinated.

(Powell) In response to Mr. Milledge. The water management districts already play a role
as advocate for the natural systems. The districts provide information to the local
governments in the development of their local government comprehensive plans. The
contribution from the water management districts for natural systems is the development of a
technical understanding about what these systems require. Dramatic changes to the system
are not needed.

The ICEs, EARs, and SRPPs should be adaptable and suited for addressing a lot of the
problems that the Task Force is facing. One thing that the Task Force can do is to
determine whether these arrangements, will address these issues. Most of the new
requirements are currently in the rulemaking process. The one portion that may need some
attention is the relationship at the regional level between the water management districts and

the regional planning councils in relation to the strategic regional policy plans (SRPP).
There is an opportunity for the water management districts and the regional planning
councils to work through many of the land use and water resource issues and help to bring
those concerns into the process through the Evaluation and Appraisal Process.

(Tschinkel) Local governments are now planning for the future and having to make
decisions today that will have far reaching effects into the future.

(Seibert) Do not assume that local governments are incapable of serving anyone but the
development industry.

Do not assume that local governments are incapable of thinking and planning regionally.
Local governments can and they do plan regionally. The local government comprehensive
planning process could be fine tuned, but don't drastically change the process.

(Malloy) Local governments are addressing the protection of natural resources. The reason
the water management districts exist in Florida, is because local governments used to select
the source of their water. The state had concerns about this process and created the regional
agencies. In my opinion, this only added more process. Do not add any more process.
Conflict and competition should be addressed as close to the competition as possible (i.e. -
at the local level).

(Dudley) Planning for rivers, estuaries, and basins is beyond the ability of local
governments to make the broader decisions.

(Orshefsky) There is some concern over whether local governments can adequately protect
natural systems. Water management districts have more technical expertise than do local
governments. One of the existing mechanisms in the SRPPs is the geographic definition of
the regionally significant natural resources. Some of the water resource issues are not as
clearly defined. Do the water management districts have the capability in their planning
documents to help the local governments define those natural areas that need to be preserved
or protected? Information should be generated early enough in the process so that it can be
incorporated in the SRPP process or in the EARs so that local plans can be consistent with
those identified areas of significance.

(Hubbell) There is a hierarchy of planning at the water management districts. The
DWMPs have the Needs and Sources Plan as a subset; and the WRAPs are a subset of the
Needs and Sources plan, which extend down to the permit level. For local governments,
what level of information do you need to make the proper decisions?

(Tschinkel) As it has been described to the Task Force, the data is either too general or too
specific and not interpretive. Even when the data is specific, it is not conclusionary enough
for local governments to use.

(Hamann) Are any of the water management districts going back and looking at the water
issues as part of the EAR process and giving information back to the local governments
determining the availability of water, or that inappropriate land uses have been allocated,

(Varn) Does the governing board adopt the DWMPs? Do permitting decisions have to be
consistent with the DWMP? If the plans are approved, do the permitting decisions have to
be consistent?

(Hubbell) No, the DWMPs do not direct the regulatory programs. The Needs and Sources
describe who uses the water and where the water is located. The WRAP describes how the
resources will be allocated. The water management district planning hierarchy will allow
the plans to be taken to the permitting level.

(Milledge) Existing processes deprive the validity for the water management districts
because they do not have to abide by their district water management plan. The process
could be changed to allow the plan to be adopted by the governing board of the water
management district; and then, if issues can not be resolved, it could go to the Governor and

Report Outline and Future Issues

(Tschinkel) The Proposed Outline and Schedule for meetings was introduced and accepted
by the Task Force.

It was decided to meet twice in July and twice in September and to cancel the meetings in

Future meetings will address the ICE rules, the water management districts' role in the EAR
process and the SRPP Rule, as well as a briefing on the State Comprehensive Plan and the
revision of the State Land Development Plan. The Peace River Plan could be an example
for the Task Force to consider.

(Hamann) The Task Force has not discussed water quality issues. There has been no
discussion regarding the impacts of land use on water quality including who is responsible
for these issues. The Task Force should also be looking at wetlands planning and the
possibility of developing regional mitigation plans.

(Tschinkel) The Task Force may also wish to discuss estuarine systems.

(Hamann) The SFWMD is developing a regional mitigation plan and the Task Force may
wish to know how that plan will relate to the local government comprehensive plans.

(Moss) Has the integration of land use and water planning been addressed in any other state
that the Task Force can look at? John DeGrove may wish to come speak to the Task Force.

(McVety) The DEP is developing the new ecosystem approach to manage natural systems.
A presentation could be made at the April or May meeting.
(Tschinkel) It might be good if a presentation could be made on Florida Bay.

(Orshefsky) The Growth Management Portion should be added to the Appendix of the
Report Outline.

(McVety) There is not a common or consistent understanding of what is happening to our
natural resources. There could be some sort of State of the State report done for the Task

There is also a report by the Florida Biodiversity Task Force called Nature 2000 that may
be useful for the Task Force to look at.


(Moss) The Task Force should consider agriculture's use of water resources.

(Seibert) The Task Force may want to look at the structure of the water management
districts, such as the inclusion of elected officials on the governing board.

(Hamann) The experience has been that local governments tend to be shortsighted and tend
to focus on their particular jurisdiction. The Task Force should look at what is the most
appropriate level to make the decisions and coordination and integration of extrajurisdictional

(Orshefsky) Real world examples would prove helpful to the Task Force. The informal
linkages among the plans and agencies may need to be strengthened into more formal

(Dudley) There is a lack of understanding by the average citizen concerning these issues.
It is not because they do not care, they just do not understand.

(Milledge) Local governments are doing a lot better today than they were 20 years ago,
however, improvements are still needed. We must determine how to establish a clear
natural resource voice for the local governments to use. People making the decisions still
do not know the consequences of those decisions.

(Harmon) All of these plans and policies are established, but some do not have force.
There needs to be discussion about the economic mechanisms for water allocation. The
natural system should be foremost, but one might ask at what point does the role of the
public sector end and it is more appropriate for the market to take over.

The summary minutes for the previous two meetings were approved. Having no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

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