Title: Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Materials for Meeting of February 25, 1994 in St. Petersburg, FL
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004769/00001
 Material Information
Title: Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Materials for Meeting of February 25, 1994 in St. Petersburg, FL
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Materials for Meeting of February 25, 1994 in St. Petersburg, FL (JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 2 ( Land Use and Water Planning Task Force - 1994 ), Item 10
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004769
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


STATE OF FLORIDA

officee of the (0 to rntr RECE
THE CAPITOL
LAWTEN CHE TALLAHASSEE FLORIDA 32399-0001 1 7 1994
LAWTON CHILES 0 7 1994
GOVERNOR Carlton Fields Tallahas




February 15, 1994


TO: Members, Land Use and Water Planning Task Force
FROM: / Teresa B. Tinker, Policy Coordinator, Growth Management and Strategic
/ Planning Policy Unit

The next meeting of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force is scheduled for Friday,
February 25, 1994, at the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 9455 Koger
Boulevard, Suite 219, Conference Room, St. Petersburg, Florida, from 10:00 a.m. until
3:00 p.m. If directions are needed, please call the TBRPC office at (813) 577-5151.

The following materials are enclosed:

Meeting Agenda;
Panel Issue Statement;

Description of Florida Regional Water Supply Authorities;
Summary Report of the January 24, 1994 Meeting;

Summary Report of the December 15, 1993 Meeting;

Schedule of Future Meeting Dates.

The agenda calls for a working lunch. We have arranged for sandwiches to be brought in
for the Task Force members and staff at a cost of $5.50 per person. Transportation from
the Tampa International Airport is available, however we must know your flight schedule as
soon as possible. Please call Paul Carlson at (904) 488-7793 with this information.

The March Task Force meeting is scheduled for March 21, 1994, in Tallahassee (specific
location to be determined). Further details will be discussed at February's meeting.

I look forward to seeing you on the 25th. Please call me at (904) 488-7793 if you have any
questions, comments or concerns about the upcoming meeting or the enclosed agenda
materials.






Lana Jse and Water Planning TasK Force Meeting

February 25, 1994
10:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
St. Petersburg, Florida

AGENDA

10:00 am Welcome Julia Greene, Executive Director, Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council

10:05 Opening Remarks by Vicki Tschinkel, Chair
10:15 Panel Discussion Land Use Planning Implications of Water Supply
Management

Moderator Councilman Robert R. Stewart, Immediate Past Chairman,
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

Water Supply Management Initiatives Peter Hubbell, Executive Director,
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Regional Water Supply Authority Role Harold Aiken, Executive
Director, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority

Local Government Perspectives

Commissioner Ann Hildebrand, Pasco County

Commissioner Charles E. Rainey, Pinellas County
Commissioner Jan Platt, Hillsborough County
Commissioner Stanley Stephens, Manatee County

12:00 pm Public Input

12:30 Break and Working Lunch

12:45 Roundtable Discussion
Review and Discussion of Draft Outline for Task Force Report and
Timetable
Weaknesses in the System Allan Milledge
Issues Discussion

2:45 Administrative Matters and Other Business

3:00 Adjourn








Land Use and Water Planning Task Force Meeting


February 25, 1994

AGENDA

Page 2

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC



Public comments regarding the Task Force charge and issues for consideration by the Task
Force will be taken at 12:00 p.m. Written comments may be submitted to:
Land Use and Water Planning Task Force
Attention: Teresa Tinker, Policy Coordinator
Growth Management and Strategic Planning Policy Unit
Executive Office of the Governor
Room 2105, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001








Panel Issue Statement for the February 25, 1994 Meeting of the
Land Use and Water Planning Task Force

Land Use Planning Implications of Water Supply Management

In southwest Florida, water supply management has been receiving greater and greater
attention in recent years. This is, in large part, attributable to the significant growth in
water use that has occurred over the past several decades. This expansion in water use is
associated with increases in the area's population and in agricultural, industrial and
commercial activities. Meeting these growing water demands, while protecting water and
related natural resources, has been complicated by recurring droughts which further restrict
the already limited supply of water. In addition, much of the demand for water resources
for public supply use occurs along the coast, where traditional supplies are most limited.
Impacts associated with this tremendous growth in water use have been observed in several
areas. These include lowered lake levels, impacted wetlands, reduced stream flows,
saltwater intrusion and increasing competition among water users that have manifested
themselves in several regions.

In an attempt to better manage water supplies within its jurisdiction, the Southwest Florida
Water Management District has undertaken a number of initiatives. These initiatives include
completion of the first District-wide comprehensive Needs and Sources Plan, declaration of
several water use caution areas (WUCA's) and implementation of associated detailed
hydrologic studies, referred to as Water Resource Assessment Projects (WRAP's). All of
these initiatives are aimed at achieving safe (or sustainable) yield -- the amount of water that
can be used by people without causing unacceptable impacts. Other entities share with the
District the responsibility for managing water supply, including local governments and
utilities (both public and private), regional water supply authorities, and state and federal
agencies.

The water supply area of responsibility is an excellent example of where effective
coordination between water management and growth management must take place for either
initiative to be effective and efficient. This panel will explore the water supply
management/land use planning issue from a variety of perspectives. The Water Management
District will present both the technical background as to the existing water supply situation
and also the various District water supply initiatives underway. The Water Supply Authority
will describe their unique role in planning for and ensuring water supply for their member
governments, while several local governments will present their perspectives.


(Prepared by Richard Owen, Southwest Florida Water Management District)






FLORIDMEGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUT.'RITIES
Chapter 373, Florida Statutes

Regional Water Supply Authorities (RWSA) in Florida are created in accordance with
section 373.1962, Florida Statutes. The enabling legislation, Chapter 74-117, Laws of
Florida, authorized the creation of regional water supply authorities "for the purpose of
developing, recovering, storing and supplying water for county or municipal purposes in
such a manner as will give priority to reducing adverse environmental effects of excessive or
improper withdrawals of water from concentrated areas." Creation also requires an
agreement among the member local government units, adherence to the Florida Interlocal
Cooperation Act of 1969, section 163.01, F.S., and approval of the Governor and Cabinet,
sitting as the head of the Department of Environmental Protection.' Simply, the RWSAs are
regional wholesale water cooperatives or utilities, with a Board of Directors comprised of
officials representing the counties and/or cities that make up the membership of the RWSA.
Most often the county and city officials who make up the RWSA board are elected
commissioners or councilmembers.

The major powers that RWSAs are statutorily permitted to exercise include:
* levying ad valorem taxes, not to exceed one-half mill, with the "approval of the
electors residing in each county or municipality within the territory;"
* acquiring water and water rights;

* developing, storing and transporting water;

* providing, selling and delivering water for county or municipal uses and purposes;

* collecting, treating and recovering wastewater;

* exercising the power of eminent domain;
* issuing revenue bonds;

* suing and being sued;

* borrowing money and incurring indebtedness.

* RWSAs may not engage in local distribution.

Interaction between RWSAs and water management districts (WMD) occurs on various
formal and informal levels. On a formal level, WMDs allow, through the Water Use
Permit process, the ground and surface water withdrawals with which RWSAs supply their
membership. On a less formal basis, WMDs and RWSAs may work together on such things
as water shortage and future potable water sources planning, water conservation efforts, and
cooperative funding projects.

Interaction between RWSAs and regional planning councils (RPC) tends to be informal, with
no legislative requirements linking these entities together. Interaction may include RWSA's
participation in water related planning issues, RPC meetings, and forums or committees that
are sponsored by the RPC. RWSA facilities that have some type of present or future
relationship with a development of regional impact may necessitate communication between
the staffs of the RPC and RWSA because of various DRI processes.

(Prepared by Doug Currier, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority)

Pursuant to Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, the Secretary of the Department of
Environmental Protection may approve creation of a Water Supply Authority or
forward the matter to the Governor and Cabinet for decision.









SUMMARY OF THE
LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE
January 24, 1994 Meeting
West Palm Beach, Florida

Introduction
* The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Members present were Richard
Hamann, Denise Prescod, Allan Milledge, Jack Malloy, Sue Dudley, Linda Shelley,
Pam McVety, David Powell, Pam Akin, Jake Varn, Dave Orshefsky, Steve Seibert,
Bob Romig, Dennis Moss, and Vicki Tschinkel (Chair).
* Task Force members should review the proposed future meeting dates and coordinate
any concerns with Teresa Tinker of the Governor's Office.
* Information distributed at the meeting: Background information on the Auditor
General's performance audit on the Water Resources Management Program; a letter
from Dr. Earle Klay to members; and a DRAFT Summary Report from the
December 15, 1993, meeting.
* UPDATE: All parties have agreed to wait until the end of the 1994 Legislative
Session to hold the hearing on the challenges to the water policy rule amendments.

The Chair summarized her thoughts on the December 15 meeting. In the Chair's opinion,
there are two separate issue areas. The first set of issues deals with the administrative and
legal setting for the integration of water and land use planning.
* Are the legal coordinating or other legal mechanisms that relate land use and water
planning processes adequate?
* What are the informal/bureaucratic processes and procedures that have been
established?

The second issue is technical in nature.
* What is the availability of useful information? The legal framework will be
successful only to the extent that the information is available in a timely manner and
adequate.
* What is the state of the art in understanding the information? The availability of data
and information differs from region to region based on the amount of effort and
resources that are available to develop the information base.

Welcome by Tilford Creel, Executive Director, South Florida Water Management
District
* Mr. Creel emphasized that South Florida has a unique opportunity as it relates to
land use and water planning. The Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, Everglades
and Florida Bay are components of one large ecosystem whose relationship with the
adjacent urban and agricultural land uses can be used as an example for the U.S. and
the world.









* Environmental restoration and water supply planning are not exclusive, and must be
approached in an integrated manner. Urban and agricultural water uses as they relate
to land issues are essential to South Florida. The South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) has worked well with the environmental community (the
Everglades coalition for example) for the last 9 years. One area in which the
SFWMD has not worked particularly well is with the urban areas.
* Mr. Creel commended Secretaries Linda Shelley, Department of Community Affairs,
and Virginia Wetherell, Department of Environmental Protection, on initiating
quarterly meetings with these agencies, the Regional Planning Councils (RPC) and
Water Management Districts (WMD) to identify and address issues relating to land
use planning and water resource management.
PANEL DISCUSSION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
PROCESS, CHAPTER 163, PART II, F.S.

Robert Usherson, Chief, Metropolitan Planning Division, Metropolitan Dade County
Planning Department
* The comprehensive plan is the broadest policy setting level of the planning process
and is viewed by many as being a "soft" planning activity. The comprehensive
planning exercise is principally an exercise whereby local governments seek to
articulate their long range policy regarding use and development of land, protection
and development of natural resources, and the coordination of public facility planning
and activities with land use and environmental policy. This coordinating action is
essential to successfully planning growth and development.
* WMDs can best assist the local government comprehensive planning process through
the provision of adequate and timely data and analysis.
* The law requires that local plans be based.on best available existing information.
The information should be as concise and to the point as possible so that there is
little variation in the interpretation of the data by the state, regional and local
governments.
* Local governments need greater assistance from the WMDs, the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), and state government in general, to develop the
kind of information needed to conduct studies that are useful, to provide necessary
background for the local comprehensive planners, and to help equip the local
planning agencies with the ability to use that information.
* In developing the land use element, the fundamental analysis that local governments
can conduct is a study of the intrinsic suitability of their jurisdiction's natural
resources, conditions throughout the jurisdiction, identifying which areas within the
jurisdiction are available for development, suitable with conditions, or not suitable for
development.









* Information such as topography, vegetative communities, delineation of wetlands, are
readily available. However, an area where there is a great deal of debate is in the
interpretive information and the implications of development of various types or
densities on these resources. The WMDs can be helpful in this regard.
* There should be an information based approach to the development of level of service
standards. This approach would require the local governments to conform the policy
recommendations in the local comprehensive plan to whatever that information
suggests (i.e. conditions, problems, best management practices, and best solutions
in the opinion of the districts and DEP).
* There have been times in the past when local government policies have preceded
district and state policies on some issues. With a better information base, local
governments could be positioned to take the lead and not simply required to conform
with state policy.
* (Vicki Tschinkel) Who should be responsible for the information as it has the effect
of changing the use and value of property .and is based on what the WMDs normally
would handle as a permitting matter? No suggestion was offered, just noted that this
is a recurring issue.
* The information provided to the local governments by the WMDs should be as
specific as possible. If the information is given, the local governments will more
than likely use it due to the high costs involved in developing their own information.
Local governments also need suggestions, if not mandates, about professionally
accepted responses to existing conditions.
* As far as fiscal implications, local governments are obligated to provide public
facilities and services with or without this information.

Secretary Linda Shelley, Department of Community Affairs
* The number one issue is the adequacy of the data and analysis that support the
necessary policy decisions local governments must make.
* Local governments vary in their ability to prepare and address the requirements of
Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. Almost all local government
comprehensive plans (LGCP) are in compliance and it can be assumed that they have
met the minimum requirements of the law. A specific look, however, at any one of
those plans would show areas where the local government could improve and redirect
resources.
* The planning process is an on-going process that does not end when the plan is
adopted.
* Unexpected or drastic events (i.e. Hurricane Andrew) can affect the validity of any
projections about population location and needs. We are not prepared to deal with
that level of change.
* Historically, there have been inconsistencies in the manner in which LGCPs were
reviewed. The RPCs provide some degree of consistency in the review process
within the region, however, probably not across the different regions.








* The Evaluation and Appraisal Report process (EAR), through the provision of data
and information, technical assistance, and some financial assistance, will be an
incentive to local governments to improve their plans and make better forecasts.
The primary review process takes place with the WMDs, the RPCs, DOT, DEP, and
other state agencies. These agencies' comments are submitted to the DCA as
objections, recommendations, and comments (ORC). The DCA then transmits its
ORC report to the local government. The ORC report gives the local governments
all of the technical advice that the DCA gathered in the review process.
Most local governments respond to the ORC report in a positive way and try to
adjust the amendment process to meet the concerns of the reviewing agencies. The
extent to which they do or do not address the concerns leads to a compliance
determination by the DCA.
Inadequate data and analysis is the primary reason for the DCA to find a plan
amendment not in compliance. This means that the suitability of a certain parcel for
a certain purpose was not demonstrated or that the ability of that local government to
sustain that land use based on the existing infrastructure available was not
demonstrated.
It is not necessary for the LGCPs to be consistent with the district water management
plans (DWMP). If the WMDs provide the best available data to the local
governments, the local government must use it under the law or justify why the
information was not used.
(Sue Dudley) Basic information such as how ecosystems work and how the growth
management process addresses ecosystems is inadequate. The majority of the public
does not know how ecosystems work. The RPCs are an ideal forum through which
this information can be distributed to the public. "Town Hall" meetings are also a
good idea to present information to the public. It is the public that must understand
why the government is doing what it is doing.
(Jake Varn) It was Mr. Varn's opinion that the EAR process was a vehicle that
would allow the local governments to improve their plans.
* (Secretary Shelley) The EAR process should not be a compliance process, but an
opportunity for local governments to catch up. The DCA will not get back into the
kind of confrontational compliance review that started the planning process. It will
be up to the local governments and the commenting agencies to look at the
information. The EAR process will be more of an incentive based process, rather
than the disincentive, sanction based process.
* Local governments must feel connected to their plan.

Dave Thatcher, AICP, Director, Comprehensive Planning Division, Planning
Department, South Florida Water Management District
* Historically, the WMDs offered the information that they could to the local
governments, but did not have much of the interpretive information as discussed by
Mr. Usherson.









* Local governments have a lot of information with respect to water supply through
permitting information for well fields and water treatment plants. Information such
as zones of influence and travel times is available from the permitting data.

* The DWMPs cover four aspects of water resources: flood protection, water supply,
water quality and natural systems management.
* When reviewing a LGCP, the WMDs look for internal inconsistencies and missing
information in the conservation element, the infrastructure element, the land use
element, and the capital improvement element.
* The SFWMD has historically focused on objections that the district had with the
LGCP, such as the local government did not review the policies or data properly, or
went against a particular water management district policy. The district is now
moving towards commenting on better procedures that the local government could
follow, and offering more assistance to the local governments as the WMDs have
gathered more information.
* The WMDs are developing more data bases that will be useful to local governments
such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In terms of existing technical
assistance, the SFWMD has a Local Government Assistance Program which was set
up specifically to share the District's planning and implementation resources with the
local governments. Previously, the assistance has been in the form of financial
assistance to local governments to develop stormwater plans, wastewater reuse,
wellfield protection, etc. Next year, the SFWMD is planning to get into the grant
program for implementation of the local plans.
* The SFWMD is currently conducting the Lower East Coast Water Supply Study.
The Upper East Coast and Kissimmee Basin studies will be conducted in the near
future. As these plans are completed, the District will move on to basin planning
which will provide the types of interpretive information that the local governments
are interested in obtaining.

Mr. Daniel Carey, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
* RPCs have the responsibility to deal with the full range of issues that are confronting
Florida. As a result, RPCs have taken a different perspective on some of the issues
that the Task Force is facing.
* Regions are made up of many local governments that vary in sophistication, budget,
and staff.
* RPCs have had to serve local governments and provide them with technical assistance
in a broad variety of ways. Some local governments have no planning departments
and the RPCs essentially serve as staff, while the RPC's relationship may be very
specialized with other local governments within the region.
* In terms of data, RPCs have developed a broad range of data that is available to local
governments such as wetlands and upland habitat maps and marina siting information.









* The comprehensive planning process has not worked very well and has to date been
primarily a regulatory process.

* The failure of planning in Florida has not been the lack of data and analysis, but the
lack of determining what we want Florida to look like in the future.

* Mr. Carey is a proponent of the charrett process, which is a tool for developing a
vision of what an area should look like physically.

* Perhaps the RPC and the DCA should work more closely with each other and the
local governments as the plans are being developed to identify and work out the
problems on the front end rather than waiting for the review process. The review
process is inefficient. Local governments spend a lot of money developing plans that
are later found insufficient. It would have been more productive to have had
someone in the field when the plans were drawn up to work out the problems. This
process has worked very well at the project level.
* Too much emphasis has been placed on adequate data and analysis and scientific and
digitized data. More emphasis should be placed on brainstormmg about what we
actually want or visioning. The regions are a model in this regard.
* (Denise Prescod) There are two schools of thought regarding community
development. There are those who believe in planning for community development
and those who believe in allowing a community to evolve. What these two
approaches have in common is the available information. Given certain information
such as topography and wetlands, the level of development before damage is caused
will be known. The regulation should be at this decision-making level because there
will be some agreement on the results of a community's actions. After the
information is given, however, there must be some flexibility for the decision-
makers.
* There is an effort to get everyone on similar information systems, however, this is
difficult to do due to the costs involved.

Richard Deadman, Office of Intergovernmental Programs, Department of
Environmental Protection

* The merger of DER and DNR will allow the DEP to conduct the comprehensive plan
amendment reviews with an ecosystem approach, drawing on the resources from the
permitting sections, field offices, and park offices.

* DEP has interest in the future land use, infrastructure, coastal management,
conservation, and capital improvement elements of local comprehensive plans.
* The DEP pays particular attention to issues such as the lack of land use suitability
analyses; protection of natural resources; ecosystem management; wellfield and
aquifer protection; and the protection of managed lands, aquatic preserves, state
parks, and all other public lands. The DEP review also looks at the relationship of
the LGCPs with the Department's resource protection plans (SWIM, Aquatic
Preserve, CARL and other land acquisition programs).








* The review process allows the DEP to step out of the reactive mode that permitting
agencies find themselves in, and allows it to share comments with the local
governments as they propose development in new areas or change densities.
* The DEP coordinates its review with the WMDs. The DEP planning staff that
reviews a comprehensive plan also reviews the subsequent plan amendments to allow
for a thread of consistency through the process.
* DER was the agency with primary responsibility for water quality through the
permitting process. The State Water Policy and the Districts, however, have become
involved in providing some of this information. The DEP has primary responsibility
as a result of delegation of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. EPA.
* Once a SWIM Plan is adopted, it serves as a resource for comprehensive planners.
The SWIM plan could become an agenda for capital projects, implementing programs
or regulatory activities. Dade County does attempt to follow the Biscayne Bay
SWIM plan.

Ms. Tschinkel summarized her views on the panel discussion:
Robert Usherson
* Dade County emphasized the fact that they are dependent on WMDs for fulfilling a
requirement for best available data. There is some concern about what the legal
requirements and standing for data and information is throughout this process.
* Mr. Usherson felt that the data and information should be the focus of the plan.
This would put the local governments in an untenable position with respect to
concurrency issues and the fact that they have local needs. The data should be hard
data, given honestly; however, the local government should still have the option to
provide their own data and analyses.

Secretary Shelley
* Secretary Shelley emphasized that information is the main deficiency in the plans.
There have been a lot of decisions based on poor information, although it was the
only information available at the time.
* DCA will try to place its review on quality upgrades to the plans with respect to
information that has become better, rather than trying to take a big change in policy
guidance from the state level.

Dave Thatcher
* WMDs have historically not become involved early enough in the process; however,
they are currently attempting to become involved earlier with the provision of
comments instead of objections.








Daniel Carey


* A more collegial planning effort should be implemented. People should get together
early on and try to put their heads together. Professionals should be able to get
together in a more creative manner. How far we can go with technical data is
determined by how well we communicate with one another.

Richard Deadman
* SWIM plans have a bridging relationship between the regulatory process and the
planning process.
Sue Dudley

* The public must understand how natural systems work so that they will understand
why money must be spent to protect them.
Presentation on the Enhanced Intergovernmental Coordination Elements (ICE) of Local
Comprehensive Plans by Secretary Linda Shelley
* The ICE element lays out how the local governments relate to each other in the area
of physical growth and development.
* The weakest element in the local government comprehensive planning process has
historically been the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. This was exacerbated
by the fact that DCA's review process did not include comparisons between
neighboring jurisdictions, and therefore regional issues were not properly addressed.
* ELMS recommended the phase out of the DRI process in jurisdictions that were large
enough and sophisticated enough to handle that type of review themselves. Counties
with a population in excess of 100,000 will conduct the review themselves. The DRI
process is the only legal mechanism which requires a local government to look
beyond its boarders at the impacts of a specific development proposal and mitigate
those impacts.
The goal of the ICE rule is to handle extrajurisdictional conflicts, to the extent
possible, at the plan level. The dispute resolution process will become part of the
normal approval process of development at the local level. We recognize that this
can be a complicated process.
At the plan level, each local government will identify within its jurisdiction what it
considers to be significant resources and facilities. It is expected that local
governments will shy away from saying all resources and facilities within the
jurisdiction are significant because that would probably draw a similar action from
the neighboring communities.

The ICE rule has an incentive to allow the RPCs, through their member local
governments, to make these decisions. The RPC would determine the significance
factor and the dispute resolution process. There would be a maximum of 11 dispute
resolution processes. The RPCs are currently working with the Florida Conflict
Resolution Consortium to come up with some good dispute resolution processes.








* The ICE element will establish interlocal agreements between the local governments
specifying the service providers for various needs.

* DCA has an ability to appeal a development order to protect significant regional
resources and facilities, consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the
applicable Regional Policy Plan.

* The ICE rule moves the decision-making to the local level where the impacts are felt
and the citizens have the most access into the system. The local level is where most
of the controversy exists over infrastructure service and availability.
* The DCA is currently in the rulemaking process for ICE, and will develop a new
model ICE element. The schedule of submission will allow a few local governments
in south and southwest Florida to submit first on a pilot basis.
* The original DRI list was too limited in what was considered a DRI. The
Legislature told the DCA to come up with some revised guidelines and standards for
the DRI process for the 1994 Legislature. The DCA is not ready because the
Strategic Regional Policy Plans (SRPP) must be completed so that the DCA can be
more sensitive to the character and location of a development, in addition to its size.
* (Richard Hamann) Recognizing the significant problems that would be involved, a
process by which a local government could identify and measure cumulative impacts
of developments should be developed.

District Water Management Plans, by Frank Duke, AICP, Supervising Planner,
Comprehensive Planning Division, South Florida Water Management District
* The DWMP will allow the districts to look at the existing plans and programs dealing
with water issues and explore the relationships between the plans. At the same time,
the plans will give the districts the opportunity to display the diversity of interests,
concerns, and resources among the WMDs.
* The DWMPs will be broken into four major issues: water supply, flood protection,
water quality, and natural, systems. These issue areas are then broken down into two
sub-issues each: (See Attachment 1)

Water Supply: needs and sources, source protection

Flood Protection: protection facilities, flood prone areas

Water Ouality: surface water, ground water

Natural Systems: ecosystems, minimum flow
* This approach will allow for all the district and local governments to look at the
implications of decisions on water quality and supply. The full array of issues might
not be addressed if the basin approach were implemented.








* The structure of the plan itself begins with a broad overview of the district at large
with information about all of the areas of responsibilities. The next section discusses
each area of responsibility in detail. The next section is called the Integrated Plan
and is specific to each individual county within the region.

* The contents of the DWMPs are specified in the State Water Policy (Chapter 17-40,
F.A.C.). Once completed, the DWMPs will illustrate the diversity between the
Districts and within each district, and will provide an opportunity to integrate all four
components of water management (e.g. water supply, water quality, natural
resource management and flood protection). (See Attachment 2)
* The DWMP is not an end in itself, but the issues and concerns identified in the
DWMP are put into a Strategic Plan by which the district can focus its resources
over the next two to three years. The Strategic Plan will then provide guidance to
the district's other planning activities (SWIM plans, basin plans, etc.) and budgetary
processes. (See Attachment 3)
* The DWMP is a planning document and not self-implementing nor regulatory. It
provides the district's perspectives of what the districts are, identifies the issues that
need addressing and lays out the policies by which they will be addressed.
* There is currently no direct relationship between the DWMPs, the SRPPs, or the
LGCPs. A relationship should be established. The best place to build this linkage is
between the DWMPs and the SRPPs due to the similarities of identifying
environmental resources of regional significance and both plans are policy directives.
(See Attachment 4)
* The DWMPs will identify and define watershed management goals (i.e. the
preservation and protection of the natural resource beauty of a basin) and policies.
These policies will provide a better definition of where specific pollution problems
exist, identify priority water bodies, assign a numeric value applied to the pollutant
levels (i.e. acceptable phosphorous levels in Lake Okeechobee), identify water
resource caution areas (areas where the availability of supply and projected future
demands or needs may not be met), and identify high and prime recharge areas. (See
Attachment 5)
Local Government's can look at the information provided by the district to determine
the likely impacts that a development will have. Another type of information
available through the DWMP will be the location of proposed land acquisition areas
and SWIM Plan areas, where the district will be very critical of any proposed land
use changes and development activities because the district has determined these areas
to be worthy of protection. (See attached map for other types of information
provided.)
The South Florida DWMP is still in the development process. The third draft will
be completed in May 1994, and will go to public workshops around June. (See
Attachment 6) The draft will then go to the Governing Board in October 1994, and
on to the DEP for review to determine consistency with Chapter 373, F.S., and the
State Water Policy Rule.








* The WMDs are in the position of providing information to local governments and
developers concerning water quality and supply issues. It is then the responsibility of
the local governments to approve or deny development within the limitations of the
system.

* (Allan Milledge) The current philosophy of the DWMPs is the traditional district
point of view that "we would like to think of these issues and tell you possible
consequences, but not come down hard and say that development in these areas
would be disastrous." The district should have a plan that says "no" to development
in locations where it should not be. The GIS information and plans should have a
consequence on development and should have some legal status.

* (Allan Milledge) The DWMP should be adopted in the same manner as a LGCP,
with public hearings. The decision-makers should then have to deal with the DWMP
in the LGCP.

* (Secretary Shelley) Mechanisms already exist, but only for amendments to LGCPs.
The requirement that a local government reverse a previous land use decision based
on new science does not exist unless the local government has the initiative to do it.
However, if a local government changes its comprehensive plan in a way that has
drastic consequences, the WMD has access to the process and can express their
concerns, however, the water management district cannot initiate a change at the
local government level.

* (Tilford Creel) The DWMPs are not self executing, they are district plans that show
direction approved by the Board with public hearings. The DWMP will be
implemented through the SWIM plans, the Water Supply Plans, land buying plans,
rulemaking, etc.
* (Bob Usherson) Land use planners require information. The DWMPs should not just
show where drainage problems exist; where the water supply exists; and of the areas
that have drainage problems, which areas pose opportunities for increased water
storage. The plans should also show which sites can increase storage; if development
can use on-site techniques to decrease run-off; which areas, if developed, would pose
a risk to other property owners; and what kinds of development can we allow/not
allow.

* (Jake Varn) There is a point where the local governments must take it to the next
step. There are many participants working within the process. Who makes the
decision that the job is not done and what do you do if it is determined that the job is
not done?
* (Tilford Creel) The WMDs should take the lead.

* (Sue Dudley) The WMDs should be the source of the information needed by the local
governments. If the local governments are not going to be required to be consistent
with the DWMPs, the WMDs should explain the situation and the consequences of
the decision-making to the local governments. A lot of the local government
representatives do not understand the regulatory process and the natural systems, and
therefore make decisions that are eventually determined to be wrong.









* As the DWMPs are being developed, land uses and water supply/quality change.
The WMDs are "playing catchup" in terms of information. The local governments
must be involved with the development or distribution of this information or
opportunities will be lost.
* (David Orshefsky) In 1994, the EARs process will begin. If information is available,
it should be used/considered in the EAR process to build the linkage the Task Force
is looking for.
* (Vicki Tschinkel) One of the ways to think of the Task Force's report is that the
level of linkage could be commensurate with the level of information that is
available. If the DWMPs are developed in 1994, maybe they need to be explicitly
considered in a certain way, but not necessarily consistent. This would make the
WMDs understand what they determine to be important and defend and support their
decision. The local governments would not be forced to abide by the DWMP in its
entirety.
* From a resource management standpoint, there is still the problem of who is in
charge. There needs to be a mechanism that forces these issues out into an open
resolution.
* (Allan Milledge) Somebody from the natural resource side of planning should say
that some developments should not occur. The district should be much more specific
in tying their recommendations to things that are geographically specific. Once we
have a plan that says what should and should not be done, then we must decide the
role of these plans in the process, and whether the natural resources will play an
important role in the decision process or not.
* (Richard Hamann) The Task Force has not discussed the fact that the districts do
make land use decisions through the permitting process. One way to implement the
DWMPs is through permitting. The DWMP should at least be a factor in the
issuance of the permits. If the districts do not issue the permits, then the
development will not be butlt even if it is consistent with the LGCP. We should also
be thinking about a way to ensure some level of consistency between theLGCP and
the DWMP similar to theLGCP's consistency with the SRPPs.

The panel presentations and discussion concluded and the Chair opened the floor to public
comments.

Jim Murley, 1000 Friends of Florida
* Mr. Murley notified the members of proposed legislation to create the Growth
Management Information Coordinating Council, charged to deal with the data needs.
* The Task Force should not look just landward of the mean high water line, but
should look at all land/water within Florida's jurisdiction (3 miles out into ocean).
* Local government has initial responsibility to provide the information to support their
decisions and must verify this information when there is a conflict in the
intergovernmental review.









The Chair opened the floor
questions or concerns to be

Richard Hamann

Denise Prescod


Allan Milledge


Jack Malloy


Sue Dudley


Tilford Creel


Linda Shelley


Bob Usherson


to the Task Force members requesting that each identify
addressed by the Task Force.

How do the DWMPs and SWIM Plans tie back into the
regulatory system?

We must acknowledge that bad decisions are being made.

In the absence of the requirement of local governments to at
least look at and consider the DWMPs, will the history of bad
decisions repeat itself?

Are there "educational," deed restrictions or other informational
programs that may help?

District permitting decisions should be consistent with district
plans.

Mr. Milledge requested a few minutes at the next Task Force
meeting to discuss how the system is broken infrastructure,
wetlands, pollution, LOS standards, etc.

South Florida is atypical in that it has a clear non-buildable
zone. What about those areas that are not so clear?

Some regulatory decisions lead to the requirement that one must
pay for the use of their land.

Land is a non-renewable resource and, therefore, water should
not be given the same weight as land when land use decisions
are made.


We should be proactive in our planning, not reactive.
we want out of our future and how do we get there?

The needs of natural systems must be kept in mind.


What do


We must look ahead what are the issues going to be in the
year 2000, 2010, etc. What should our systems look like by
that time?

The SRPPs are an opportunity for DWMPs and other agencies
to identify important issues. The SRPPs also provide the
intergovernmental efforts to protect these issues.

If the DWMPs are required to be implemented by the local
governments, then the WMDs should be required to be
consistent with them in their permitting decisions.

How can Water Management Plans provide incentives to local
governments who have consistent comprehensive plans?








Pam McVety


David Powell


Pam Akin


Jake Varn


Natural resources must be considered in land use/water
decisions.

The more requirements that agencies place on the local
governments in the development of their comprehensive plans
and comprehensive plan amendments, the less the local
government "owns" the plan.

How can we make the best available data requirement stronger?

SRPPs are a good vehicle to identify critical issues.

Perhaps, the relationship between all of the plans should be a
subtle relationship, and we should strengthen the process we
already have.

We need to consider the difference between regulation and
information. Public education is important.

Who will bear the costs? The cost will be passed on to the
consumer.


Do we need a vision? Visions change with time.


Dave Orshefsky

Steve Seibert


Bob Romig


We must make the best decisions with the best available data.

The decisions should be made at the local government level,
however, there should be a mechanism in the planning process
that will allow the controversial decisions to be taken to a
higher level. What are these mechanisms and how can we
focus on implementing them?

We have a good system in place. We must identify where the
gaps exist.

Can and should the DWMPs generate the needed information to
define natural resources of regional significance?

We must consider the urban communities that are close to build
out. They often cannot afford to remedy existing problems.

Existing linkages should not be duplicated.

The public must be knowledgeable of, understand and
participate in the difficult decisions.

Local governments often run into constitutional and financial
questions that they cannot overcome.
Water and transportation have many similarities with respect to
land use issues.









Dennis Moss


All players must be at the table when decisions are made. The
new ICE requirements are intriguing, but when the tough
decisions are to be made, there must be a process that requires
resolution.


The Chair announced the next meeting scheduled for February 25, 1994, in St. Petersburg,
Florida.

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.






DWMP ORGANIZATION


* Serves


as a "Comprehensive


Plan for Water"


addressing all four Areas

Water Supply


of Responsibility

Needs and Sources
Source Protection


Flood


Protection


Protection


Facilities


Flood


Water Quality


Surfac


Prone Areas

:e Water


Ground


Water


Natural Systems


Mgmt


Ecosystems
Minimum


Flows


and Levels





DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

(DWMP)


0 Required


by


State Law


(Chapter 373, FS)


* Contents specified in
FAC)


State


Water Policy


(17-40,


* Provides a perspective of the variety


of activities


undertaken


by the Water Management


Districts


* Illustrates the diversity of
each District


the Districts and within


* Provides


an opportunity


to integrate


all four


components of water management.





Attachment 3


Ch. 373,
F.S.











State
Comp.
Plan










Ch. 403,
F.S.


(O&M, Land Acquisition,
Outreach, Regulation, etc.)






Existing Land And Water Planning Consistency Linkages

State, Regional, and Local Plans


FLOW2C.XLS


REGIONAL "" :- I -. ... .. '
S. District Water Management Plans iH :
Strategic Regional Policy Plans y! "I"
SPlans "*' iiii". I Ch. 17 40.520, F.A C
Ss 186.507, F.S. ,.. .. .. 17' Ch 17-40.520111, F.A.C. .
s. 186.508(1), F.S. .:-- INA

Surface Water .

*.. .. .., 'ur'".:,'i," .. '. M a n a g e m e n t P la n s

SY s. 373 456.FS ..., ..


Translational Plans
SSection 373.039, F.S. states that the Florida Water Plan will consist of the StateWater Use Plan, the Water Ouality Standards and
Classifications; Chapter 17-40.510, F.A.C., states that the Florida Water Plan will consist of the State Water Use Plan, State Water Quality
Standards, State Water Classification, and appropriate sections of the District Water Management Plans.
t, loe: All References to Chapter 17-40, F.A.C., are to the Proposed December 1, 1993 version.
j.





DWMP INFORMATION


Watershed


Management


Goals


District Policies

Water Supply
Identification


of Water Resource


Schedule for Identifying


Caution


Prime Recharge


Flood Protection
Schedule for Floodplain Mapping

Water Quality


Areas
Areas


Pollutant Load


Reduction


Goals


Natural


Systems


Management


Schedule for Minimum Flows and


Levels






Map 1

DADE COUNTY PLANNING ISSUES






Broward County


/ = Miami


Atlantic

^ xOcean






'


Biscayne


SPark
31 .LEGEND


Protected Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Proposed Save Our River Lands

Drainage Problem Areas

Saltwater Intrusion

Everglades SWIM

Biscayne SWIM

Wellfields

Canals

Major Roads


Miles

0 s 10 15


SFWMD
Planning Department
January 1994


4





Attachment 6


Public Workshop Sites, 1993


ORLANDO





OC'\






-K -----
II | |, Ih in


FT PIERCE


O-_ .OTTE

AdYR


STUART


1 JUPITER


GLADES


LJwRY


II _


-EsCO Q-LIER Ugc'-


BROWARD


Uklmd Ns.7 -


2-~




0


jFORT
LAID
DALE



MIAMI


LARGO


/\

I2~Nr.




~C:,


KEY WEST


---~---~









9oas/tstcI0 Upldate
South Florida Water Management District


1993 Successes and Setbacks


KISSIMMEE RIVER

+ 1994 Federal Public Works Appropriation Bill
*$5 million to use either for headwaters or river
*Direction for prompt, unified project coordination agreement
+ Resolution of state sovereign lands issue
+ Land Acquisition Chain of lakes: 2,550 acres; River: 3,360 acres
+ Governor and Cabinet approved use of all state-owned lands for restoration
Objections filed to DEP's permit for "Test Fill"


LAKE OKEECHOBEE

+ Lake Okeechobee SWIM Plan Update approved
+ Completion of five-year Ecosystem Study and phosphorus studies
+ Initiated major melaleuca removal project
Phosphorus reductions not yet achieved
Lake regulation schedule unresolved; "Run 25" regulation schedule implemented


EVERGLADES

+ EAA regulatory program implemented
+ ENR Project construction completed
+ Partner in technical mediated plan and "Statement of Principles"
+ Initiated assessment for stormwater utility
+ Opposed oil exploration in the Everglades
+ Vigorous interagency program for melaleuca control
+ Land Acquisition WCAs: 160 acres; EAA: 7,065 acres
Mediation stalls
EPA requires NPDES permit for ENR Project late in the process

more...



3301 Gun Club Road P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 407-686-8800 lorida WATS 1-800-432-2045


,-











1993 Successes and Setbacks (continued)




EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK / FLORIDA BAY

+ Corps, ENP and SFWMD initiated Taylor Slough Demonstration Project;
enlarged C-I I I gaps; removed a portion of Ingraham Highway
+ Corps completed preliminary draft C- I I I general reevaluation report
+/- Land Acquisition:
*Frog Pond added to Save Our Rivers list; not yet acquired
*Rocky Glades negotiations on-going; not yet acquired
*C-l II acquisition continues; acquired 1,321 acres in 1993
+ Donated 1,458 acres to ENP
+ Dept. of Interior conducted Eminent Scientist Panel on Florida Bay,
sponsored by SFWMD and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
-/+ Frog Pond farmers file suit against Corps and SFWMD to lower canal
stages; government prevails



CORPS OF ENGINEERS C&SF RESTUDY

+ Corps initiates C&SF Restudy process
+ Federal agencies address restoration objectives
" Science Subgroup report generates public concern


*Acres acquired for restoration 14,456
*Number of melaleuca trees treated/pulled 8.8 million
*EAA acres under permit 553,000 (100%)
*Funds expended on research & monitoring $10,824,798 (FY93)


* A.'


F. *.'









SUMMARY OF THE
LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE
December 15, 1993 Meeting
Tallahassee, Florida

Teresa Tinker, Policy Coordinator, Growth Management and Strategic Planning
Policy Unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting, gave a short welcome and
introduced Ms. Vicki Tschinkel as Chair of the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force.
Ms. Tschinkel called the first meeting to order at approximately 10:07 a.m., on December
15, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. All members were present.
The Task Force was established pursuant to Chapter 93-206, Section 77, Laws of
Florida.

Governor's Charge to the Task Force and Overview of the State Planning Process by
Dr. Robert Bradley, Deputy Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting

Dr. Bradley presented the Governor's charge to the Task Force and an historical
overview of land use and water planning in Florida. Initially, Florida's first hundred years
were spent draining wetlands for agriculture and residences and making areas safe from
floods.

In the early seventies, the first Environmental Land Management Study Committee
signaled a new awareness of the need for a more meaningful growth management direction.
In addition, the Environmental Land and Water Management Act, the Comprehensive
Planning Act, the Land Conservation Act, and the Water Resources Act set the intellectual
framework for approaching these issues. Land use, growth policy, and water management
issues cannot be separated. Florida has been struggling to integrate these issues for over
twenty years now.

As corroborated by a recent study by the Senate Natural Resources Committee, there
is a lack of clear and direct linkages between land use and water management planning in
this state, despite our impressive array of laws. Three problems that we face in linking the
areas of land use and water planning are money, jurisdiction, and utilization of our existing
framework.

Legislation from the 1993 Session directed the Governor's Office to develop the
growth management portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. The Governor's Office was
specifically tasked to investigate a large number of issues and to set forth and integrate the
goals and policies for issues relating to physical growth. That is, establish goals and
policies dealing with issues such as affordable housing, economic development, and coastal
resource management, while making recommendations on the integration of the State Land
Development Plan, the State Water Use Plan, and the State Transportation Plan (i.e.,
translational plans).

In addition to developing the growth management portion, the Governor's Office was
directed to revise the State Comprehensive Plan and submit those revisions to the
Administration Commission by October of 1995. The above mentioned tasks assigned to the
Governor's Office will rely heavily on the work of this Task Force.









Using the figure in Attachment 1, Dr. Bradley gave a brief synopsis of the existing
requirements for land use and water resource planning. This discussion included:
State Comprehensive Plan (as required by section 186.007, F.S.) provides long range
policy guidance for the orderly social, economic, and physical growth of the State.
Growth Management Portion of the State Comprehensive Plan (as required by section
186.009, F.S.) is to establish clear, concise, and direct objectives goals and policies
for issues relating to physical growth and development.
State Land Development Plan (as required by section 186.021, F.S.) is built upon
and furthers the State Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies related to land use
and development. The State Land Development Plan adds land use and development
guidelines for balancing economic prosperity with protection and enhancement of
Florida's environment. As a translationall plan," the State Land Development Plan's
objectives and operating policies are designed to be consistent with and further the
State Comprehensive Plan.
Strategic Regional Policy Plans (as required by section 186.507, F.S.) replaces
comprehensive regional policy plans. The Strategic Regional Policy Plans must
contain regional goals and policies that address affordable housing, economic
development, emergency preparedness, natural resources of regional significance, and
regional transportation. The Executive Office of the Governor is in the process of
developing a rule specifying minimum criteria and a uniform format for these plans.
The Strategic Regional Policy Plans provide an excellent opportunity to identify and
integrate water resource issues from a regional perspective.
* Local Government Comprehensive Plans (as required by section 163.3177, F.S.), at
a minimum, address: identification of natural resource areas to be
protected/conserved and designations for current and future land uses consistent with
protecting such areas, capital improvements, intergovernmental coordination, traffic
circulation, public facilities, recreation and open space, housing and coastal
management (where applicable). Local plans must also contain goals and policies
concerning sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, groundwater and
aquifer recharge.

These plans are to be updated at least every five years via an evaluation and appraisal
report beginning in the Fall of 1995.
* State Water Use Plan (as required by section 373.036, F.S.) addresses water use and
consumption, water conservation, irrigation, mining, power generation, and other
domestic, municipal and industrial water uses. As a translationall plan," the State
Water Use Plan must be consistent with and further the goals and policies of the
State Comprehensive Plan.
* Section 373.026(10), F.S., requires that a State Water Policy be adopted by rule
(currently Chapter 17-40, Florida Administrative Code) which is to provide goals,
objectives and guidance for the development and review of programs, rules and plans
relating to water resources. The State Water Policy is to be consistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 17-40, F.A.C., is a rule of the Department of
Environmental Protection and is currently undergoing revision.









* District Water Management Plans (as required by Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.) are under
development by the water management districts and will include an assessment of
water needs and sources for the next 20 years. The district water management plans
must identify specific geographical areas that have water resource problems which
have become critical or are anticipated to become critical within the next 20 years.
These plans are to be completed by December of 1994.
Section 373.039, F.S., requires a Florida Water Plan to be comprised of the state
water use plan together with the water quality standards and classifications of the
Department of Environmental Protection and should be developed in coordination
with the water quality standards system. Under the revised Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.,
the Florida water plan will contain components of the district water management
plans, water quality standards, state water classifications, and the state water use
plan. Currently, there is no statutory consistency requirement between the Florida
water plan and the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole, although some of the
components of the Florida water plan have such a requirement.

This comprehensive planning framework is somewhat inconsistent in that it does not
always require consistency and coordination between the State Comprehensive Plan, the
agency strategic plans, the various translational plans, strategic regional policy plans and the
local government comprehensive plans. Some meaningful connections do exist. However,
further evaluation is warranted. For example, the eleven strategic regional policy plans
must be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan but are only required to give
consideration to the state water use plan and the state land development plan. Although
there is currently no requirement for consistency between land use planning and water use
planning beyond the internal consistency in the local government comprehensive plans, there
are connections. For example, the water management districts are involved with giving
technical assistance to local governments in the development of their plans. Water
management districts provide data and analysis on a variety of issues such as solid waste and
groundwater recharge. They also have a role in the review of the local government
comprehensive plans.

Therefore, what we have is a very large framework in place with the various pieces
doing a lot of good things. There are, however, gaps in areas which this Task Force has
been charged to address. Especially, in the areas the Environmental Land Management
Study Committee felt they did not have adequate time to fully address. These include:
state/local problems, state/regional/local problems, agency coordination problems, and
legislative/executive issues regarding rules and how they relate to legislative intent.

The Governor's fundamental charge to the Task Force is to formulate
recommendations regarding:

1. the most appropriate legal relationship between the district water management
plans, the growth management portion of the State Comprehensive Plan, the
strategic regional policy plans and the local government comprehensive plans;

2. the future role and scope of the state water use plan; and

3. the integration of the translational plans, which are the state land development
plan, the state water use plan and the Florida transportation plan.
(Items 1 and 2 above are directed by the Legislature through Chapter 93-206, Section 77,









Laws of Florida. Item 3 is a recommendation of the Governor's Growth Management Plan
Advisory Committee.)

Comments: Mr. Milledge stated that a massive defect, as shown in Attachment 1, exists in
the separation of water use and land use planning. Where the two decision making
processes actually intersect is at the local level. In the past, the water management districts
have been timid in involving themselves in land use decisions because of what they
perceived as the political nature of such decisions. Water management districts should have
legal access into the major components of local governments' land use decisions.

Secretary Shelley responded that water management districts actively participate in
land use decisions now, at the plan review stage and the development order stage in the DRI
process. It does not happen, for the most part and perhaps appropriately so, in non-DRI
development order decisions. There are existing processes which the Task Force should
explore.

Summary of the Third Environmental Land Management Study Committee's (ELMS)
Deliberations and Recommendations by David Powell, Executive Director

The ELMS Committee was appointed by Governor Chiles in 1991 and composed of
50 people from a wide variety of disciplines. The broad mandate was to review Florida's
existing growth management systems and recommend improvements. In December of 1992,
the Committee's report was submitted to the Governor and the Legislature. In April of
1993, the Legislature enacted a law which contained approximately seventy five percent of
the Committee's recommendations (Chapter 93-206, Laws of Florida). One of the
provisions of the law was the establishment of this Task Force. Recommendation 35, from
the ELMS report, states that the Governor should appoint a special study group to make
recommendations on the legal relationship between district water management plans and the
State Comprehensive Plan, the growth management portion of the State Comprehensive
Plan, regional policy plans and local comprehensive plans. ELMS looked at this issue in the
context of its review of the regional role in growth management. One of the issues looked
at was how the regional planning councils, water management districts, and metropolitan
planning organizations functionally relate to one another.

A major concern of the Committee was that it could not adequately address the
requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., given the importance of water planning as a
determinant of growth in this state. Other concerns of the Committee were the role and
scope of the state water use plan and the question of integrating the various translational
plans. The translational plans, which are subordihant to the State Comprehensive Plan, were
thought not to be particularly effective in the planning process. There was also a concern
that over time there seemed to be a layering of plan upon plan at the state level. This
resulted in the Committee addressing how to reduce and consolidate the various plans in
Florida's system in order to have a clearer, more succinct structure, and a less ambiguous
policy. Committee recommendations 13 and 14 specifically provide background on this
issue. Recommendation 13 states that the Legislature should amend Chapter 186, F.S., to
authorize the preparation of functional plans to address goals, objectives and policies in the
State Comprehensive Plan that are closely and logically related to each other. Functional
plans should integrate related matters from the State Comprehensive Plan in order to provide
detailed guidance to all levels of government. Recommendation 14 states that the
Legislature should amend Chapter 186, F.S., to direct the preparation of the Strategic
Growth and Development Plan, a functional plan that would address state concerns pertinent
to physical growth and development. This plan should integrate land use, water resources,








transportation, and related topics and identify state resources, facilities and issues. It should
replace the current translational plans.1

Strategic Regional Policy Plans by David Burr, Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council

The purpose of strategic regional policy plans is to identify goals, objectives and
policies that lead to accomplishment of the vision of a region. The plan is also utilized in
the local government comprehensive plan review process by providing goals, objectives and
policies to measure every proposal from DRIs to other plans. Most everyone is affected by
the plan through such areas as hurricane evacuation and hurricane preparedness.

The plan is adopted by rule and is subject to challenge. Opportunities for public
input are very broad. The plan must be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. In
preparing the regional plan, RPCs must consider various planning efforts, such as health
plans and water plans, in an effort to eliminate inconsistencies. Internal linkages between
the various components of the plans are also recognized (e.g., natural resources being
affected by the transportation portion).

Regional Planning Councils recommend the following issues for consideration by the
Task Force:

1. how to manage water resources during development of lands that will
ultimately become (some form of) an altered designation (estimated at
approximately 80 percent of the State);
2. how to allocate water between agricultural, urban and natural systems;
3. cost of providing water;
4. multi-state water issues (e.g., Panhandle); and
5. allocation of water to the coastal areas.
In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Burr stated that the water management
districts prepare technical assistance packages for use by locaLgovernments.

In the Southwest Regional Planning Council's future land use map, currently seventy
percent (going to eighty five percent) of the potable water is provided by publicly owned
and operated utilities which are required to develop a comprehensive plan that includes a
water element.

Chair Tschinkel: The future land use map does not actually indicate where water
resources that are sufficient to support the projected population are located. Regarding
future water demands, how and where will demands be met?


1 The Legislature debated these recommendations, and did not accept the concept of
functional plans. Instead, Chapter 93-206, Laws of Florida, required the Executive Office
of the Governor to develop the Growth Management Portion of the State Comprehensive
Plan. The purpose of the Growth Management Portion is to establish clear, concise, and
direct goals, objectives, and policies related to land development, water resources,
transportation, and related topics. In doing so, the plan should, where possible, draw upon
the work that agencies have invested in the state land development plan, the Florida
Transportation Plan, the state water use plan, and similar planning documents.









Mr. Varn answered that most of the water management districts are now engaged in
a needs and sources assessment so the two processes are going on simultaneously.
Therefore, the water management districts are a couple of years away from beginning to
identify, within their respective districts, where they have shortages and the areas into which
development should be channeled. The process is ongoing and these studies are being
rapidly completed. Once these assessments are completed, information about how much
water is available to guide future growth will be available.

Another process that is underway is the creation of new regional water authorities.
For example, Lee County, which has both public and private water facilities, is now under
the umbrella of a regional water authority.
There is also a water supply plan covering portions of the South Florida Water
Management District, which represents a documented study, and identifies serious problems
depicting conflicts between agriculture and urban needs.

Currently, policies addressing water in the comprehensive regional policy plans are
broad and generally geared towards protection of water resources, ensuring that sufficient
supplies are available, and maintaining adequate water supplies. The strategic regional
policy plans will be more specific regarding preserving (through CARL purchases) and
identifying water resources. It is not contemplated that strategic regional policy plans will
have "restricted (limited) development" land designations, but may instead identify where
development would be encouraged based on available water supplies.

Local Government Comprehensive Plans by Diane Salz, Florida League of Cities

The local government comprehensive plans are intended to set general guidelines and
principles concerning its purposes and contents. The adopted plan shall be implemented, in
part, by adoption and enforcement of appropriate local regulations on the development of
land and waters within an area. No public or private development shall be permitted except
Sin conformity with comprehensive plans or elements or portions thereof.

Ms. Salz distributed a handout (see Attachment 2) and discussed the new plan
amendment adoption process, the appeal and challenge process, challenges based on Land
Development Regulations (LDRs), and the relationship of local government development
orders to comprehensive plans and land development regulations.

There are new consistency requirements among adjacent jurisdictions through the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE). Currently, rules are being promulgated by
DCA on this revised element.

Ms. Salz supports the current growth management framework, but suggests that "fine
tuning" could be undertaken in terms of its operation. Guidance is needed regarding land
and water planning. The growth management portion of the State Comprehensive Plan and
the scheduled State Comprehensive Plan revision provide an opportunity for this guidance.
Other opportunities for improvement exist through intergovernmental coordination elements
and strategic regional policy plans.
Ms. Salz shared that many municipal officials feel that water management districts do
not represent urban interests and lack urban sensitivity. Also, the "needs and sources"
information collected and maintained by water management districts should be made readily
available to local governments, as a basis to their local comprehensive plans.










An often heard suggestion is that the "reasonable beneficial use" condition of
consumptive use permits should be tied to local comprehensive plans because this would be
a good point at which to meld water planning with land use planning. More attention should
be paid to the problem of water management districts inadvertently undermining municipal
planning efforts. For example, the City of Tampa is engaged in a water reuse program. A
golf course developer chose not to participate in the City's program. The water
management district circumvented the City's intentions when it issued the consumptive use
permit without consideration of the City's program.

Municipalities rely, to a great extent, on the data and analysis of others, including
water management districts, regional planning councils and state agencies. This information
is the basis for local government comprehensive plans, including data and analysis, goals,
objectives and policies, and future conditions maps. It was perceived that this process
would provide the necessary consistency between local planning and water management
district planning. The water management districts also provide additional technical
assistance through their review of local government comprehensive plans.

Ms. Salz added that requirements for potable water concurrency varies greatly
between the various water management districts. The data is not yet available in every
instance. Currently, it is likely that the local governments are depending on information
provided by the retail water distributors and not the water management districts.

Local Government Comprehensive Plans by Kari Hebrank, Florida Association of
Counties

The land use element of comprehensive plans is meant to serve as a base from which
all other plan elements are derived. Combining the future land use pattern with existing
levels of service with per capital (per unit) consumption rates allow planners and water utility
managers to determine roughly the amount of water needed to serve the jurisdiction in the
future. Comprehensive plans are then to be used by utilities or special districts as a basis of
their master plans for the provision of potable water, via water treatment plants, wellfields,
etc.

The introduction of the concurrency management requirements in the revised 1985
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, provided another link between land use and
water planning. Concurrency requires continual monitoring of the amount of actual capacity
in a water system so that development is not approved which would exceed availability.

Population and land use pattern projections contained in comprehensive plans serve as
a valuable tool in determining how much water will be needed and where facilities must be
located to serve the expected development patterns. The location of existing potable water
systems provide both a framework to guide development and a timing mechanism (relating
to planned public improvements) which lends certainty to the development community.
Another strength of comprehensive plans is that they encourage local governments to
develop and implement groundwater protection strategies as well as water conservation
techniques such as wellhead protection programs, use of reclaimed water on golf courses,
xeroscaping, and water saving devices in building codes.

Perhaps the single greatest weakness of the comprehensive plans in terms of water
planning involves the absence of definitive information about the capacity of water resources
to meet projected demands. Water resource management has been the province of the water









management districts which, until recently, have functioned primarily as regulatory agencies
approving or denying individual withdrawal applications, but not attempting to determine the
overall ability of a resource to meet needs. Other weaknesses include dealing with water
allocation for agricultural and environmental lands. These are not often included in
comprehensive plans because of lack of definitive data about these needs and because
managers of these lands have not traditionally become involved in the comprehensive
planning process.
Another weakness which is critical to counties and often not under county control is
special districts which have the power to provide potable water created by state enabling
legislation and which often compete with municipality and county utilities. Special districts
are not always required to develop the same extensive master plans as other utilities and are
only required to provide minimal annual information to county governments. The annual
reports may or may not include information regarding intention to tap various water
resources.

Other critical issues that this Task Force should address include:

1. Ensuring that the new district water management plans and local government
comprehensive plans emphasize guidance, flexibility and sharing of data rather
than punitive regulatory limitations;

2. Local government comprehensive plans must demonstrate the fiscal capability
of the jurisdiction by including a capital improvements element containing
projects needed to implement the plan provisions. Efforts should be taken to
restrict the ability of water management plans to require excessive local
government expenditures in order to ensure availability of potable water. If
water management plans require local governments to develop alternative
water resources in order to retain previously used resources for environmental
lands or agriculture, these expenditures should be shared by the district and
phased in 5-10 year time periods;

3. The first water supply portion of the water management plan of the South
Florida Water Management District is being developed with the adopted land
use plans of all the jurisdictions as "givens". This is a fairly restrictive
approach which does not promote a beneficial interactive approach to
planning. Computer modeling of the water demands of a particular land use
pattern can easily encourage a local government to modify its water
consumption pattern. It is imperative that land use and water planning
become an interactive process just as the modification of land uses are used to
alter transportation networks. Absent such an interactive process, the state's
goals of water conservation cannot be reached.

4. Land use powers will remain the province of local governments but water
allocation will be the responsibility of the water management districts. An
advisory committee is assisting South Florida Water Management District with
the development of the first water supply portion of the Water Management
Plan. Attempts were made to balance the committee with business,
government, utilities and environmental interests; but, not with planning
expertise. It is critical that a technical advisory committee comprised of
county and local planning officials become a standing committee participating
in on-going water management/land use planning at the district level, in order









to link local land use planning and district level water resource planning;


5. It is critical that water supply plan provisions that place a financial burden on
residents and rate payers of local governments be accompanied by county and
local government financial impact statements and/or a phasing plan
demonstrating the water management districts financial participation if the
impact cannot be avoided;

6. Ensuring that water use planning is done "up front" as a part of the
comprehensive planning process rather than regulated at the permitting stage.
The approach of limiting consumptive use permits on a "use it or lose it"
basis penalizes counties for planning ahead. This can be very expensive for
counties which have invested in long range solutions that have not yet come
on line. Additionally, this approach is inconsistent with growth management
which provides that planned improvement can be counted towards
concurrency.
Ms. Prescod asked what requests are made by local governments to the water management
districts? Ms. Salz responded that what local governments need is specifically outlined in
Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., the minimum requirement rule for the development and review of local
plans.

Florida Water Plan/State Water Policy by Tom Swihart, Department of Environmental
Protection

The district water management plans and water policy plans address water supply and
many other issues, not just water allocation. The DEP has attempted to coordinate with
water management districts and agency planning efforts to provide for maximum
coordination and linkages.

The district water management plans have a planning cycle consisting of resource
assessment, options evaluation, water management policies and implementation strategies and-
intergovernmental coordination as a required element. Every county will have an individual
element in their respective district's plan. That is, a county by county integrated plan.

Efforts have been made to have a genuine Florida water plan and to structure it in a
way that reinforces district water management plans and vice versa. The contents of the two
plans are similar for communication purposes and, therefore, have an opportunity for
linkages. The district water management plans and the Florida water plan are to have
similarly structured goals and goal statements so that analyses and comparisons can be done
between the districts and between the districts and the Department. The Florida Water Plan
will incorporate appropriate sections of the district water management plans. It is hoped that
the Florida water plan can have similar cycles of planning (to the district water management
plans) along with an intergovernmental coordination element.

The Florida water plan is to contain methods for assessing program effectiveness and
linkages to rulemaking, budget development, and legislative proposals. The Department of
Environmental Protection recently completed, and the Environmental Regulation Commission
adopted, amendments to the state water policy, Chapter 17-40, F.A.C. In terms of linkages
between district water management plans and strategic regional policy plans, there are no
direct statutory links. In the state water policy, districts are required to set out water
resources issues and problems of regional significance while strategic regional policy plans









must identify natural resources of regional significance. The linkages between these
requirements should be considered as part of the Task Force's deliberations.

District Water Management Plans by Robert Christianson, St. Johns River
Water Management District

The district water management plans have a 20 year planning horizon. Each of the
five districts are required to complete their respective plans by November of 1994. These
plans basically define problems, analyze potential options for solving these problems, and
specify remedial or preventive actions. The plan is to become the blueprint for the
respective water management district. All water management districts are following the
same format.

The district water management plans utilize the population and land use projections
reflected in the local government comprehensive plans in order to calculate the amount of
water needed to support various land uses, including agriculture. There are four major
areas of responsibility addressed in each plan:

1. water supply;
2. flood protection;
3. water quality management; and,
4. natural systems management.

A point of emphasis for this Task Force should be water supply allocation.

A concern was raised that the area of natural systems management has limited available
information.

Mr. Christianson emphasized that this is a geographically based process based on
authorized land uses and GIS mapping. In addition, the districts use the population and land
use projections which are reflected in the local plans and interpret that into what water use
will be necessary to support that activity. Potable,-agricultural, and other needs are...
addressed by this process. All of this information is then used to determine impacts over a
20 year period. This is a key component of the district water management plans. This is
the basis of the needs and sources process. At this time, the districts are in the process of
workshopping the needs and sources documents, and having advisory committees and
working groups to determine if these types of impacts are acceptable. The linkage with the
consumptive use permitting process is that if these projections are deemed unacceptable there
will be problems getting these permits.

What the districts see as the primary areas of emphasis for possible revision are:

1. involvement by water management districts in the review of comprehensive
plans, especially compliance negotiations after a plan or plan amendment has
been determined not in compliance;
2. linkage between strategic regional policy plans and district water management
plans, especially regarding natural resources of regional significance;
3. the relationship between permitting and planning, especially surface water
related permits (possibly certifying land use as consistent with the
comprehensive plan as part of the permit review process); and
4. population and water use projections (i.e., who should actually be doing the
water use projections).










The South Florida Water Management District has received all of its information on
demands and future projections from the various local governments and put them on a map
(GIS and models). As a result, the District found that local governments were relying on
the same sources to meet the needs. The District is now in the process of working out
alternatives.

Mr. Christianson cautioned the Task Force to be careful in considering the approach
of having the water management districts utilize a prescriptive system which would limit the
amount of withdrawal per individual source.

A Review of Water Management Policy and Planning Activities and Proposed
Committee Bill 258 by Wayne Voigt, Staff Director, Senate Committee on Natural
Resources

The Senate Committee on Natural Resources undertook, as an interim project, a
review of Florida's state water policies and planning documents. As a result of this review,
Committee staff produced a report with recommendations in the form of a proposed
committee bill. The proposed bill was accepted by the Committee on December 1, 1993,
and introduced as SB 258. As introduced, this legislation addresses issues which possibly
overlap charges to the Task Force with respect to state water policy and planning, and the
state water use plan.

As background, Mr. Voigt stated that there are provisions contained in various
existing statutes concerning water planning and water policy that have not been completely
carried out. For example, a state water use plan is required under the provisions of section
376.036, F.S., and section 373.039, F.S., requires a Florida water plan. Mr. Voigt
contends that these provisions have been largely ignored. Chapter 187, F.S., adopted by the
Legislature in 1985 as the State Comprehensive Plan, contains significant provisions relating
to water policy goals, policies and objectives. The 1993 Legislature adopted legislation that
requires development of the growth management portion of the State Comprehensive Plan,
intended to. set forth integrated, state policy relating to physical growth and. development. -
The former Department of Environmental Regulation, now Department of Environmental
Protection, has had a water policy rule (Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.) which was significantly
expanded in 1991. At that time, the Department defined the district management planning
process.

The essence of the Committee's staff report to the Legislature was that in staffs
opinion there is not a clear line of relationships between the various water policy and
planning documents. Senate staff observed that there are too many documents reportedly
addressing state water policy. Also, and most importantly, a lot of this policy development
has taken place outside of the Legislative domain, particularly the latest amendments to
Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.

Committee staff recommends that the multitude of water planning documents be
pared down to one or two. Committee staff also contends that the policies represented in
the Department of Environmental Protection's water policy rule, should replace those
contained in section 373.016, F.S., and these policies should undergo the legislative review
and adoption process. SB 258 reflects these recommendations.

In addition, SB 258 revises Chapter 187, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan,
deleting those policies which purport to identify water policy, and by cross reference, state









that the water policies that are carrying out the goals of the State Comprehensive Plan are
those found in section 373.016, F.S. Tying these two components together is the objective
of the legislation.

The bill also repeals sections 373.036 and 373.039, F.S., relating to the Florida
water plan and state water use plan, respectively, provides for development of district water
management plans, and repeals sections 373.026 (10) and 403.061 (33), F.S., which require
the Department of Environmental Protection to adopt a state water policy by rule. Mr.
Voigt noted that Senate staff, at this time, does not endorse or oppose the recent
amendments to Chapter 17-40, F.A.C., but believes that the state water policy should be
adopted by the Legislature.
Mr. Voigt expressed support for the district water management plans, but noted a
number of unknowns such as the significance of the documents themselves once they are
adopted, whether they are going to be adopted by rule, the legal effect of the documents
upon permitting decisions, and the process by which the plans can be amended.

Chair Tschinkel stated the Task Force charge was to formulate recommendations for
legislative action on the most appropriate legal relationship between district water
management plans (that is, the legal effect of those plans), the growth management portion
of the State Comprehensive Plan, strategic regional policy plans, and local government
comprehensive plans. The Task Force is also to consider the role and scope of the state
water use plan following legislative adoption of the growth management portion of the State
Comprehensive Plan. After the legislative adoption of the growth management portion of
the State Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that the translational plans will not serve the
same purposes that they are serving today. It is also possible, depending on the decision of
the Legislature, that the translational plans will be eliminated altogether.

Secretary Shelley commented that her impression was that the legislative committee
was going a lot faster than the Environmental Land Management Study Committee thought
the subject matter required. ELMS recognized the amount of work required at the
Department and the district levels. to produce the "water planning" documents. and.policies
envisioned. It is difficult to discern exactly what the water management plans should
contain and their relationship with the other plans, without having seen one first. The same
with some of these other documents. The ELMS members felt that 1994 was to be the
"big" work year when all this was coming together between the districts and the
Department. This then would make the 1995 Session the appropriate time that the
Legislature would be ready to act on these issues. Therefore, ELMS recommended the Task
Force to look closer at these issues and formulate recommendations for legislative
consideration.

Mr. Voigt stated that he is not sure that members of the Committee particularly
understand what is really to be expected in the water management plans. This makes it
important from a timing standpoint for them to discuss, in the 1994 Legislative Session,
what is the policy process and who is developing the policy.

Dr. Hamann commented that it would be a mistake to change state water policy as
soon as the Department has adopted a new version and while the districts have spent the past
two years developing documents to implement existing state policy. The new policy is very
consistent with what the Department and districts .are doing. At this point, the water
management district plans are to be completed by November of 1994.









Mr. Voigt was asked if there were any plans to address the relationship between land
use and water planning beyond the Committee's staff recommendations to delete the water
policies from Chapter 187, F.S., and the cross references to Chapter 373, F.S. For
instance, will there be legislation on the strategic regional policy plans or Chapter 163, F.S.
Mr. Voigt stated that no changes have been proposed in these areas at this time.

Mr. Voigt noted that SB 258 most likely will not be scheduled for consideration by
the Senate Committee again before February 8, 1994. He indicated there may be a desire to
establish a subcommittee to review the issues in detail prior to full committee action. He
suggested that the Task Force continue on their present tract since the Legislature may
choose not to adopt changes this year. To date, the House has not introduced legislation
relating to this issue.

Mr. Rhodes indicated that changing the process at this time would be premature since
in 1995 or 1996 the growth management portion of the State Comprehensive Plan, as well
as the entire State Plan, will be addressed by the Legislature.

The Chair indicated a desire to maintain a line of communication to the Senate
Natural Resources Committee regarding this and other efforts that might affect the charge of
the Task Force.

Summation of Local Government Comprehensive Plans: 21,000,000 to 91,000,000:
Land and Water Implications by Wayne Daltry, Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council

The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (in association with the other 10
RPCs) has recently compiled all the future land use data from the local government
comprehensive plans into future land use maps for the whole state for the year 2010. He
showed the maps to the Task Force members and commented that Florida's population is
projected to reach approximately 17 million by 2010, but based on the law and high range
of densities of local plan maps, the "build out" population could range between 21 and 91
..-....-.. million. He discussed some-implications of this population growth.and associated land..use .
changes relating to Florida's water supply. As a hypothetical analysis of the high end, and
using as a state per capital water use of 125 gallons per day, the total water use for a
potential 91 million Floridians would be equal to ten percent of the state's annual rainfall.
He noted that in consideration of this fact the concern that Florida lacks water to meet its
future water demands may be wrong; instead, the problem remains how this abundant
resource is managed.

The Chair commented that utilizing ten percent of the state's rainfall may not be
conducive to maintaining Florida's natural systems and standard of living. Mr. Daltry noted
back that, under SWFWMD's old "water crop" theory of 6 percent human use, 50 million
people would hypothetically be accommodated.









Roundtable Discussion to identify issues for deliberation by the Task Force

Mr. Bob Rhodes noted that there are no easy solutions in regard to the process. It
will take at least a year getting into the plans and working with the agencies to come out
with anything that is truly meaningful. Taking the water policy separately may also be a
viable alternative.

One Task Force member suggested that, as a local government official, settling on a
common science in terms of technological principles would make the task more meaningful.

Mr. Varn commented that the problem is not one of science but, instead, a problem
of identifying what impacts you are willing to live with. Technology is sufficient to tell us
what the consequences will be given certain actions. It is then our choice to determine to
what extent we are willing to accept the impacts. This problem started when the then
Department of Environmental Regulation was requested to give guidance to the water
management districts pursuant to the statutory ability to develop a state water plan.
However, before you can have such a plan, you must first announce policy. This policy
announcement was initially produced by the Secretary of the Department. Now, this
authority has been carried over to the Environmental Regulation Commission and has
changed over the years. The fundamental question remains, however, what is the right
relationship between the Department and the water management districts, and what is the
proper relationship between the Legislature and the Department and the water management
districts. The process is in place and it can work. There is, however, a need to get some
consistency from the Legislature to the Department to the water management districts to
local governments. Some linkages are missing, for example the water management districts
to the regional planning councils. We do not need another plan. We already have the
translational plans which merely need to be coordinated.

It was suggested that the Task Force should go to each of the major water
management districts and begin to get a thorough understanding of what they are doing in
terms of planning. The same should be done at the local government level and try to get
some indication of the interaction between the two. The ongoing activities regarding-the..
intergovernmental coordination elements is a key component in getting the state involved
with this process.

The Chair agreed that the state planning efforts and how it fits with the water
planning process from a policy and timing/implementation perspective will shed great light
on this process.

Mr. Milledge stated that it is important to look at the water management plans even
though they are not yet completed in order to get a "read" on what status to accord them.

Another member voiced concern that the water management plans were not even
binding upon the districts themselves. The Chair stated that they are not designed to be
rules but are planning documents and they raise very serious issues. How can these issues
be addressed in the planning process Florida currently has in place?

Mr. Varn shared that the water management district plans, under the Administrative
Procedures Act, must be adopted and constitute a rule since they would have such far
reaching policy implications.









It was answered from the audience that the state water policy contains a statement
that district water management plans are not self-executing, they are planning documents.
The reasons for that statement are that there is no linkage at this time and if they were
mandated to be rules, the water management district would have been constrained by fear of
rule challenges.

There must also be a means to settle inconsistencies and disputes that result from these
planning efforts.

Other issues raised during this discussion by the Chair and others included:
waste disposal as a major threat to our state's water resources;

Florida's water management decisions must reflect the quality of life that we desire
in the state;
there is a need to develop a common science (methodology for producing data and
analyses) to be used in making water policy determinations;
there is a need to determine what impacts we are willing to tolerate;

Task Force members discussed the possible duplication of effort and potential conflict
in outcomes between SB 258 and the work of the Task Force. It was agreed that the Chair
write a letter to Senator Dantzler, Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources,
advising him that the Task Force required by the 1993 Legislature had been established, its
charge and composition, the due date for forwarding recommendations, and the difficulty of
the task of strengthening the relationship between'the water management districts and the
state planning process. This letter would also contain pertinent deadlines, a statement
regarding the intention to meet these deadlines, the provision of incremental progress
reports, the process to be used in addressing the required subjects, and a request that the
STask Force be given the opportunity to discharge their duties since it is in such an early
stage of development.

Secretary Wetherell stated that in addition to legislative review of the state's water
policy and planning process, the Auditor General is auditing the process by looking at the
Department's relationship to the water management districts and to local governments and
whether the Department has met its statutory requirements. It was estimated that the audit
report would be completed in May of 1994. Auditor General staff indicated that they would
advise the Task Force of significant issues as they are identified.

Other Issues and Future Meetings of the Task Force

A brief discussion was held concerning schedules for future meetings and staff was
directed to present a proposed schedule at the next meeting.

Mr. Milledge suggested that someone from an environmental group be asked to join
the Task Force. The Chair noted that she was already working with the Governor's Office
on this issue.









Public Comments

The Chair opened the floor for public comments and input, but there were no
requests to give public testimony.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.





Attachment 1

Existing Land And Water Planning Consistency Linkages


STATE


LAND USE PLANNING


State Land Development
Plan*
s. 380.031(17), F.S.
s. 186.021(4), F.S.


State Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 187, F.S.


WATER PLANNING
Fl6rida Water Plan s. 373.039, F.S.;
Ch. 17.510, F.A.C. *1


State Water Use Plantate Water icy
s 373036 FS State Water Policy
s. 373.036, F.S.
s. 186.021(4), F.S.. F.A.C.
Ch. 17-40, F.A.C. -


DEP Water Mgmt Plan,
Ch. 17-40.520(1),
F.A.C.


* Translational Plans
*1 The Florida Water Plan will consist of all or appropriate sections of the State Water Use Plan, State Water Quality Standards, State Water
Classification, DEPs Water Management Plan, and the District Water Management Plans (November 1995).
NOTE: All references to Chapter 17-40, F.A.C., are to the proposed December 1, 1993 version.


f





Attachment 2

Land Use and Water Planning Task Force December 15, 1993


Purpose of local comprehensive plan -

A. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to "set general guidelines and principals
concerning its purposes and contents." 163.3194(4)(b), Florida Statutes.

B. The "adopted comprehensive plan shall be implemented, in part by the adoption
and enforcement of appropriate local regulations on the development of land and
waters within an area." 163.3201, Florida Statutes. Local governments must
"adopt or amend and enforce land development regulations that are consistent with
and implement their adopted comprehensive plan."

C. ". .. no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with
comprehensive plans or elements or portions thereof..." 163.3161(5), Florida
Statutes.


* Who is affected the affected local government; persons owning property, residing or
owning or operating a business within the boundaries of the local government whose plan
is subject to review; and adjoining local governments that can demonstrate that the plan
or plan amendment will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly
funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on a, eas designated for protection or special
treatment within their jurisdiction ... (s. 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.)


* What is the new plan amendment adoption process -

A. all proposed amendments. sent to DCA after public hearing;

B. DCA review proposed amendment only if:

DCA decides to and send notice to local government
Request to do so within 45 days in writing by regional planning council,
affected person, or local government.
DCA sends amendment to external agencies if review will occur.
DCA issues ORC report within 30 days of getting comments from agencies.

C. Regional council review is limited to regional resources or facilities and
extrajurisdictional impacts of plan amendment proposal, and inconsistency within
a regional plan only may not render an amendment not-in-compliance.








D. For an amendment that is not reviewed by DCA, there is no prior notice restriction
on the issues the agency can raise.

E. For a local government whose plan is in compliance, no retroactive sanctions may
be applied for unlawful plan amendments, and each local government must be
given a chance to rehabilitate the amendment, and directions on how to do it.

F. A plan amendment will not become effective until DCA issues a final order of
compliance or the Administration Commission enters a final order that the
amendment has been brought into compliance.

G. If the Administration Commission finds an amendment not-in-compliance, a local
government may nevertheless choose to make it effective, subjecting it to
sanctions.


* What is the appeal and challenge process-

A. Third Party Challenges to Plan or Plan Amendment Based on Compliance with
Growth Management Act.

1. Where DCA Has Issued Notice of Intent to Find Plan in Compliance.

a. Any affected person may file a petition challenging the compliance
of the plan with the Department of Community Affairs within 21 days
after publication of the Notice of Intent to find the plan in compliance.
163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes.

b. Each "affected person," other than an adjoining local government, in
order to qualify under this definition, shall also have submitted oral
or written objections to the local government during the period of
time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the plan or plan
amendment and ending with the adoption of the plan or plan
amendment." 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

c. ". the local plan or plan amendment shall be determined to be in
compliance if the local government's determination of compliance is
fairly debatable." 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes.

B. Where DCA Has Issued Notice of Intent to Find Plan Not in Compliance

1. The Department of Community Affairs will refer the matter to DOAH to
conduct a hearing and issue a recommended order. An "affected person,"
as defined above, may intervene.








2. "In the proceeding, the local government's determination that the
comprehensive plan or plan amendment is in compliance is presumed to
be correct. The local government's determination shall be sustained unless
it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the comprehensive
plan or plan amendment is not in compliance. The local government's
determination that elements of its plan are related to and consistent with
each other shall be sustained if the determination is fairly debatable."
163.3184(10)(a), Florida Statutes.

C. Procedural Challenges to Adoption of Plan or Plan Amendment.

Advertising Benson v. City of Miami Beach, 591 So.2d 942 (3d DCA 1991)

Street names Southern Entertainment Company of Florida, Inc. v. City of
Boynton Beach, 736 F.Supp. 1094 (S.D.Fla. 1990)

Voting regulations majority of total number of members of governmental
body


* Other processes for challenge:

I. Land Development Regulations

A. Definition and Status of LDR's

1. "'Land development regulation' means an ordinance enacted by a
local governing body for the regulation of any aspect of
development, including a subdivision, building construction,
landscaping, tree protection, or sign regulation or any other
regulation concerning the development of land. This term shall
include a general zoning code, but shall not include a zoning map,
an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land, or any building
construction standard adopted pursuant to and in compliance with
the provisions of chapter 553." 163.3213(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

2. "Local land development regulations shall contain specific and
detailed provisions necessary or desirable to implement the adopted
comprehensive plan." 163.3202(2), Florida Statutes.

3. A ". land development regulation shall be consistent with the
comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and
other aspects of development permitted by such order or regulation
are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses,




!


and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets
all other criteria enumerated by the local government."
163.3194(3)(a), Florida Statutes.


B. Challenge Based on Failure to Adopt LDR's

1. LDR's to implement a comprehensive plan or amendment must be
adopted within 1 year after submission of the plan. 163.3202(1),
Florida Statutes. The plan itself may set deadlines for adoption of
other LDR's which are not required by the statute but are necessary
to implement the plan.

2. A challenge based on local government failure to adopt a required
LDR is initiated by DCA.

C. Challenge Based on Inconsistency of Adopted LDR with Comprehensive
Plan

1. A challenge may be brought by a "substantially affected person."

2. The challenge must be initiated within twelve months after final
adoption of the LDR. 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes. An LDR not
challenged within twelve months of adoption is deemed to be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. 163.3213(6), Florida
Statutes.

3. The substantially affected person must file a petition with the local
government outlining the facts and reasons that the LDR is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 163.3213(3), Florida
Statutes. The local government-.has thirty days to respond; the
petitioner may then petition the Department of Community Affairs.
163.3213(3), Florida Statutes. The Department then informally
investigates the matter. 153.3213(3), Florida Statutes. If the
Department finds the LDR consistent with the comprehensive plan,
the petitioner may request a formal hearing from the Division of
Administrative Hearings. 163.3213(5)(a), Florida Statutes. If the
Department finds the LDR to be inconsistent, the Department must
request a formal hearing. 163.3213(5)(b), Florida Statutes.
Sanctions may be imposed if the formal hearing results in a finding
of inconsistency. 163.3213(6), Florida Statutes.




* .


II. Local Development Orders

A. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and LDR's

1. A local development order "which materially alters the use or density
or intensity of use on a particular piece of property that is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan" is subject to challenge.
163.3215(1), Florida Statutes.

2. Where no LDR's have been adopted to implement the
comprehensive plan, "the provisions of the most recently adopted
comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall govern any
action taken in regard to an application for a development order."
163.3194(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

3. "A development approved or undertaken by a local government shall
be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities
or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of the
development are compatible with and further the objectives, policies,
land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and
if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government."
163.3194(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

B. Challenge a Local Development Order as Inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan

1. "Any aggrieved or adversely affected party may maintain an action
for injunctive or other relief against any local government to prevent
such local government from taking any action on a development
order, as defined in s. 163.3164, which materially alters the use or
density or intensity of use on a particular piece of property that is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan adopted under this part,"
163.3215(1), Florida Statutes.

2. "'Aggrieved or adversely affected party' means any person or local
government which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest
protected or furthered by the local government comprehensive plan,
including interests related to health and safety, police and fire
protection service systems, densities or intensities of development,
transportation facilities, health care facilities, equipment or service, or
environmental or natural resources. The alleged adverse interest
may be shared in common with other members of the community at
large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community
good shared by all persons." 163.3215(2), Florida Statutes.





(S I


3. "Suit under this section shall be the sole action available to challenge
the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan
adopted under this part." 163.3215(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

4. Relationship between Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of
Certiorari.





J *, *


FLORIDA'S PLANNING PROCESS
Chapters 186 and 163, Florida Statutes

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE STATE PLANNING DOCUMENT
Set Goals
Biennial Review and Progress
Report by Governor
Agency plans must be consistent




STATEPLAN -- -
Goals &Policies;. 1 .^z
/ -^ "\ I lli


STRATEGIC REGIONAL POUCY PLANS
* Affordable Housing
* Economic Development
* Emergency Preparedness
* Natural Resources of Regional Significance
* Regional Transportation o


LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
* Capitol Improvements Conservation
* Intergovernmental Coordination Recreation & Open Space
* Future Land Use Housing-
* Traffic Circulation Coastal, where applicable
* Public Facilities Other Optional Elements








Growth Management Portion of the State Comprehensive Plan

State Comprehensive Plan Preparation and Revision Section 186.007(4), F.S.

(a) Statewide goals, objectives, and policies related to the opportunities, problems, and
needs associated with growth and development. (Initially shall emphasize the
management of land use, water resources, and transportation system development.)

(b) Establish clear, concise, and direct goals, objectives, and policies related to land
development, water resources, transportation, and related topics. Where possible,
draw upon the work that agencies have invested in the state land development plan, the
Florida Transportation Plan, the state water use plan, and similar planning documents.

Development of the Growth Management Portion Sections 186.009(1) & (2), F.S.

Prepare in coordination with the Legislature, appropriate state agencies, regional entities, local
government and citizens.

Shall not be based on the comprehensive format of the state comprehensive plan but shall be
strategic in nature.

Subsections a o, of section 186.009(2), Florida Statutes, are as follows:



Subsection:
(a) Provide strategic guidance for state, regional, and local actions necessary to implement
the state comprehensive plan with regard to the physical growth and development of the
state.
(b) Identify metropolitan and urban growth centers.
(c) Identify areas of state and regional environmental significance and establish strategies to
protect them.
(d) Set forth and integrate state policy for Florida's future growth as it relates to land
development, air quality, transportation, and water resources.
(e) Provide guidelines for determining where urban growth is appropriate and should be
encouraged.
(f) Provide guidelines for state transportation corridors, public transportation corridors, new
interchanges on limited access facilities, and new airports of regional or state significance.
(g) Promote land acquisition programs to provide for natural resource protection, open
space needs, urban recreational opportunities, and water access.
(h) Set forth policies to establish state and regional solutions to the need for affordable
housing.


OVER













Subsections cont.
(i) Establish priorities regarding coastal planning and resource management.
(k) Provide a statewide policy to enhance the multiuse waterfront development of existing
deepwater ports, ensuring that priority is given to water-dependent land uses.
(1) Set forth other goals, objectives, and policies related to the state's natural and built
environment that are necessary to effectuate those portions of the state comprehensive plan
which are related to physical growth and development.
(m) Set forth recommendations on when and to what degree local government
comprehensive plans must be consistent with the proposed growth management portion of
the state comprehensive plan.
(n) Set forth recommendations on how to integrate the state water use plan required by s.
373.036, the state land development plan required by s. 380.031(17), and transportation
plans required by chapter 339.
(o) Set forth recommendations concerning what degree of consistency is appropriate for the
strategic regional policy plans.

Action by the Administration Commission and the LegHiature Section 186.009(3), F.S.

(b) The Administration Commission shall identify those portions of the plan that are not
based on existing law.

(c) The Legislature shall indicate which plans, activities, and permits must be consistent
with the growth management portion.


,, '











Future Meetings for the

Land Use and Water Planning Task Force


Friday


Friday



Friday

Friday

Monday

Friday

Friday

Friday


February 25



March 21



April 29

May 13

June 20

July 15

August 8

September 9


Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council,
St. Petersburg, Florida

Tallahassee, Florida
(Specific location to be
determined)

Location to be determined

Location to be determined

Location to be determined

Location to be determined

Location to be determined

Location to be determined


Please notify Paul Carlson at (904) 488-7793 if you have a conflict with any of these dates.


/ _




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