Title: Governor's Water Supply Development and Funding Report
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004980/00001
 Material Information
Title: Governor's Water Supply Development and Funding Report
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Governor's Water Supply Development and Funding Report (JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 14 ( Governor's Water Supply Development and Funding Report - February 1997 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004980
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




RECEIVED


EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
The Capitol, Room 1501
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
(904) 488-5551, FAX: (904) 922-6200


FEB 2 41997
Carlton Fields. Tallahassee
.lr)- Vr


MEMORY ANDTIM
TO: Water Supply Development and Funding Core Group Members

FROM: Estus Whitfield

SUBJECT: Governor's Water Supply Development and Funding Report

DATE: February 21, 1997


Enclosed is a copy of the final report on the Governor's Water Supply Development and Funding
Work Group process. Bound and printed copies will be forthcoming within a few days.

Should you have any questions, please contact Paula Allen, Terry Pride or me at (904) 488-5551.
We believe this report contains an excellent set of recommendations. Also of great importance,
this process has raised the level of intellect on water issues across the broad spectrum of
interests.

We deeply appreciate your assistance; your contributions were invaluable.

EDW/jd


Enclosure







kjGovernor s
Water Supply
Development
and
Fu nng

Report



February 1997









TABLE OF CONTENTS






Introduction .................................................................................................................. page 1

Consensus Findings ......................................................................................................... page 5

Consensus Recom m endations .............. ........................................................................... page 6

Continued Issues .......................................................................................................... page 20










Appendix A: Executive Order 96-297 ......................................................................... page A-1

Appendix B: M ailing List ........................................................................................... page B-l

Appendix C: Core M em bers .................................................................................. ... page C-l

Appendix D : February 14 M meeting Agenda .................................................. .....page D-1

Appendix E: Process Plan ............................................................................................ page E-1

Appendix F: Overview of Consensus Process ........................................................... page F-l

Appendix G: Guidelines for Consensus .................................................................... page G-l








GOVERNOR'S
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING WORK GROUP

Report on
Recommendations
Pursuant to Executive Order 96-297

February 21, 1997


INTRODUCTION


Background

The 1996 legislative session was anticipated to produce significant legislation
addressing water supply planning, minimum flows and levels, Water Management
District Review Commission recommendations, local sources first, and more. People
representing a broad range of interests spent many hours meeting, talking, and trying to
reach consensus on these issues. To a great degree, there was consensus. A
predominant feeling, though, was that topics needing more attention were water supply
development and funding. What the session primarily yielded in legislation targeted the
problems in the Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco County area and gave explicit water
management district budget oversight to the Governor (see Chapter Law 96-339).
However, the legislative session also spawned a continuing process of communication
among diverse interests on water issues.

Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group

Subsequent to the session, Governor Chiles issued Executive Order 96-297, to give
direction to the Department of Environmental Protection and guidance to the water
management districts on key water issues which either did not make their way through
the Legislature or received inadequate consideration. The executive order addressed
the establishment and implementation of minimum flows and levels, regional water
supply planning, and the implementation of Water Management District Review
Commission recommendations. It also created a broad-based, public process for the
development of recommendations on water supply development and funding, to build
upon the discussions initiated and understandings gained during the 1996 session.
The executive order called for this process to address:

(a) Mechanisms for water supply development, including the legal and institutional
framework needed for water supply development, and the assignment of
responsibilities.




*


(b) The relationship of water supply planning and land use planning to water supply
development and funding.

(c) Various funding options for water supply development, with consideration of new
or existing federal, state, regional, or local government or private sources, joint
ventures, grant and loan programs, water use fees, rate structures, and others.

(d) Existing and potential incentives for, and obstacles to, development of
economically, environmentally, and technically feasible water supplies, with
particular emphasis on water conservation, alternative water supply
development, and the application of innovative technologies.

On September 30, 1997, the Governor's Office convened the Water Supply
Development and Funding Work Group (Work Group), which met eight times through
February 14, 1997. The group has been open to anyone who wants to participate. In
order to organize the group's efforts, two core committees were formed, Water Supply
Development and Water Supply Funding, with the following representation:

Interest Group Development Funding

Business, Industry, Developers 2 2
Agriculture 2 2
Environmentalists/Citizens 2 2
Water Suppliers 2 2
Local Governments 2 2
Water Management Districts 1 1
Dept. of Environmental Protection 1 1
Dept. of Community Affairs 1
Dept. of Agriculture 1
Public Service Commission 1 1

The core committee representatives were responsible for attending all Work Group
meetings, sharing information with and soliciting comments from their constituents and
other Work Group participants, and developing and voting on recommendations, based
on achieving consensus of the full Work Group. Under the direction of the Governor's
Office, the Work Group was professionally facilitated (See Appendix F for a description
of the facilitated process).

Problem Statement, Assumptions. Principles

In order to provide a foundation for its work, the Work Group drafted the following
problem statement, a set of assumptions, and a set of basic principles against which to
measure proposed recommendations:









Problem Statement


Improvements to existing water supply development and funding mechanisms may be
necessary to achieve affordable and sustainable water supplies and protection of the
environment, both of which are fundamental to ensuring Florida's quality of life. While
the implementation of mechanisms may vary from region to region, improved
implementation of these mechanisms is essential throughout the state.

Assumptions

1. Increased demand for water is inevitable, given Florida's projected growth rates.

2. We must ensure an adequate, affordable and sustainable water supply for
domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses, and the environment.

3. We must protect Florida's environment, public health, economy, and quality of
life.

4. Unless mutually acceptable solutions are found, one or all sides of the issue may
lose. Presently all sides are in jeopardy. We either continue this high-risk game
or work together to resolve the issue.

5. Adequate water supply development and funding are the solutions to both
aspects of the issue: ensuring that water is available for growth, and that
increased water use as a result of growth will not degrade the environment.

Basic Principles

1. Recommendations will address meeting the present and future water supply
needs of Florida without adversely affecting its quality of life, while recognizing
the necessity to address these issues on a regional basis throughout the state.

2. The basic principles of Florida water law will be maintained.

3. Recommendations will support.the development of adequate, safe, and
dependable water supplies in a manner which sustains water resources and the
environment.

4. Recommended funding options will consider full costs and benefits.

5. Recommendations will recognize the relationship between water supply and land
use planning.








The executive order directs the Office of the Governor to submit, by February 1, 1997,
to the Governor and the Legislature appropriate recommendations, if any, developed
through the Work Group process. Because of the short amount of time the Work
Group had to develop its recommendations, an additional meeting in February was
necessary.

Consensus Findings and Recommendations

The Work Group report contains consensus findings and recommendations and
continued issues. "Consensus" on a finding or recommendation means it received the
unanimous support of the representatives of both core committees. (See Appendix F
for a description of the Work Group consensus process) The consensus findings are
statements of what the Work Group considers to be facts influencing the development
or application of the recommendations. The consensus recommendations are for both
administrative and legislative actions to ensure an adequate water supply-for Florida's
citizens and environment, now and in the future. The Findings and
Recommendations should be considered as a whole.

The continued issues include those recommendations for which there was 80 percent
or more support, but not unanimous support, of the representatives of both core
committees. The Work Group agreed these issues are resolvable, but need and will
receive further discussion in the context of the Work Group.

Issues which were discussed at length, but which received less than 80 percent support
were: (1) Long-term consumptive use permits; and (2) Providing a specific statutory link
between regional water supply planning and water use regulation. The Work Group
agreed these issues were unresolvable in the context of the Work Group.

The Governor's Office will draft legislation based on the consensus findings and
recommendations in the Work Group report. In addition, it is hoped that other water
legislation will be measured against the consensus findings and recommendations of
the Work Group.









CONSENSUS FINDINGS


The Work Group made two fundamental, related findings:

For most areas of the state, lack of regional planning for water supply
development and water resource development is not the primary problem in
assuring the sustainability of water resources and of all existing and projected
reasonable-beneficial uses of water, lack of plan implementation is the primary
problem.

There is significant existing revenue-raising authority for water projects at local,
regional, and state levels. However, present and projected water demands, the need to
sustain natural systems, and growing competition among water users suggest that
additional revenue sources are needed to address existing and potential problem areas
where supplies are or soon will be insufficient.

Two additional findings address complications in specific regions of the state:

The Florida Constitution caps the taxing authority of the Northwest Florida Water
Management District at 0.05 mills, which is one twentieth of the taxing authority
of the other water management districts. This financial constraint seriously limits
the district's ability to undertake the development and implementation of regional
water supply plans, minimum flows and levels, water resource development
projects, and other related activities.

The complexity and interdependency of water resource development, water
supply development, and the need for environmental protection and restoration
in the Lower East Coast are of such magnitude relative to other areas in the
state that this area may require special funding sources and a different
combination of sources than other areas.








CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS


The following Work Group recommendations are for both administrative and legislative
actions. Unless a recommendation specifically refers to legislative enactment, it is
intended to be implemented administratively.

PLANNING



1. There is a need for simplification and clarification of the statutory water planning
framework. We recommend that the Legislature amend Chapter 373, Florida
Statutes, to provide for one state-level water plan; revise s. 373.036, Florida
Statutes, to remove reference to the state water use plan and to provide for:

Florida Water Plan (FWP)-This would be the one state-level water resources
plan (prepared by the Department of Environmental Protection in coordination
with others), addressing four areas of responsibility (water quality, water supply,
flood protection, and natural systems). The Florida Water Plan would contain
both Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and water management
district (WMD) objectives and strategies. The District Water Management Plans
(see recommendation 3) would become a part of the FWP. The FWP would
include, among other things:

a. The State Water Policy rule. However, the State Water Policy rule should
be renamed the "water resources rule," which would still contain goals,
objectives, and guidance for the development and review of programs,
rules, and plans relating to water resources, consistent with the statutory
policies and authorities in Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes.

b. The state water quality standards.

c. The DEP report on the status of water supply planning required by
Executive Order 96-297.

2. There should be more guidance with regard to water supply development and
water resource development in state-level planning than currently exists; not
hands-on involvement, but adequate guidance, based on statutory water policy.
Specifically, water supply development and water resource development should
be addressed more adequately in the Florida Water Plan.











3. We recommend that Chapter 373 be amended to provide statutory authorization
for the District Water Management Plans. The following statutory framework is
proposed:

District Water Management Plans (DWMPs)-These are detailed plans
(prepared by the water management districts in coordination with others)
covering the four areas of responsibility: water supply, water quality, flood
protection, and natural systems. DWMPs would include, among other things:

a. Needs and sources assessments and other technical data.

b. The scientific methodology for establishing minimum flows and levels and
all established minimum flows and levels (MFLs).

c. Regional water supply plans, as needed.

4. The WMDs should conduct regional water supply planning in an open public
process, in coordination and cooperation with local.governments, government-
owned and privately owned water utilities, self suppliers, and other affected and
interested parties. We recommend that the Legislature amend Chapter 373,
Florida Statutes, to direct the WMDs to develop regional water supply plans
(RWSPs), through a public process, and require RWSPs to include, among other
things:

a. A water supply development component, which includes:

(1) A quantification of the water supply needs for all existing and future
uses for the planning horizon.

(2) A menu of water source options for water supply development,
from which local government, government-owned and privately
owned water utilities, and water supply decision-makers may
choose, that will more than provide the quantities identified
pursuant to (1) above.

(3) For each option listed pursuant to (2) above, the estimated amount
of water available for use and the estimated costs of and potential
sources of funding for water supply development.

b A water resource development component, which includes:








(1) A listing of water resource development projects.


(2) For each water resource development project listed:

(a) An estimate of the amount of water to become available
through the project.

(b) The timetable for implementing or constructing the project
and the estimated costs for implementing and maintaining
the project.

(c) Funding sources and shortfalls.

The RWSP shall include consideration of how the options addressed serve the
public interest or save costs overall, through preventing the loss of natural
resources or avoiding greater future expenditures for water resource
development or water supply development. However, unless adopted by rule,
these considerations are not final agency action.

5. If necessary for implementation, the WMDs should adopt portions of RWSPs by
rule or order, to the extent of their statutory authorities. It should be made clear
that a RWSP does not confer authority, but reflects strategies to be implemented
under existing authorities.

6. With allowance for regional variations, there should be some consistency in
process and format among the water management districts in developing their
regional water supply plans. DEP and the WMDs should form a working group,
to reach consensus on how to achieve this consistency where practicable. DEP,
through its general supervisory authority, should also oversee this process, with
guidance from the Governor. (See Executive Order 96-297; this process is being
initiated by DEP).

Local

7. The Local Government Comprehensive Plan infrastructure element (general
sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater
aquifer recharge element) should indicate sources of water, based on the
relevant RWSP or other best available data.

8. Local governments should be encouraged to use water supply sources identified
in the relevant RWSP.









9. DEP, the WMDs, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), local
governments, and others should increase communication and provide early
technical assistance, and financial assistance where possible, to ensure that
local comprehensive plans and local government actions are coordinated with
WMD needs and sources assessments and regional water supply plans.

10. Data for local water supply planning should come from the WMDs, unless better
data is available. The WMD should be the primary source of data, but this would
not preclude a local government from using more accurate data.

11. In its review of local government comprehensive plans, DCA should rely, at a
minimum, on the WMDs for evaluation of identified water supply sources.


DEVELOPMENT

12. For purposes of this report we define and recommend that the Legislature
define, "water resource development" and "water supply development" as
follows:

"Water resource development" means the formulation and implementation of
regional water resource management strategies, including the collection and
evaluation of surface water and groundwater data; structural and non-structural
programs to protect and manage water resources; the development of regional
water resource implementation programs; the construction, operation, and
maintenance of major public works facilities to provide for flood control, surface
and underground water storage, and groundwater recharge augmentation; and
related technical assistance to local governments and government-owned and
privately owned water utilities.

"Water supply development" means the planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of public or private facilities for water collection,
treatment, transmission, or distribution for sale, resale or end use.

13. Water resource development should support water supply development and
should be conducted in a manner to help ensure the sustainability of water
resources and of all existing and projected reasonable-beneficial uses of water.

14. Water resource development should generally be based on aquifers and
watersheds.








15. Water supply development should be conducted in coordination with WMD
regional water supply planning and water resource development.

State

16. We recommend that the Legislature amend s. 373.016, Florida Statutes, to
include a policy that the state assure protection of water resources on state
lands.

17. The state should consider the acquisition of lands for recharge.

18. Florida should promote the use of appropriate alternative water supplies,
including reuse, to replace or extend the use of limited supplies.


Regional

19. We recommend the Legislature establish by statute that the proper WMD role in
water supply is primarily planning and water resource development. WMDs are
not primarily in the water supply development business, but this does not
preclude them from providing assistance with water supply development,
including those responsibilities for water production currently authorized in s.
373.1961, Florida Statutes.

20. We recommend that the Legislature amend s. 373.016, Florida Statutes, to
include policies which direct the water management districts to engage'in water
resource development.

21. We recommend that the Legislature direct the water management districts by
statute to account for cumulative impacts on water resources and manage those
resources in a manner to ensure their sustainability.

22. The water management districts should consider making district lands available
for water supply, where not inconsistent with the purposes for which the land was
acquired.









Local


23. We recommend the Legislature establish by statute that the proper local role
(local governments, regional water supply authorities, and government-owned
and privately owned water utilities) in water supply is primarily water supply
development, but that this does not preclude local assistance with water
resource development.

24. Local governments should consider making their lands available for water
supply, where not inconsistent with the purposes for which the lands were
acquired.

REGULATION

State/Regional

25. We recommend that the Legislature establish by statute a presumption of
correctness or prudence by the Public Service Commission (PSC) if DEP
"approves" an improvement by a PSC-regulated utility or the water management
district requires the use of an alternative source or conservation technique, that
requires an improvement by a PSC-regulated utility.

26. DEP and the PSC should consider developing a list of qualified reuse measures,
practices, and equipment for PSC-regulated utilities.

27. We recommend that the Legislature direct the PSC, DEP, and the WMDs by
statute to coordinate their timeframes for cost recovery and compliance with
regulatory rules (especially for reuse); and direct the PSC to allow its regulated
utilities a reasonable time for cost recovery (length of planning period on which to
base a calculation of prudent costs).

28. DEP and the WMDs must eliminate remaining inconsistencies in their feasibility
requirements and criteria for reuse. (The Reuse Coordinating Committee meets
regularly to address such issues)

29. DEP, the WMDs, and the Department of Health must eliminate remaining
inconsistencies in their reuse criteria and coordinate their efforts. We
recommend that the Governor's Office direct these agencies to do so through
executive order or other appropriate means.

30. We recommend that the Legislature authorize the WMDs to designate through
interagency agreement, with the concurrence of the affected local government, a








single affected WMD to implement under its rules all or part of the applicable
regulatory responsibilities under Chapter 373, in local governments which cross
WMD boundaries. We recommend the Legislature also confer this authority,
without requiring such local government consent, where a project crosses WMD
boundaries. We recommend the Legislature provide reasonable exceptions to
ss. 70.001 and 373.2295, Florida Statutes, for the application of this authority.

31. DEP and the WMDs should explore the use of the new Administrative
Procedures Act waiver and variance provisions to keep up with changes in
technology.

32. DEP and the WMDs should work with the federal Environmental Protection
Agency and others to solve technical and related legal obstacles to the utilization
of aquifer storage and recovery, and other developing water management
methods which aid in maintaining sustainable water supplies.

33. There should be accelerated research by WMDs, Universities, and others
(cooperative efforts where possible) to remove technical obstacles to the
development of alternative sources and water treatment technologies.

34. There should be early scientific peer review for water supply-related research
and development, water supply planning, establishment of MFLs, and other
technical processes.

Local

35. Wellhead protection should be encouraged, in order to protect existing and
future water supplies and public health.


FUNDING

General principles

36. Generally, direct beneficiaries of water supply development projects should pay
the costs of the projects from which they benefit.

37. Water management districts should take the lead in identifying and implementing
water resource development projects, and should be responsible for securing
necessary funding for regionally significant water resource development projects.

38. Local governments and government-owned and privately owned water utilities


I---------------------___________









should taKe the lead in securing funds for and implementing water supply
development projects. Water supply development projects should continue to be
paid for through local water users and other local funding sources.

39. Regionally significant water supply development projects of "greater public good"
(see recommendation 41) may be funded from state and federal sources in
addition to local water users and other local funding sources.

State/Regional

40. It is in the long-term best interest of Florida for the Legislature to adopt enabling
legislation and to appropriate the required 20-percent matching funds to allow
the use of a revolving loan fund through access to new moneys available under
the 1996 amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The following is
the total amount of funding under this program that is available to Florida:

a. State appropriation of $9 million for federal fiscal year 1997 generates a
total of $54 million.

b. State appropriation of $7.2 million for federal fiscal year 1998 generates a
total of $43.2 million.

c. Future allocations for each state will be based on an EPA needs
assessment, which will likely decrease the available funding for Florida.

41. There should be additional funding to allow the districts or state to assist in
funding projects which are of greater public good. To be of "greater public
good," a project must be of regional or statewide significance, must be found to
be consistent with the relevant regional water supply plan and must:

a. Support establishment of a dependable, sustainable supply of water which
is not otherwise financially feasible;

b. Be environmentally superior to other available alternatives in preventing or
limiting adverse water resource impacts, but require funding assistance to
make the alternative economically competitive to other options; or

c. Significantly implement reuse, storage, recharge, or conservation of water
in a manner which contributes to the sustainability of regional water
sources.









42. We have preliminarily identified several potential dedicated and recurring
sources of funding for water resource development which are candidates for
future consideration. These potential funding sources require analysis and
assessment in conjunction with the RWSPs. The unmet funding needs for water
resource development projects should be identified in the RWSPs pursuant to
recommendations 3 and 36. When the nature and scope of these unmet needs
have been determined, additional funding alternatives should be considered
based on justification presented by the requesting entity.

The following table sets forth funding options for future consideration, to be used
primarily for water resource development:










POTENTIAL WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FUNDING OPTIONS (TABLE 1)


Option Who Who Pays? Who Spends? Estimated Amount Requirements
Collects

Allocate County Tax Real estate & loan Legislature 96/97 total=826M Legislative
portion of doc Collector to financing 188.6M to Gen Rev reallocation
stamp DOR customers potentially available for
water resource
development

Statewide State (DOR) Public (end WMDs Not yet determined Legislative
removal of consumers and authorization
sales tax water users)
exemption on
bottled water

Increase County tax Property owners in WMDs $87.5M/yr for all 5 districts Legislative
WMD ad collector to the district based on legislative cap. authorization
valorem tax WMDs *".. May impact
statutory caps funding of existing
$101.6M state wide in projects that
addition to 87.5M above require future
*NWFWMD based on const cap increases in
constitutional funding. E.g.-
cap limit Everglades
(O.05mil) Required
legislative'
authorization to
constit cap. .

New Ad County tax Property owners in WMDs and/or To be determined Constitutional
Valorem tax collectors to WMD local govt. amendment
WMDs
and/or local
govt

Water Use fee WMDs Consumptive use WMDs Depends on rate per 1000 Legislative
permit holders gal. Assessed e.g. authorization
$.25/1000 gal if all dist
levied generates
$266.9M/yr for public
supply
Water use
fees
unmetered










Option Who Who Pays? Who Spends? Estimated Amount Requirements
Collects

Statewide State (DOR) Public (end WMDs 270/M/yr (est at 6%) Legislative
removal of consumers and authorization
sales tax water uses)
exemption on
wells and
utilities water
sales

State wide State (DOR) Utility- is passed on WMDs Depends on rate. If 2.5% Legislative
gross receipts to customers is used, could be 11 M/yr. authority
tax on water

Regulatory State or Co. Permit recipient State or Co. Estimated amount minimal Legislative
fees authorization
and/or county
ordinance
Franchise State or Franchise passed State or local To be determined Legislative
fees local govt. to customer govt. authorization
and/or contract
agreement
New taxes DOR Citizens Legislature To be determined Legislative
general authorization and
revenue. approp.
Congressional
appropriation
Congressional IRS Citizens of the U.S. State / WMD To be determined could be Congressional
appropriation substantial authorization and
approp.









Local


43. The unmet funding needs for water supply development projects have largely
been identified in local comprehensive plans and water utility plans. While we
made no attempt to quantify the total unmet funding needs, consideration
should be given to providing local governments and water utilities additional
revenue-raising options to meet planned needs which are not inconsistent with
the RWSPs.

44. We recognize that local governments already have authority for setting
conservation rates. We recommend that the Legislature give the PSC clear
authority to set conservation rates for investor-owned utilities. In addition,
DEP, the WMDs, and the PSC should work in conjunction with investor-owned
utilities to implement conservation rate structures which provide incentives to
customers to use less water and which do not work as a disincentive to the
utility to promote conservation.

45. We recommend that either of the two local-option funding sources identified in
the table below be further considered by the Legislature to provide funding
options to local government for water supply development. We recommend
that the choice of these funding options and their use be in the sole discretion
of local government. If new local-option funding sources are authorized, they
should not become the sole source nor assumed to be the best source of
funding for water supply development, especially in the case of funding state-
mandated or regionally mandated projects.

46. While we recommend that local referenda requirements not be attached to any
additional authority.provided to local governments, we do recommend that the
Legislature establish the following policies to provide accountability and equity:

a. Local governments should expressly articulate the public policy considerations
for selecting the new funding source, how the money will be spent, and the
relationship to other existing sources of funding for water supply.

b. Local governments may use the new money on projects of primarily local
benefit, but if the project will have inter-jurisdictional impacts, it must serve a
regional purpose and be a joint project of the affected public and private
jurisdictions.

c. Where customers of private utilities and government-owned utilities contribute
to local option funding sources designated for water supply development, the
utilities serving these customers shall be entitled to share equitably in the
proceeds of the funds.









d. These new funds must not be used to replace, supplant, or support the diversion of
existing funding for water projects for use on projects or activities unrelated to water
supply development, treatment, retreatment, or distribution.

47. We identified several potential dedicated and recurring local sources of funding
for water supply development. The following table sets forth funding options
for future consideration, to be used primarily for water supply development:


POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FUNDING OPTIONS (TABLE 2)


Option Who Collects Who Pays? Who Spends? Estimated Amount Requirements
Water government Utility customer Local govt./ Could be designed to Legislative authority to
conservation owned and utilities generate any targeted PSC for Investor
Rate Structure privately $$ amount needed owned utilities. Local
owned water ordinance by
utilities governing body for
implementation
Statewide State (DOR) Public (end WMDs Not yet determined Legislative
removal of consumers and authorization
sales tax water users)
exemption on
bottled water

Local option State (DOR) Public (end government $270 M/yr (est.) At 6% Legislative repeal
removal of consumer) owned and (statewide. local exemption from 6%
sales tax privately amounts would vary sales tax on water,
exemption on owned water based on local bottled water and
wells and utilities implementation) utility provided water
utilities water
sales.

Local option State (DOR) Utility is passed government Depends on rate. If Legislative
gross receipts on to customers owned and 2.5% is used, could be authorization
tax on water privately 11OM/yr
owned water
utilities
Private Investor Private investors IOUs and unlimited
investment owner utilities or private/public partners
partners
Special Local govt. Property owners Local govt. To be determined Local
Assessments in affected area ordinance/referendum
Water rate Local govt end consumers Local govt To be determined Local govt decision
increases and water users


* New sources of funding









48. The RWSPs could affect existing investments of government-owned and
privately owned water utilities by recommending the use of a water supply
source that is different from that used by an existing water supply development
project. When this occurs, the RWSP should quantify the financial impact of
changing sources, with assistance from the affected entities. When this
RWSP-recommended source change results in making a water supply
development project of "greater public good," the project should be eligible for
district or state assistance, either from existing funding sources or from the
potential water resource development funding sources listed in
recommendation 47.

49. If a water supply development project is not considered by the department or
the water management district under a RWSP to be of "greater public good,"
the local government or water utility may elect to use local-option funding to
cover the project costs.

50. When implementing a water resource development project would be more
economically or environmentally sound than implementing one or more water
supply development projects, the local government or water utility may elect to
provide local-option funds for support of water resource development.








CONTINUED ISSUES


Executive Order 96-297 allows for the continuation of the Work Group Process beyond
February 1997, as deemed appropriate, to develop further recommendations. It is the
intent of the Governor's Office to convene the Work Group, as needed, to seek
consensus on continued issues during the 1997 legislative session and afterward.

The following issues were determined by the Work Group to be continued issues.

Minimum Flows and Levels
(Recommendations 23-26 in the February 4 draft)

The following recommendations were not voted on individually, but the set of
recommendations and the issue of minimum flows and levels were voted to be moved
to the category of continued issues.

1. In addition to the considerations for priority establishment of MFLs set out in
Executive Order 96-297, establishment of MFLs should be directed to areas where
water is being or will be developed.

2. MFLS should be made a part of District Water Management Plans. They should be
accompanied by plans for their implementation and should be implemented in
coordination with water resource development and water supply development.

3. One function of MFLs should be to help us understand what is happening to the
resource in sufficient time to develop water supplies which will provide adequate
water for all reasonable-beneficial uses and prevent harm to water resources.

4. We recommend the Legislature direct by statute that:

a. If an existing flow or level in a water body is below, or is projected to fall below,
an established minimum flow or level, DEP or the WMD shall immediately
implement a recovery or prevention strategy, that includes water resource
development and other actions consistent with its existing authorities, which
will: achieve recovery to the established minimum flow or level as soon as
practicable; or prevent the existing flow or level from falling below the
established minimum flow or level.









b. The recovery or prevention strategy shall include phasing or a timetable that will
-allow for water resource development and water supply development, including new
traditional or alternative water supplies, and implementation of conservation and
other efficiency measures, in coordination with, and to the extent practicable
concurrent with, any reductions in permitted allocations or withdrawals. (This is not
intended to prohibit or require reductions in permitted allocations or withdrawals.)

c. When establishing minimum flows and levels, DEP or the WMDs shall consider
alterations to surface waters which were authorized by a permit issued under
parts I or IV of Chapter 373, F.S., which are exempt from permitting under
those provisions, or which existed prior to those provisions, and any effects
such alterations have had, including any constraints they have placed, on the
hydrology of water courses, surface water bodies, or groundwaters. This
provision does not limit or require water resource restoration.

Funding
(Recommendation 43 in the February draft)

The following recommendation received at least 80 percent support, but not unanimous
support:

The water resource problems and water supply.development needs vary so widely
across the state that a mandatory set aside from existing funding sources is not
recommended.





Appendix A


State of flor'ba


OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 96-297


WHEREAS, Florida has an abundance of water resources and

related natural systems, whose sustainability is vital to the

economic and environmental health of the State, and

WHEREAS, Florida water law is founded on the principles that

water is a state resource that belongs to the public, and'that

water use must be managed both to protect Florida's rivers,

lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal waters and to meet the

water supply needs of the public, and

WHEREAS, in certain areas of the state, withdrawals and

diversions from surface watercourses, aquifers, and surface

waters have caused harm to water resources and related natural

systems, emphasizing the need for adequate funding and prudent

development of water supplies within the context of coordinated

water supply and land use planning, and

WHEREAS, we must adequately inventory, conserve, manage, and

develop our water resources in a manner to ensure their

sustainability and the sustainability of related natural systems,

while meeting the water supply needs of the public, and


A-1









WHEREAS, Chapters 163, 373, 380, and 403, Florida Statutes,

and various other laws, provide authority and direction to

preserve and protect the waters of the state and to plan, manage,

and provide for their proper use consistent with the public

interest, and

WHEREAS, the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force and the

Water Management District Review Commission provided

recommendations regarding water resources issues, many of which

can be implemented under existing.statutory authority, and

WHEREAS, the Governor has the constitutional duty to

faithfully execute Florida law, and the Water Management

Districts, under the general supervisory authority of the

Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to section

373.026(7), Florida Statutes, serve as trustees of Florida's

publicly owned water resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, LAWTON CHILES, Governor of the State of

Florida, by the powers vested in me by the Constitution and laws

of the State of Florida, do hereby promulgate the following

executive order, effective immediately:

Section 1.

To promote the establishment of minimum flows and levels, as

needed, throughout the state, the Department of Environmental


A-2








Protection (hereinafter the "Department") is directed to work

with the Water Management Districts (hereinafter the "Districts")

to ensure that by November 15, 1996, and annually thereafter,

each District submits to the Department a priority list and

schedule for the establishment of minimum flows and levels for

surface watercourses, aquifers, and surface waters within the

District.

The initial priority list and the updated priority lists are

to be based upon the importance of the waters to the state or

region and the existence of, or potential for, significant harm

as set forth in section 373.042(1), Florida Statutes.

Special consideration is to be given to establishing minimum

flows and levels for waters within designated water resource

caution areas.

It is expected that the Southwest Florida Water Management

District will include on its initial priority list waters within

the area described in section 373.042(2), Florida Statutes.

Section 2.

The Department shall work with the Districts, providing

technical and staff assistance where possible, to help ensure

that the Districts:


A-3







(1) Complete the establishment of minimum flows and levels

for surface watercourses, aquifers, and surface waters on their

initial priority lists by the end of fiscal year 1999, except

that establishment of minimum flows and levels for waters within

the area described in section 373.042(2), Florida Statutes, is to

be completed pursuant to the time requirement in section

373.042(3), Florida Statutes.

(2) Base the establishment of minimum flows and levels on

scientific determinations of the sustainability of water

resources and related natural systems, using the best information

available.

(3) Re-evaluate minimum flows and levels periodically and

revise them when necessary.

(4) Implement minimum flows and levels equitably and

fairly, and in a manner to help ensure the sustainability of

water resources and related natural systems.

(5) Develop consistent methods for establishing and

implementing minimum flows and levels where needed and

practicable, including consistent processes for peer review.

However, peer review for minimum flows and levels for waters

within the area described in section 373.042(2), Florida


A-4









Statutes, is to be conducted pursuant to section 373.042(4),

Florida Statutes.

Section 3.

The Department is directed to work with the Districts to

help ensure comprehensive water supply planning by the Districts,

for at least a 20-year planning period, which is done in

coordination with land use planning, which considers other local

and regional water supply plans, which is open to the public, and

which includes broad participation by interested and affected

parties, within the following framework:

(1) By July 1, 1997, one or more water supply planning

regions shall be identified within each District, which singly or

together encompass the entire district, based on surface

watersheds, groundwater basins, and other factors, as

appropriate.

(2) By July 1, 1998, a district-wide water supply

assessment shall be completed which determines for each water

supply planning region, for at least a 20-year planning period:

(a) Existing legal uses, reasonably anticipated future

needs, and existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water

and conservation efforts.


A-5









(b) Whether existing and reasonably anticipated sources of

water and conservation efforts are adequate to supply water for

all existing legal uses and reasonably anticipated future needs,

and to sustain the natural systems.

(c) Whether harm to the water resources or related natural

systems has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur, wholly

or partially as a result of water withdrawals.

(3) By October 1, 1998, regional water supply planning shall

be initiated for each region where sources of water are

determined not to be adequate for the planning period to supply

water for all existing legal uses and reasonably anticipated

future needs, and to sustain the natural systems, or where harm

to the water resources or related natural systems has occurred or

is reasonably expected to occur wholly or partially as a result

of water withdrawals, in order to meet the water supply needs of

all existing and future legal uses and the natural systems within

the region.

(a) Each regional water supply plan is to be completed

within eighteen months of being initiated, unless a delay is

justified.

(b) Each regional water supply plan shall identify water

supply options, including alternative water supplies, which are


A-6









environmentally, technically, and economically feasible for the

planning region; a proposed schedule and projected cbsts for

implementing feasible options; and funding mechanisms.

(c) Each regional water supply plan shall incorporate the

minimum flows and levels that are established within the planning

region.

(4) The district-wide assessments and the regional water

supply plans are to be updated at least every five years.

Additional regional water supply planning is to be initiated and

completed, as needed pursuant to the guidelines in this section.

(5) Beginning November 15, 1997, and annually thereafter,

the Department will submit to the Office of the Governor and the

Legislature a report on the status of water supply planning in

each District. Working in cooperation with the Districts, the

Department of Community Affairs, and local government, the

Department will include in the report a section on efforts and

accomplishments in coordinating regional water supply planning

and land use planning.

(6) This section is not intended to restrict water supply

planning efforts, but to ensure accountability to the people of

this State and provide a consistent framework within which to

conduct regionally based water supply planning.


A-7








(c) Various funding options for water supply development,

with consideration of new or existing federal, state, regional,

or local government or private sources, joint ventures, grant and

loan programs, water use fees, rate structures, and others.

(d) Existing and potential incentives for, and obstacles

to, development of economically, environmentally, and technically

feasible water supplies, with particular emphasis on water

conservation, alternative water supply development, and the

application of innovative technologies.

(2) This process may include discussion of other related

issues, as appropriate, including relevant recommendations of the

Land Use and Water Planning Task Force and the Water Management

District Review Commission.

(3) The Departments of Environmental Protection and

Community Affairs are directed and the Public Service Commission,

the Office of Public Counsel, and the Water Management Districts

are requested to provide assistance as needed to carry out the

provisions of this section.

(4) By February 1, 1997, the Office of the Governor shall

submit to the Governor and the Legislature appropriate

recommendations, if any, developed through the process conducted

pursuant to this section. This process may be continued beyond


A-8









Section 4.

In furtherance of water supply planning pursuant to section

3 of this Executive Order, the Office of the Governor will

develop and conduct a process to investigate and formulate

recommendations on effective means for water supply development

and funding and, as necessary, water supply planning. This

process will be open to the public and will encourage and provide

the opportunity for the voluntary participation of all interested

private interests, levels of government, and members of the

Legislature. For purposes of this executive order, "water supply

development" means the development and distribution of adequate,

safe, and dependable water supplies, including traditional and

alternative supplies, for all existing and projected legal uses,

in a manner which sustains water resources and related natural

systems.

(1) In the consideration of local, regional, and statewide

issues and approaches, as appropriate, this process will address:

(a) Mechanisms for water supply development, including the

legal and institutional framework needed for water supply

development, and the assignment of responsibilities.

(b) The relationship of water supply planning and land use

planning to water supply development and funding.


A-9


I









February, 1997, as deemed appropriate, to develop further

recommendations.

Section 5.

The Office of the Governor recognizes the extensive and

diligent work of the Water Management District Review Commission

and commends the Commission for its general support for

maintaining Florida Water Law and for maintaining and improving

Florida's system of water management.

Consistent with the Commission's recommendation regarding

Executive approval of District budgets, the Legislature has

enacted and the Office of the Governor will implement section

373.536(5), Florida Statutes.

Many of the Commission's recommendations which address

improving District operations and programs are consistent with

Florida law and'can be implemented under existing statutory

authority. The Department is directed to work with the Districts

to develop-a report, to be submitted to the Governor by November

1, 1996, which lists the recommendations of the Water Management

District Review Commission the Department and'Districts are

implementing or will implement under their existing statutory

authority, and how they are implementing or will implement the

listed recommendations. The Department will provide copies of


A-10









the report to the Legislature and will make copies available to

other interested parties, including local governments.

Section 6.

This executive shall expire five years from the date it

becomes effective unless an extension is required to further the

goals stated herein.




IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand and have
caused the Great Seal of the State
of Florida to be affixed at
Ta 1ssee, the Capitol, this
d of September, 1996.




GOVERNOR


ATTEST:




SECRETARY OF STATE


A-11










WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING
MASTER LIST
(As of 2/14/97)


Gene Adams, FL Associate of Realtors
Joseph W. Adcock, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Paula Allen, Executive Office of the Governor
Chuck Aller, DACS
Eva Armstrong, Florida Audubon Society
Douglas E. Barr, NWFWMD
Dennis Barton, Am. Water Works Assoc.
Peter Belmont,
Frank Bernardino, Dade County DERM
Wayne Bertsch,
Bart Bibler, Sustainable Partnerships, Inc.
Henry Bittaker, Dept. of Community Affairs
Daniel Blood, Hillsborough County Planning
Gene Boles, Hillsborough County Planning
Janet Bowman, ACIR
Russ Bowman,
Susan Brand, Senate President's Office
Linda Branning, Senate Natural Res. Committee
Wendy Brenner, Deputy Mayor
Judith Breuggeman, Office of the Mayor
Charles H. Bronson, FL Senate
Barry Brooks, Fiscal Responsibility Council
David Browning, FL Assoc. of Broadcaster, Inc.
Butch Calhoun, FL Fruit & Vegetable Asssoc.
Bram Canter, WCRWSA
Susan Caplowe, Environment
Paul Carlson, Exec. Ofc. of the Governor
Dee Carper, Assoc. of Counties
Dione Carroll, Lehtinen, O'Donnell, Fargas & Reiner
Ed Chance, Peace River Manasota Regional
JoAnn Chase, Public Service Commission
David "Hap" Clark, Pasco Cty. Government Ctr.
Gilliam Clarke, Pasco Cty. Citizen
Anthony J. Clemente, P.E., Miami-Dade
Water/Sewer Dept.
Suzanne Cooper, Tampa Bay Reg. Ping. Council
Isabel Cosio, Broward Cty. Intergovernmental Afrs.
Sherry Coven, FL Regional Councils Assoc.
Larry Curtin, Phosphate Industry


Mike Cusick, Sheldon/Cusick and Assocs.
Rick Dantzler, Senator, Dist. 17
Betsy Davis, HDR Engineer
Norm Davis, Hillsborough Cty Water
Ed de la Parte, WCRWS
Bruce DeGrove, FL Phosphate Council
Mike Deming, Perry-Taylor Cty Chamber of
Commerce
Bob Dennis, FL Dept. Community Affairs
Bruce Deterding, DEP
Marty Deterding, Rose, Sondstrom & Bentley
Craig Diamond,
Chris Doolin, Robert P. Jones & Assoc.
Debbie Drake, The Nature Conservancy
Nancy Dufoe, OPPAGA
Martha Edenfield, Pennington Law Firm
Jeff Elledge, SJRWMD
Gady Epstein,
Eric Etters,
Jen Eversole, HRS/HSEH
Mark Farrell, SWFWMD
Mercer Fearington, Jr., Agricultural Interest
Ron Ferland, P.E., Barnes, Ferland & Assocs., Inc.
June Fisher, Glades County Brd. of Commissioners
Dave Fisk, SRWMD
Chip Fletcher, House Water Res. Mgmt.
Wayne Flowers, Lewis, Logman & Walker, P.A.
James Fort, DACS
Kathy Fry, City of Tampa Water Dept.
Manley Fuller, Wildlife Federation
John Fumero, SFWMD
John J. Gallagher, County Administrator
Jim Garner,
Pat Gleason, Camp, Dresser and McKee
Casey Gluckman, Gluckman & Gluckman
Trey Goldman, Fl. Assoc. of Realtors
Yvonne Gsteiger, SFWMD
David Guest, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Tim Haag, Escambla Utility Authority


Brad Hartman, GFWFC
Jane Hayman, FL League of Cities
Kari Hebrank, FL Assoc. of Counties
Keith Hetrick, FL Home Builders Assoc.
Mike Heyl, Camp Dresser McKee
H. Clyde Hobby, Hobby, Anderson & Grey, P.A.
Dick Hollahan, Symmons Industries
Sheri Holtz, House Republican Office
Wade Hopping, Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith
Willie Horton,
Robert T. Hugli, Florida Phosphate Council
Charles Hunsicker, Manatee County Planning Dept.
Bill Hunter, Assoc. of FL Community Developers
William L. Hyde, Gunster, Yoakley Law Firm
Lila Jaber, Public Service Commission
Mike Kerr,
Diane Kiesling, Public Service Commission
Lee M. Killinger, Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.
Greg Kisla,
John Knowles, Sarasota County Utilities
Ken Kuhl, Office of Ag Water Policy
John Kynes, Mayor's Office
Steve Lamb,
Carol Langston,
Carl Larrabee, Utilities Public Works City of Cocoa
Jack Latvala, FL Senate
John Laurent, FL House of Representatives
Philip Leary, AICP, FL Farm Bureau
David Lee, Broward County DNRP
Dexter Lehtinen, Lehtinen, O'Donnell, Fargas &
Reiner
Helen Levine, Hillsborough County
Carl D. Littlefield, Fl House of Representatives
Chuck Littlejohn, FL Chamber, FES
Janet LLewellyn, Office of Water Policy, FDEP
Tyler MacMillan, NWFWMD
Doug Mann, A. Duda & Sons
Sally Mann, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A.
Kirk Martin, Southern States Utilities, Inc.










Susan Mason, SFWMD
Jim Massie,
Frank Matthews, Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith
Fred McCormack, Agricultural Interest
John McCue, Local Government
Richard McLean, SWFWMD
Pam McVety, FDEP
Mike McWeeny, Hillsborough County
Margie Menduni, Rutledge Law Firm
Kathryn Merinella, SJRWMD
Ed Mills, Wakulla Cty. Comm. Devel.
Robert Minsky, Mayor, Port St. Lucie
John T. Mitchell, House Select Com. Water Policy
Karon Molloy, Speaker's Office
John Moyle, Jr.,
Jim Muller, Muller & Associates, Inc.
Sue Mullins, FL American Planning Assoc.
Lisa Munroe, Senate Majority Office
Chester Murray, Wakulla County
Julie Myers, Smith Bryan and Myers
Wendy Nero, FS/AWWA
Peter NeSmith,
Pat Novy, County Commissioner
Richard Owen, SWFWMD
Lynn Pappas, Pappas, Metcalf and Jenks
Philip Parsons, Agricultural Interest
Charles Pattison, Dept. of Community Affairs
Avis H. Payne, House Natural Res. Committee
Timothy Perkins, Treatment Center
Karen Peterson, Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith
Mike Petrovich,
Terry Pride, FDEP
Joyce Pugh, Water Resources Committee
Jim Quinn, Bureau of State Planning
Mary Lou Rajchel, FL Phospate Council
Fred Rapach, Palm Beach Cty Water Dept.
John C. Rayson, FL House of Representatives
Fern Recio, NWFWMD
Mark A. Reinsch, Esq., Pappas, Metcalf & Jenks,
P.A.
Roy A. Reynolds, Broward Cty Water Mgmt.
Robert M. Rhodes, Attorney
James Robards, City of Winter Park
Jorge Rodriguez, Miami-Dade Water & Sewer


R. Z. Safley, FL House of Representatives
Diane Salz, Interested Party
Ansley Samson, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Ray Scott, House Water Policy
Bill Segal, SJRWMD Governing Brd.
Carol Senne,
Jeff Sharkey, Capitol Strategies
Jack Shreve, Office of Public Counsel
Mike Slayton, SFWMD
Rick Smith, Executive Ofc. of the Governor
Ann Spencer Austin, Kvaerner Construction, Inc.
Richard Stenberg, Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority
Dan Stengle, Exec. Office of the Governor
Mary Stewart, FDEP, Legislative Affairs
Nancy Stewart, Pasco
Jake Stowers, Pinellas County
Jackson Sullivan, Withlacoochee Reg. Wtr. Supply
Authority
Tom Swihart, FDEP
Pick Talley, Pinellas County Utilities
Koren Taylor, FDEP
Tom Taylor, FL Conflict Resolution Consortium
Rafael Terrero, P.E., Southern States Utilities
Teresa Tinker, Governor's Office
Lynn Tipton, FLC
Vicki Tschlnkel,
Jake Varn, Carlton, Fields
E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Peace River/Manasota
Regional Water Supply Authority
Richard Voakes, City of St. Petersburg
Cathy Vogel, Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton,
Dave Vogel, Office Of Ag Water Policy
Wayne Voigt, Senate Natural Res. Committee
Steve Walker, Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
Cliff Walter, Miami-Dade Water/Sewer Dept.
John Wehle, SJRWMD
William R. Whitson, City of Milton
Gary Williams, FL Rural Water Assoc.
John Williams, Public Service Commission
Judy Williams, COLA
George Wilson, NWFWMD Governing Board
Oel Wingo, City of Ocala
Sylvia Young, Pasco County Courthouse
John Zimmerman, Manatee County Public Works





Appendix C


WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT -- CORE GROUP


Business/Industry/Development


Jake Varn (Chair)
Carlton Fields
Post Office Drawer 190
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
(904) 224-1585
(904) 222-0398 (FAX)


Wade Hopping
Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith
123 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 222-7500
(904) 224-8551 (FAX)


Agriculture


Butch Calhoun
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 877-3181
(904) 877-0981 (FAX)


Chuck Littlejohn
Florida Chamber, FES
310 West College Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 222-7535
(904) 681-8796 (FAX)


Environment/Citizen


Eva Armstrong
Florida Audubon Society
102 E. Fourth Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
(904) 222-2473
(904) 224-6056 (FAX)


David Guest (Vice Chair)
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
111 S. Martin Luther King Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 681-0031
(904) 681-0020 (FAX)


Water Suppliers


Oel Wingo
Post Office Box 1270
Ocala, Florida 34478-1270
(352) 629-8401
(352) 629-8391 (FAX)


Bram Canter
WCRWSA
Post Office Box 10095
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
(904) 222-3533
(904) 222-2126 (FAX)


(Water supply development core group)


C-l











Local Government


John McCue
Post Office Box 1263
Crawfordville, Florida 32326
(904) 926-8876
(904) 926-2071 (FAX)

Water Management Districts


Fred Rapach
Palm Beach Co. Water Mgmt. District
206 Prairie Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33405
(407) 641-3426 (FAX)


Mike Slayton
South Florida Water Management District
Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
(561) 687-6540
(561) 687-6200 (FAX)

Department of Environmental Protection

Janet Llewellyn
Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 46
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
(904) 488-0784
(904) 922-5380 (FAX)

Department of Community Affairs

Charles Pattison
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
(904) 488-2356
(904) 488-3309 (FAX)

(Water supply development core group)


C-2









Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Chuck Aller
Director of Agricultural Water Policy
Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
The Capitol LL29
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
(904) 488-3022
(904) 488-7585 (FAX)

Public Service Commission

JoAnn Chase
Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0873
Phone: (904) 413-7003
FAX: (904) 413-7004



























(Water supply development core group)


C-3









WATER SUPPLY FUNDING -- CORE GROUP


Business/Industry/Development

Keith Hetrick
Florida Home Builders Association
201 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 224-4316
(904) 224-1359 (FAX)


Gene Adams
Florida Association of Realtors
Post Office Box 1853
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1853
(904) 224-1400
(904) 224-0702 (FAX)


Agriculture


Mercer Fearington, Jr.
Post Office Box 1548
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
(904) 224-1215
(904) 222-8826 (FAX)


Environment/Citizen

Debbie Drake
The Nature Conservancy
625 North Adams Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 222-0973 (FAX)


Philip Parsons (Co-Chair)
310 West College Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 681-0311
(904) 224-5595 (FAX)


Casey Gluckman
Gluckman & Gluckman
541 Old Magnolia Road
Crawfordville, Florida 32327
(904) 421-0152
(904) 421-2426 (FAX)


Water Suppliers


E. D. "Sonny" Vergara (Co-Chair)
Executive Director
Peace River/Manasota Regional
Water Supply Authority
1451 Dam Road
Bradenton, Florida 34202
(941) 741-3049
(941) 741-3058 (FAX)


Steve Walker
Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,Ste. 1000
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 640-0820
(561) 640-8202 (FAX)


(Water supply funding core group)


C-4









Local Government

William Whitson
City Manager
Post Office Box 909
Milton, Florida 32572
(904) 623-3817
(904)626-7570 (FAX)


Roy A. Reynolds, Director
Broward County Water Mgmt.
2555 West Copans Road
Pompano Beach, Florida 33069
(954) 831-0767
(954) 831-0708 (FAX)


Water Manaaement Districts


Bill Segal, Chairman (Attention: Linda)
St. Johns River Water Mgmt. District Governing Board
Post Office Box 1429
Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
(904) 329-4500
(904) 329-4125 (FAX)


Department of Environmental Protection


Pam McVety
Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(904) 488-7454
(904) 414-0060 (FAX)


Public Service Commission

John Williams
Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0873
(904) 413-6986
(904) 413-6987 (FAX)



(Water supply funding core group)


C-5




Appendix D


Water Supply Development
and Funding Work Group Meeting

February 14, 1997

Proposed Objectives
* To seek agreement on acceptable amendments to the
draft recommendations
* To formally approve the amended report as a whole
* To agree on a strategy and responsibilities for interacting
with the legislature

Proposed Agenda

9:00 Work Group Plan for the Process and the Day
9:15 Consider Amendments to Draft Recommendations
10:30 Break
10:45 Amendment Process Continues
12:00 Lunch (on your own)
12:45 Amendment Process Continues
4:00 Plan and Guidelines for the Legislative Session
5:00 Meeting Adjourns










Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Meeting 2-14-97
D-1





Appendix E


Water Supply Development
and Funding Work Group
Process Plan

Date Activities

Oct. 17 Seek consensus on problem statement and principles
Shape a structure for effective work group action
Develop a practical, feasible work plan
Interim Constituency outreach and work on tasks

Nov. 8 Review of interim products and committee direction
Presentations and Committee work
Consensus testing and work plan revision
Interim Constituency outreach and work on tasks

Dec. 6 Same as above
Interim Constituency outreach and work on tasks

Dec. 18 Same as above
Interim Constituency outreach and work on tasks
Preparation of a draft legislative proposal

Jan. 10 Seek consensus on recommendations
Assign responsibilities for unresolved issues
Interim Constituency outreach and amendment drafting

Jan. 31 Seek consensus on the draft final work group report
Develop work plan for the legislative session and beyond

Interim All participants seek constituent group support for the report and
formulate amendments that will enhance acceptability to their
groups and everyone else
Governor's Office begins bill drafting

Feb. 7 Deadline for submitting written amendments to the Govemor's
Office

Feb. 14 Consider amendments and adopt the final report


E-1





Appendix F


OVERVIEW OF THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING
WORK GROUP FACILITATED CONSENSUS PROCESS


Governor Chiles convened the Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group in
the Fall of 1996 pursuant to Executive Order 96-297, to seek consensus on
recommendations for use by legislators and public and private water supply decision
makers. The process was to provide a deliberative, constructive forum on water supply,
without the immediate pressures of the legislative session. Resulting
recommendations were intended to assist the Legislature to bring about needed
changes in water supply policies and water supply decision makers to have increased
options for water supply development and funding. There were seven facilitated
sessions of the Work Group and many other committee and small group meetings
between October 17, 1996, and February 14, 1997. Two core groups, with a total of 28
representatives, and as many as 70 other participants came to each session, review
information, exchanged views and perspectives, and sought consensus on what could
be done to resolve and prevent water supply problems in Florida.

In addition to the written report, benefits of the Work Group consensus process
included:

1. All who attended the Work Group sessions came to a better understanding of
the issues, what consensus might be possible, and where the challenges
remained.

2. Relationships among the various stakeholder groups were enhanced through he
process, which should increase the chances of working through unresolved
issues.

3. The Work Group and its process can be continued for further work after the 1997
legislative session.

4. The consensus-building approaches used in this process may be successfully
applied in resolving future water policy disputes.

The consensus process was unique and a departure from more traditional approaches
in the following ways:

1. Broad Participation in the Design of the Process. The discussion and
decision-making process were. open to all who wished to participate. In order to
be able to determine consensus in a consistent and organized manner, the
participants agreed to form two core committees, with representatives from the
major interests: business, industry, developers; agriculture; water suppliers;
local governments; environmentalists/citizens; the Public Service Commission;
water management districts; and the Departments of Environmental Protection,


F-i









Community Affairs, and Agriculture and Consumer Services. These core
committee representatives were selected by their constituents.

The Work Group agreed to a set of assumptions and basic principles to guide
decision-making on water supply development and funding issues. The group
agreed on the roles of the Work Group as a whole, core committee
representatives, committee chairs, facilitators, staff, and others attending each of
the public sessions.

2. Work Group and Committee Structure. The core committees formed were a
water supply development committee and a water supply funding committee.
The development committee decided to elect co-chairs and the funding
committee decided to elect a chair and vice chair. Both committees were
assisted by a facilitator and staff. Each committee reported back to the entire
Work Group at the conclusion of every meeting, to seek additional feedback
from all Work Group participants. (See Appendix for Work Group
Guidelines)

3. Consensus Rules and Roles. The participants adopted a set of assumptions
and basic principles regarding water supply development and funding, to guide
their decision-making. They agreed on the roles of the Work Group as a whole
and of the core committee representatives, whose responsibility it was to consult
with their constituents and keep them informed of the progress of the
deliberations.

The Work Group adopted the following statement regarding consensus, for use
within the Work Group process and as a final decision rule: The Work Group
strives for agreements all core committee representatives can support
after their concerns have been fairly considered and the consensus
reflects a judgment that each representative can "live with" the
recommendation or at least agree not to oppose it. The final decision rule
required unanimous agreement on any amendments to the February 4 draft the
Work Group developed and unanimous agreement on the recommendations as
a whole.

4. Neutral Facilitation and Assistance. The Governor's Office retained the
Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium to help design and facilitate the Work
Group consensus process. The Consortium is a statewide center based at
Florida State University, whose purpose is to serve as a neutral resource to
assist citizens and public and private interests in seeking cost-effective solutions
to public disputes through the use of consensus building and alternative dispute
resolution. The Consortium has assisted in building consensus in various
regions of the state on water resources problems and disputes.

The final report includes those recommendations for which there was unanimous


F-2









support. Core committee representatives agreed at the final meeting, on February 14,
to include in the report a category of "continued issues" for propositions that received
considerable but not unanimous support. The consensus recommendations are to be
the foundation for draft legislation by the Governor's Office. The core committee
representatives agreed to support the draft legislation if it is consistent with the
consensus recommendations in the Work Group report and to keep the legislation free
of amendments inconsistent with or going beyond the scope of those
recommendations.


F-3





Appendix 0


Guidelines for Maintaining Consensus


A. Advocate for the Work Group product and your special interests.

1. Communicate with constituents about how the product addresses their
interests and what and why compromises were made.

2. Seek support of constituents and other potential advocates.

3. Meet with legislators and committees to communicate your group's support
for the product and points you are most concerned about not being changed.
Alert them to possible changes you would be opposed to.

B. Respond to challenges to the work group product.
Meet with the challengers) to:

1. Explore and understand their concerns.

2. Explain how their concerns were addressed in the work group process and
product.

3. Compare the work group product to possibly worse alternatives or to no bill.

4. Ask them to consider the extreme positions that may re-emerge if the
consensus unravels.

5. Formulate amendments that address their concerns and are consistent with
work group consensus.

6. Discourage adding inconsistent changes to this bill. Suggest attachment to
other bills.

7. Use one of the following options for processing appropriate amendments.

C. Build consensus on appropriate amendments to the bill.
Participants, interest groups, legislators, legislative staff and others are
encouraged to:

1. Notify Work Group Contacts of the proposed amendments.

2. Work Group Contacts and/or others meet with amendment proponents and
others affected to negotiate amendments that enhance full group consensus,
not erode it.

3. Seek input and support for the amendments from the Work Group and
constituents.

4. Hold meetings of all or parts of the Work Group to consider critical issues
that may affect support of the bill as needed.


G-1








FLWRIDA CHAMBER
oCoxmmw&ce-a



ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES COUNCIL
AGENDA
February 28, 1997
Doubletree Hotel
Tallahassee, FL


10:00 10:15 a.m.



10:15 10:55 a.m.

10:55 11:15 a.m.

11:15 11:35 a.m.

11:35 11:55 a.m.

12:00 1:30 p.m.




1:30 1:50 p.m.



1:50 2:10 p.m.

2:10 2:30 p.m.


2:30 2:50 p.m.

2:50 3:30 p.m.


Opening Remarks Steve Fox

LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING

Governor's Water Supply Task Force Estus Whitfiel,-..

House Environmental Protection Frank Matthews*

Department of Agriculture Water Proposal Chuck Aller

Senate Natural Resources Handout only

Luncheon Discussion with Panelists and
Presentation by Elsa Bishop on implementation
of the "Partnership for Ecosystem Protection Program"
as a pilot in the DEP Air Program

Water Management Districts Yvonne Gsteiger
South Florida Water
Management District

Department of Community Affairs Steve Pfeiffer

Department of Environmental Protection Diana Hadi
Legislative Liaison

House Water and Resource Management Jake Varn*

General Discussion and Closing Remarks


* House Staff Unavailable





Florida Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
^ 35 S. Lc ,,.: i.' :* : i .-9 9 Tla,,n see, F- :323 2 -309 / ;.9j0 ; 4 A ;"9 ) .0 104| 425- "2









ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE ISSUES


By Frank E. Matthews
Hopping Green & Sams & Smith, P.A.


ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS

Currently, pursuant to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rule,
impervious secondary containment must be installed at aboveground storage tanks by December
31, 1999. Since DEP has adopted their rules significant advancements have been made in
aboveground storage tank construction and protection measures and the post-prohibitive
installation of liners around the aboveground storage tanks have proven to be ineffective. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted a study of this subject and is attempting
to implement a voluntary program looking at alternative means of protection. DEP has also
convened a Technical Advisory Committee and is currently analyzing other measures that might
be considered in lieu of the very costly and questionable dike liners.


AIR PERMITTING ISSUES

Legislation has been prepared to address several permitting issues. Current law and
practices of the DEP allow local ordinances to be bootstrappedd" into Title V air permits as
conditions enforceable by the DEP or EPA without prior public notice or Chapter 120 review.
The proposed bill would require that Title V permit conditions must be based only on rules that
have been adopted by EPA or in accordance with Chapter 120. In addition, the bill:
Specifies timeframes within which DEP must issue revised draft permits following
the conclusion of statutory comment periods;
Clarifies that status of an existing permit during the time that a timely submitted
renewal application is under review;
Clarifies what DEP may require in annual air operating reports.


AUTOMOBILE ISSUES

Automobile manufacturers are supporting the consensus legislation, filed by Senator
Brown-Waite and Representative Carlton to implement minor changes to Florida's Lemon Law.
The bill is the product of a series of workshops held since the close of the 1996 Session with
all interested parties. Separately, legislation may be put forward to allow primary enforcement
of Florida's seat belt law for violations involving the failure to protect small children.


BOAT MANUFACTURING ISSUES

Boating interests are pursuing changes to the requirements for obtaining a permit to
authorize boat testing in manatee speed zone areas. These changes include extending the









duration of permits from two to five years and providing protection for information required as
part of the application which may disclose trade secrets. Some of these issues could be
introduced as amendments to legislation. In addition, boating interests remain opposed to
legislation which would mandate the installation of prop guards on boats for purposes of manatee
protection. Prop guards do not protect manatees from impact injuries and, in fact, exacerbate
the problem.


BROWNFIELDS

Florida's economy would benefit by providing meaningful incentives for private clean
up and redevelopment of environmentally degraded sites, particularly those in urban areas.
Eligibility for "brownfields" incentives should be linked to job creation or other positive
economic impacts. At a minimum, legislation on this topic should include:
A risk-based corrective action alternative based on future land use;
Relaxed disposal requirements for soils removed during clean up activities; and
Tax waivers for new purchases for a limited period during and after clean up.


DRI EXEMPTION FOR HEAVY MINERALS MINING

Heavy mineral mining operations affecting more than 100 acres annually are required to
undergo full development of regional impact (DRI) review. Because of the nature of these
operations, their impacts involve environmental issues--mostly surface water--for which separate
permits must still be obtained notwithstanding DRI review. DRI review provides no additional
protection to the environment, but adds a layer of protracted permit review.

Clay and Putnam Counties contain deposits of heavy minerals which are found in only
a handful of areas worldwide and mined by an international corporation with headquarters in
Australia. The company currently contemplates phasing out its Florida operations within the
next 5 8 years, unless it can obtain some regulatory relief. Legislation has been drafted to
enlarge the threshold for DRI review to impacts exceeding 500 acres annually. This would help
extend mining activities an additional 10 years and save approximately 200 jobs.

The real impact of this amendment is small. Florida currently has only two heavy
mineral mining operations. Additional development is unlikely because available mineral
deposits are confined to specific regions in the state. In addition, heavy mineral resource
extraction involves minimal environmental impacts. Mining occurs generally through uplands
areas and results in successful reclamation within a 12 24-month period.


ELIMINATING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ELECTRIC UTILITIES CROSSING
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Currently, Section 704.06, Florida Statutes, includes utilities on the laundry list of
activities and structures which may be prohibited on lands subject to a conservation easement









when appropriate. Boilerplate conservation easement language which has been developed by
regulators and used in virtually all recorded easements incorporates this prohibition against
utilities. This creates a barrier that can force utilities to relocate around miles of land, thus
increasing construction costs and, ultimately, utility rates.


ENVIRONMENTAL SELF-AUDIT LEGISLATION

Regulated entities continue to support legislation which creates meaningful incentives to
encourage voluntary self-auditing for compliance with environmental regulations. This year's
bill has been revised to establish a 5-year pilot project which is subject to review by the
Legislature. The bill would allow program participants to protect the confidentiality of
voluntarily created audit documents or to receive immunity from civil fines and penalties for
violations which are voluntarily disclosed to DEP.


PROPERTY RIGHTS

The "Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Protection Act" has generated very little
litigation. Its proponents believe that it should be expanded to cover the inordinate created by
the application of any rule or law which is adopted or amended after May 11, 1995.


WATER ISSUES

The issues of water supply planning, regulation and development have been the subject
of extensive deliberation since the close of the 1996 Session. Legislation prepared by affected
parties--local governments, private water utilities, development interests, and agricultural and
industrial users--will be forthcoming on the issue and will address the following major issues:


Conflicts Between Rate Regulation and Environmental Requirements
Environmental regulations have been promulgated at a rate far outpacing economic
regulation. The result is an inconsistency between the two; current Public Service
Commission (PSC) regulations do not allow investor-owned utilities to recover costs from
current customers which are mandatory to achieve environmental compliance. These
laws need to be amended.

Burdensome Economic Regulation
The following types of sales should be exempt from rate regulation:
Sales of non-potable water for irrigation where potable water services are
available;

Bulk sales of water between public water utilities for resale to direct users.










The rate structure should allow investments in land and facilities to be recaptured over
periods longer than the 24-month depreciation schedule allowed under the PSC's
definition of "used and useful."

Procedural review of water reuse projects should be streamlined and expedited and
consistency mandated between rate regulation by county governments and the PSC.

Water Management District Review Commission Recommendations
The following major recommendations should be adopted:
Staggered governing board appointments and term durations;
Expanded legislative and executive office oversight of water management district
budgets;
Twenty-year consumptive use permits;
Authorization to use state and water management district owned or controlled
lands for water resource development and water supply development purposes;
and
Water management district executive directors appointed by the Governor, subject
to Senate confirmation.

Coordination between Water Resource Development and the Establishment of Minimum
Flows or Levels
Water resource development activities, based on an accurate and realistic needs and
resources assessment, should occur concurrent with the implementation of minimum
flows or levels to ensure that:
District and public water utility efforts to satisfy the identified needs are
accomplished without any further harm to water resources of the area;
Substitute sources are identified to offset any necessary reductions in consumptive
use required by the resource development program.
Minimum flows or levels are scientifically valid and based upon the current
conditions of the water resources of the area.

In addition, the districts' roles in assisting the water supply development activities of
public water utilities should be clarified and the distinction is made between water
resource development and water supply development.











90152.1




FEB-25-1997 11:34 FROM THE FLOP I E SENATE


SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE


MAJOR ISSUES FOR
1997 LEGISLATIVE SESSION


FEBRUARY 1997


FEB-25-1997 10:41


96818796 P.02


P. 02


904 487 5925




FEB-25-1997 11:34 FROM THE FLORIDA SENATE


L BrownfieldsRedeelopment

Brownfields are abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial areas where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination. Federal and state laws currently impose strict liability on persons in the
chain-of-title for these sites and that imposes a chilling effect on anyone getting involved
with the redevelopment and revitalization of these areas. State funds are inadequate to
cleanup all known sites with contamination and therefore, private sector funds needs to be
mobilized through incentives to increase the rate of cleanup activities.

Recent experiences with other environmental cleanup programs have indicated that
considerable savings could be realized in cleanup costs if more recognition were given to
risk-based cleanup criteria which considers actual exposure factors and alternative
options for minimizing exposure levels to protect public health and the environment.

Business leaders, financial institutions and local officials believe that by legislatively
addressing the current liability requirements and risk-based cleanup requirements for
brownfield sites could stimulate private sector responses and willingness to invest in the
redevelopment and revitalization ofbrownfield sites. These sites are often times in urban
locations that already have in place the urban infrastructure to serve water, sewer, and
transportation needs. By providing incentives for redeveloping brownfield areas, urban
sprawl is discouraged and inner-city job opportunities are created.

A bill has been drafted that:

a. provides legislative intent and findings;
b. defines brownfields;
c. provides a process for administering a program for rehabilitation of these
sites involving local governments, Department of Environmental
Protection, and the private sector,
d. provides criteria for risk-based cleanup;
e. provides conditions for limited immunity from liability for cleanup cost
for entities that purchase brownfield sites for redevelopment;
f. provides funds for demonstration projects.

Committee Action: Anticipated by third week of session.


2, Mrine Resource Protction

Since the passage of the amendment to the State Constitution banning the use of
entangling nets, a number of enforcement problems have arisen that indicate a need for

1


99% P.03


FEB-25-1997 10:42


96818796 P.03


904 487 5925




FEB-25-1997 11:35 FROII THE FLORIDA SENATE


legislative clarification. A particular need has arisen to clarify that certain materials like
plastic tarpaulin material can not be used in conjunction with traditional mesh nets to
improve their effectiveness and for clarification of penalties for violations. Additionally,
there is a need to periodically enact legislation to reconcile provisions in the Florida
Statutes with changes in marine fishery rules adopted by the Marine Fisheries
Commission. A comprehensive bill has been filed (SB 412) to address these various
issues.

Committee Action: Anticipated in the first or second week of session.


Land Acquisition and Manaement

Florida is the nation's leader in the acquisition and protection of lands important for
conservation and recreation. There are three major programs known as the CARL
program, P-2000 program, and Save Our Rivers program.

As of December 31, 1996, the largest of these programs, the P-2000 program, had
provided over $1.3 billion to acquire over 800,000 acres.

Recent reports by the Auditor General and Florida TaxWatch have raised several
concerns about Florida's environmental land acquisition and management programs. The
Chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee created a Subcommittee on Land
Acquisition and Management to review the various concerns about Florida's land
acquisition and management programs and to develop appropriate legislative proposals.

Committee Action: Since the Subcommittee was not appointed until February 10, 1997,
committee action on legislation may not take place until the fifth or sixth week of session.


Safe Drinkin Water Revolving Loan Proram

New federal amendments were signed into law in August 1996. One of the major
provisions of this new law is the creation of a state revolving loan fund for states
to capitalize a state trust fund to make loans to public water systems. Florida
could receive $40 million under this program but the federal grants require a 20
percent match. DEP is requesting $7 million in General Revenue to secure the 5
to 1 federal funds.

A bill has been prepared that will provide legislative direction for operating a
revolving loan program addressing several federal requirements for these
programs and specifying allocation of funds for small public water systems,
financially disadvantaged communities, and one-third of the annual funds for

2


96% P.04


96818796 P.04


904 487 5925


FEB-25-1997 10:42




THE FLORIDA SENATE TO


projects that address the development of alternative water supplies in areas with
saltwater intrusion problems. A separate bill will be needed to establish a new
Drinking Water Revolving Loan Trust Fund. The first bill also contains
appropriations and staffing provisions so it can serve as a total package.

Committee Action: Anticipated by third week of session.


5 Water Policv

Governor Chiles issued an Executive Order in September, 1996 that addressed several
water related issues.

A. Directed DEP and the WMDs to take steps to implement recommendations of the
WMD Review Commission where no additional statutory authority was needed.

B. All districts were to provide information on priority areas for the establishment of
minimum flows and levels.

C. Created a Water Supply Development and Funding Task Force.

After several months of meetings, this Task Force developed recommendations that were
scheduled for discussion before the Senate Natural Resources Committee meeting on
February 18, 1997. Several variations of these recommendations are being proposed for
legislation. Sponsorship is still unclear, but it appears that some type of water policy
legislation will be emerging in both Houses.


6 Maior Funding Issues for DEP

& Permit Fee Trust Fund

Near the end of the 1996 Legislative Session, the Department of Environmental
Protection identified a major financial problem with their Permit Fee Trust Fund
used by the department to cover staff costs associated with reviewing
environmental permits, mainly "environmental resource permits" and others. It's
still not clear why the department had not identified these funding issues before
the last days of the session. DEP now estimates that they will need $5.7 million
from the State General Fund on a recurring basis to supplement the Permit Fee
Trust Fund to meet continuing funding needs. In the absence of such General
Revenue support, the DEP will be facing the lay-off of a large number of staff,
possibly 75 or more associated with review and processing of permits.


3


97% P.05


FEB-25-1997 11:35 FROM


96818796 P.05


FEB-25-1997 10:43


904 487 5925




FEB-25-1997 11:36 FROM THE FLORIDA SENATE


B& Swage Treatment Facilities Revolving Loan Trust Fund

To further complicate DEP's funding needs, they are requesting $7 million in
General Revenue to match federal funds available for construction of sewer
facilities and to secure the 5 to I federal funds.

Aquatic Weed Fundin4

During the 1996 Legislative Session a complicated law was passed that allowed
use of DOT funds normally required for mitigation of road construction or
wetlands to be used, in part, for funding aquatic weed control and SWIM projects.
This legislation provided $6 million for FY 1996-97 for additional funding for
aquatic weed control. Recent meetings with DOT, DEP, and WMD officials have
indicated that the DOT funds will not provide the continuing additional funding
needed for aquatic weed control for the next two years and probably longer.

Beach Renourishment

Beaches are Florida's greatest tourist attraction, with beach-related sales
generating more than $16 billion annually. The Department of
Environmental Protection reports that at least 276 miles of the state's 787
miles of sandy beaches are critically eroding, but that only 105 miles of
eroding beaches are being addressed by Florida's beach management
program. Recent storm events in southeast Florida have left some major
hotels with no beach at all. The department estimates restoration and
maintenance costs for critically-eroding beaches at $95 million annually
over the next twenty years. If current federal and local cost-sharing ratios
are maintained, the state's annual share will be $30-35 million. For FY
1997-1998, local governments have requested $27.3 million in state
matching funds for local beach restoration projects.


7, Maior Fundin Iussue for Game and Fresh Water Fish Commision

Because of stagnant revenues from hunting and licenses, the GFC is facing a $3 million
shortfall in the State Game Trust Fund and requesting General Revenue to make up the
difference. In the absence of GR the GFC will face lay-off of approximately 25
employees. This has prompted the GFC to review alternative ways of producing
additional revenue.





4


904 487 5925


TOTAL P.06
93% P.06


96818796 P.06


FEB-25-1997 10:43




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