1987 Discussion Group Reports
WATER QUALITY GOALS
1. To maintain potable groundwater in perpetuity.
Fall back maintaining treatable groundwater or
alternatives, sources and supply distribution system
2. To maintain surface water quality suitable for recreation
and propagation of fish and wildlife, including estuarine
3. To expand zones of wellfield protection to include
upgradient recharge areas to protect groundwater resources.
4. To mitigate currently contaminated groundwater and surface
water resources to higher water quality conditions for
5. To be able to access the water quality data collected over
the past 20 years for reference and decision making in the
FOUR REASONS WHY WATER QUALITY IS IMPORTANT
1. Maintain recreational water (lakes, rivers & bays)
2. Maintain natural systems (estuary systems, birds, bugs,
bunnies and vermin)
3. Maintain minimal standards for agricultural use (agri-
cultural interests--don't need nor can they afford water
4. Maintain minimal standards for economical potable use
(treatable water is the key)
FOUR REASONS WHY' WATE" QUALITY IS IMPORTANT
i. Managemernt ,o an resources
Pr i or i ty
2. Legislature's continued inducement for growth without
Repeal Homestead/Agricultural Exemptions
Sales Tax Exemptions
4. Money Management can't leverage ad valorem taxes
5. Information Management
Real time decision making
6. Water Supply
Protect water quality for water supply (potable)
r Develop better treatment technology
Cost of Raw Water
Save high quality water for natural systems &
agriculture can't afford to treat before use
IS THERE A CRISIS'
"Water" regulatory process is driving transportation,
i.e., stopping roads'
Reuse points to a "crisis"
There is no good criteria to define a water shortage!
Wetlands are not a water crisis
Osceola-Brevard crisis is one of management direction.
Decisions being made with no info about demand,
customers, or long term needs.
"CUP's" are too important and sensitive to take from
WMD's. Basis of knowledge is there.
There is disagreement among people resolution process
"Non-impactive" permits should not be held up to clog
up the system.
WMD's must stay in the regulatory process to help,
guide, and direct permitting by local agencies.
From the ocean to the dikes there will be people,
pavement, and condos within 10(?) years.
Europe is no better off Florida is in the forefront
of environmental consciousness
S The crisis, if there is one, could be averted if the
Engineers and Ecologists could be left to design and
"Save the Everglades" program will be in crisis unless
we can move 5 million people
DER is a single purpose agency directing a "multi-
purpose" WMD program.
S Water (potable) is a very undervalued commodity
There is no crisis with "water", technically
There is a crisis with administration and management of
the overall problems
The crisis could become (or remain) imminent if added
responsibilities are placed on WMD's
THE VALUE OF WETLANDS
1. Water Quality Enhancement
2. Fish & Wildlife Habitat
3. Surface Water Movement/Storage
4. Stormwater Detention
5. Recreation (Hunting & Fishing)
6. Rechage (depends on size & location)
7. Wastewater Effluent Disposal
9. Carbon Export (Estuarine Systems)
V. Possible solution:
Purchase wetlands through "Save Our Rivers" and WMD's can
locate resource recovery plants on wetlands, therefore
really using them for something worthwhile.
THE VALUE OF WETLANDS
A. Good things:
1. Natural system
Rare & endangered plants
3. Water storage/flood control
4. Assessment value
5. Timber value
6. Water quality
only if ??? is aboard
7. Wastewater treatment
B. Bad things:
2. Bad for tax base
can't be developed
C. If we develop uplands, can we still preserve wetlands? Can
we use for stormwater retention? We cannot make a new
wetland which is the same as the original. This is
good/bad. In South Florida, little new is gained although
there is much cost and pain. Most things have already
happened. Leave small landowner alone, look for development
of larger areas.
D. Who values wetlands?
2. People wo don't want development.
THE VALUE OF WETLANDS
1. Isolated wetlands and the 61 Rule are moving toward more
regulation at expense of private property rights instead of
land -cquisiti on. Why? There may be need for more
cons i derat i on.
2. WMD's have gotten more and more to regulate because
everything is tied to water. WMD's do the best job.
3. There is danger that WMD's will get so overloaded that they
will lose their mission and get screwed up. WMD's can get
better people since they are not in the career service
program. Career service big problem of DER.
4. DER needs reorganization. The danger is that we will throw
more money at it and it will grow under its existing
5. (Concensus) Acquisition is better than regulation but under
existing framework, where will money come from?
6. Problem: Can you buy every thing, e.g., wetland (no); if
not, do you not protect it? (Yes if it is important,
e.g., wetland). If so, then should buy.
7. If regulatory process can allow owner all reasonable use of
his land, then no need to purchase. Should buy only if
regulation prohibits the owner all reasonable use.
8. There are many forms of compensation: Transfer of
development rights, purchase of development rights, exchange
or property, etc.
9. Distinction should be made between "speculators" and
bonafide owners for possible compensation. Property will be
regulated until owner objects and goes to court. Court will
decide intent. Problem presented by those who can't afford
10. One source of money to purchase might come from developers
who give money to buy lands elsewhere so as to be allowed to
11. WMD's may not be the best agency to decide which lands to
buy and how much to pay. Local governments, agencies, and
courts should be considered.
Private Property Rights vs. Public Interests
1. What is the extent and purpose of regulation of private
rights? Regulations for the sake of regulations may be bad,
i.e., lace of rational reason bars long term goal.
Regulators have gotten out of hand in many areas such as
protection for protection's sake.
2. There can be actual enhancement of private rights if
regulations are done properly some are necessary.
3. The essence of our political system does not guarantee you a
profit or that you can develop your land.
4. Public interest is too ??? wellfield and ensure their long
term feasibility? How far can this go?
5. What is the basis of the difference between the various
districts in their philosophy and the perception of those
dealing with them? a) Is it politics? b) Staff?
c) Combinations? d) Human element?
6. Problem of public right of access to lands held by an
7. If goal is to "protect" sensitive lands, how do we do it?
a. State acquire or regulate or combination?
if acquisition, what does the state or agency do with
the land once it has acquired it? Much valuable land
is being acquired with sensitive land.
b. Private management through lease or similar system.
Consensus is that this is the best of both worlds?
c. Pure preservation? Lease attractive, no public benefit
d. Strain development in the public utility's name?
Resources and time problem.
1. Need to start developing a cadre of people (cadre being
ourselves) to protect the public (people from themselves.
2. Perhaps we need a war or a good hurricane.
3. How can we stop all these mothers from coming to Florida?
CONCLUS I ONS:
1. There should be no question about protecting private rights,
but we cannot affect the rights of other in doing so.
2. It is not a question of ownership of land but rather one of
stewardship your responsibility not to muck it up.
3. Society cannot trust the public to its own devices.
4. The state needs to limit incentives for coming to Florida -
reduce the desire of the public to immigrate to Florida -
state tax, immigration tax.
5. The educational system in Florida is not conducive to
informing the general public sufficiently regarding the
sensitive environ of Florida.