INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS

IN FLORIDA

By

Robert D. Thomas

PUBLICATION NO. 19

FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER

RESEARCH PROJ ECT TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT

OWRR Project Number A-020-FLA

Annual Allotment Agreement Numbers

14-31-0001-3509 14-31-0001-3809

Report Submitted: December 31, 1972

The work upon which this report is based was supported in part by funds provided by the United States Department of the

Interior, Office of Water Resources Research as Authorized under the Water Resources

Research Act of 1964.

Publication No. 19

Intergovernmental Relations and Responses to Water Problems in Florida

By

Robert D. Thomas

Department of Political Science Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton

ii

ABSTRACT

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND

RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS

IN FLORIDA

This report presents an exploratory analysis of Florida's legislators' and county commissioners' images (per­ceptions and attitudes) : (1) of eleven selected water pro­blems; (2) of which level or levels of government should have the responsibility for handling and attempting to solve these problems; (3) of the effectiveness of ten selected measures for dealing, with water use problems; and (4) of the related factor of growth and development.

The data, derived principally from interviews with the legislators and commissioners, showed a basic difference between the legislators and commissioners in their assessment of the severity of water problems; in their assessment of the severity of water problems rela­tive to other public problems such as education, welfare, roads, and health/hospitals; and, in their evaluation of the need to impose controls on growth and development. On the other hand, the data showed considerable agreement be­tween the legislators and commissioners in their evaluation of what solutions would be most effective in dealing with water use problems.

The data also very strongly showed that legis­lators and commissioners are parochial in their attitude about intergovernmental responsibility on water problems. Commissioners see water problems as the counties' respon­sibility or as a multiple-local responsibility (local govern­ments -- city, county, special district -- working cooper­atively). Legislators see water problems as the state's responsibility or as a local-state responsibility (the state working cooperatively with local governments). Both legislators and commissioners, however, agreed that the federal government should exercise little or no responsi­bility on water resource problems.

Thomas, Robert D. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES TO WATER PROBLEMS IN FLORIDA Research Project Technical Completion Report, Office of Water Resources Research, Department of the Interior, December, 1972 KEY WORDS: intergovernmental relations*/water resource pro­Rlems*/state legislators' attitudes*/county commissioners' attitudes*/Federalism/growth and development.

iii

ACKNOWLE DGMENll'S ,,::

I am very grateful for the support the Florida Water Resources Research Center has given me. Dr. William Morgan has assisted me at every turn.

My research assistants, Keith Hamm and Scott Reilly, gave me a great deal of help in collecting and coding the data.

A special debt of gratitude is expressed to the many public officials who gave of their time to an­swer my questions. These officials include not only the Florida legislators and county commissioners, but also local, state, and federal officials who provided useful information at the outset of this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE 0 ...... II •• e e •••••••••••••••••••••• e 0 Go " .... II • • • • • • • •• i ABSTRACT •••...•• e III ............. III • Ii) ••• III ......... II! • • • • • • • •• ii ACKNOWLEDG~NTS ........ eo ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• e. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CD eo ........... " • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • ... i v LIST OF TABLES . II ••• til .................................. G ••• e V

CHAPTER 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5

CHAPTER 2. 2.1

2.2

CHAPTER 3. 3.1 3.2

CHAPTER 4.

CHAPTER 5. 5.1 5.2

CHAPTER 6. 6.1 6.2

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

INTRODUCTION ..•.•.•••••.•.••.....•...•.•. 1 Image s .................. e • " • • • • • • • • • • .. • • •• 4 Selected Water Problems •....•.•••..•..•.. 4 Intergovernmental Relations and

Responses ......... II • e •• OIl! ••••• e • • • • • • • • •• 5 lYlethod of Data Collection •.•..•.....••••• 7 Organization .............. eo. • • • • .. • • • • • ... 7

THE PROBLEM CONTEXT •••........•••.......• 9 Importance of Environmental

Problems ................................ 9 Problem Severity .•.•..•.•...•••.......... 10

INTERGOVERNIvlENTAL RELATIONS .•••.....•.... 18 Parochialis.m •...•.•...••....•.••.••••...• 18 Responses on Individual Problems .•.••...• 22

EFFECTIVENESS OF TEN SELECTED MEASURES •••• s ............... l1li • • .. • • • • • .. • .. • • .... 34

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT .•..•.••••...•..... 36 Stimulating Growth and Development •.•.••. 38 Controlling Growth and Development ••••.•• 39

CONCLUS IONS ..................................... 42 Problem Context ••...•.•.•.•...•.•......•• 42 Intergovernmental Responsibility .•....••. 43

QUESTIONNAIRE DATA ••.•••...•••••.......•. 44

STATE EXPENDITURES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS; FISCAL YEAR, 1971 .•.•..••.•.. 48

v

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Legislators' and Commissioners' Identification of . Most Pressing Problem Currently Facing Florida,.. 11

TABLE 2 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected Water Pollution Problems .•..••.••..•..•.••.••.... 11

TABLE 3 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected Water Supply Problems .•.•..•.••••.•••••.•..•••... 12

TABLE 4 Respondents' Images of the Severity of Selected Related Water Problems ••.•...••••.••••.••••.•.••• 12

TABLE 5 Legislators' and Commissioners' Images of the Severity of Eleven Selected Problems .•..••...•.•. 17

TABLE 6 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Single Level Responses to Water Supply, Water Pollution, and Related Water Problems •...•••.•.••••••.•••.••.••• 19

TABLE 7 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Multiple Level Responses to Water Supply, Water Pollution, and Related Water Problems ••.•..••.•••.•••..•...• 20

TABLE 8 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Counties' Re-sponsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems 23

TABLE 9 Comparison of Respondents' Images of State's Re-sponsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems 25

TABLE 10 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Federal Govern­ment's Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems ............................................ 26

TABLE 11 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Multiple-Local Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems

TABLE 12 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-State Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems

TABLE 13 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-Federal Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems

TABLE 14 Comparison of Respondents' Images of State-Federal Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems

TABLE 15 Comparison of Respondents' Images of Local-State­Federal Responsibility on Eleven Selected Water Problems ......................................... .

.. 28

· 29

· 31

· 32

33

vi

TABLE 16 Legislators' and Commissioners' Images of Effec-. tiveness of Ten Sel.ected Measures .•••••••••••••• 35

TABLE 17 Population of Dade , .. Broward, and-'Palm Beach Counties: 1950,1960,1970 •••..••••....••••••.• 37

TABLE 18 Florida Counties Which Lost Population Between 1950-1960 and 1960-1970 •••...•..•••...•..•••.•.• 37

TABLE 19 Legislators' and Commissioners' Attitudes About Stimulating Growth and Development •••••••••••••• 40

TABLE 20 Legislators' and Commissioners' Attitudes About Controlling Growth and Development •••••••••••••• 41

- 1 -

1. INTRODUCTION

This report focuses on Florida legislators and county commissioners and their imagesl of which level or levels of government should respond to water problems in the state of Florida. Its specific purpose is to explore these public officials' assessment of eleven selected wa­ter problems and their attitudes about which level or le­vels of government should be principally responsible for taking action on these problems. Data were derived from interviews with Florida legislators and county commis­sioners. These interviews were obtained through mail questionnaires sent to all Florida legislators and com­missioners.

No doubt technologies of water resources pro­ject planning and development exert a strong influence on public water policies. Yet, in the final analysis, so long as we adhere to a representative system of govern­ment in the United States, decisions about such things as water supply, water pollution, flooding, and drainage will be made in the political arena by duly authorized public officials.

In spite of this fact, only very recently have scholars concerned themselves with decision-making as it pertains to water resource problems. This is particu­larly true of studies about public officials' attitudes toward water problems and toward governmental responsi­bility in taking action on water problems. 2 In Florida,

1. The image concept is explained below.

2. A perusal of government sponsored research in this area shows few studies which deal with administrative and organi­zational arrangements of water management relative to the number of studies which deal with the technical aspects of water management. Even more striking is that there are almost no attitudinal studies. For a listing of research in the water management area see: Smith­sonian Institution, Science Information Exchange (Washington, D.C.).

- 2 -

a systematic survey of public officials' attitudes about water resources has never been undertaken. Therefore, by necessity, this study is exploratory.3

Although a study of this type has never been undertaken in Florida, it is neither an unwarranted nor an untried approach. It is not unwarranted for several important reasons. First, as Daniel J. Elazar writes: "For all its centrality in political science today, com­prehensive systematic [attitudinal] surveys of the opera­tions of [intergovernmental relations] simply have not been extensively undertaken. ,,4 Second, an emphasis on public officials' perceptions and attitudes of inter­governmental relations is warranted because "a large part of the study of political behavior is the study of political perceptions."S Often it is more important in explaining political behavior to assess how things are perceived rather than how things actually are. Third, a study of public officials' attitudes about in­tergovernmental relations has practical implications about what can and cannot be done (i.e., what public officials will or will not accept) and about the diffi­culty in coordinating activities between and among the levels of government in the American federal system.

3. The major purpose of an exploratory study is to gain suggestive insights into the different aspects of a phenomenon under investigation. " ••• exploratory studies have the purpose of formula­ting problems for more precise investigation ••• " They may also have other functions, which are: "increasing the investigator's familiar­ity with the phenomenon ••• under investigation; clarifying concepts; establishing priorities; gathering information; and, providing a census of problems regarded as urgent ••• " See: Claire Selltiz, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959), pp. 50-51.

4. Daniel J. Elazar, R. Bruce Carrol, E. Lester Levine, and Douglas St. Angelo (eds.), ~c~o~op~er~a~t~~~'o~n~a~n~d~C~o~n~f~l~i~c~t~: __ ~R~e~a~d=in~g~s in American Federalism (Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1969), p. 277.

5. Charles O. Jones, An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1970), p. 35.

- 3 -

This is not an untried approach to the study of intergovernmental relations, ,for there are at least two significant works that have been undertaken. The most thor­oughstudy of intergovernmental relations was conducted by William Anderson and a team· of his colleagues', at the Uni­versity of Minnesota. TheTr study, an in depth analysis of intergovernmental relations in the state of Minnesota which included a survey of publ~c officials' attitudes, resulted in a lO-volume series.

The second study was conducted by the United States Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Rela­tions in 1962. This study resulted in two pUblications: (1) The Federal System as Seen by State and Local Of­ficials which was based on some 6,000 interviews with state and local officials and academics?; and, The Fed­eral System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials which was based on interviews with 109 federal aid officials, all of whom were middle management personnel. 8

6. These 10-volumes, published by the University of Minnesota Press, include the following titles: (1) Forrest Tal-bott, Intergovernmental Relations and the Courts; (2) R.A. Gomez, Intergovernmental Relations in Highways; (3) Robert L. Morlan, In­tergovernmental Relations in Education; (4) Laurence Wyatt, Inter­governmental Relations in Public Health; (5) Ruth Raup, Intergovern­mental Relations in Social Welfare; (6) Francis E. Rourke, Inter­governmental Relations in Employment Security; (7) Paul N. Ylvisaker, Intergovernmental Relations at the Grass Roots; (8) William Anderson, Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations; (9) Edward W. Weidner, Intergovern­mental Relations as Seen by Public Officials; and, (10) William Ander­son, Intergovernmental Relations in Review.

7. U. S. Senate. Committee ort Government Operations, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Federal System as Seen by State and Local Officials (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963).

8. U. S. Senate. Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Federal System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965).

- 4 -

1.1 Images

In their participation in political events, public officials usually have an idea as to how they and others ought to behave in given types of situations. Each public official has images of his own role, the role of his organization, and the role of others and their organizations. Images refer to the cognitive (perceptional) and evaluative (attitudinal) orientations of public of­ficials, and they are distinctive from actual behavior. 9 For example, a public official has images of what expendi­tures should be made for certain programs, or what adminis­trative organization is best suited to deal with a particu­lar problem. An assessment of an official's orientation toward a program or problem gives us an indication of the parameters of action that are acceptable and the types of actions that are likely to ensue on particular problems. Of course, an emphasis on images is different from an em­phasis on behavior; on, for example, what expenditures are made or ,",vhat organization performs a certain task.

1.2 Selected Water Problems

Eleven water problems were selected for analysis. Florida legislators and commissioners were asked to assess intergovernmental relations and responses on the following problems, which fall into three general categories:

I. Water Supply Problems

l. Water Supply for Agriculture 2. Water Supply for Domestic Purposes 3. Water Supply for Industry 4. Water Supply for Recreation 5. Water Supply for Fish and Wildlife

II. Water Pollution Problems

6. Pollution from Domestic Sewage 7. Pollution fran Industrial Waste 8. Pollution from Agricultural Waste

9. For a discussion of the image concept and its applica­tion see: Richard F. Fenno, Jr., The Power of the Purse (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966).

- 5 -

III. Related Water Problems

9. Flooding 10. Drainage 11. Salt Water Intrusion

In using this selected list of problems, the at­tempt has been to obtain an overview of legislators' and commissioners' images on as comprehensive a list of pro­blems as possible. This list is inclusive enough to pro­vide for this overview. lO

1.3 Intergovernmental Relations and Responses

The American federal system in theory and in practice is "non-centralized"; that is, "there is no cen­tral government with absolute authority over the states in a unitary sense, but, instead a strong national government coupled with strong state governments in which authority and power are shared, legally and practically,,,ll With the American federal system functioning as it does, this has come to mean that seldom do public officials from one level of government work in isolation in making policy decisions.

Intergovernmental relations exist as a part of federalism and "designate an important body of activities of interactions occurring between governmental units of all types and levels within the American federal system.,,12

10. A number of sources discuss the nature of water pro­blems in Florida. One of the most concise, yet comprehensive, treat­ments of the subject is found in: Frank E. Maloney, Sheldon J. Plager, and Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr., Water Law and Administration: The Florida Experiment (Gainesville: The University of Florida Press, 1968).

11. Daniel J. Elazar, "The States and the Nation," in Her­bert Jacob and Kenneth N. Vines (eds.), Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965), p. 450.

12. William Anderson, Intergovernmental Relations in Re­view (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1960).

- 6 -

The concept of intergovernmental relations, however, al­lows us operationally to designate more \of the activities that occur between and among units and levels of govern­ment than is usually conveyed by the traditional concept of federalism. Intergovernmental relations include all the combination of relations among governments: federal­state, state-state, federal-local, state-local, local­local, and federal-state-Iocal. 13

These patterns are revised somewhat for pur­poses of this study. As used here, intergovernmental re­lations consist of the following:

I. The images that legislators and commissioners have of responses needed by single levels of government

1. County

2. State

3. Federal

II. The images that legislators and commissioners have of responses needed by multiple levels of government

1. Multiple Local (city, county, special dis­trict)

2. Local-State

3. Local-Federal

4. State-Federal

5. Local-State-Federal

Intergovernmental responses simply mean which of these patterns of intergovernmental relations the legisla­tors and commissioners feel should take the principal responsibility for handling and attempting to solve the selected water problems.

13. Deil S. Wright, Intergovernmental Action on Environ­mental Policy, (Bloomington, Indiana: Institute of Public Administra­tion, 1967), pp. 2-3.

- 7 -

1.4 Method of Data Collection

The interview data were obtained principally through a mail questionnaire sent to all of Florida's 167 legislators and 357 county commissioners.· Fourty­seven percent of the legislators responded to the ques­tionnaire. This included 44 percent of the Senate mem­bers and 50 percent of the House members.

Thirty-five percent of the county commission­ers responded to the questionnaire. This i~cluded com­missioners in 43 of Florida's 67 counties. l

1.5 Organization

In sorting out the' images that legislators and commissioners have of intergovernmental relations and re­sponses to the selected water problems, several principal tasks were accomplished. This report is organized around these tasks as follows: .

1. The problem context of intergovernmental relations and responses is assessed. In this sec­tion a comparative analysis is made of the respon­dents' images of the severity of the selecte~ water problems and how the water problems are viewed re­lative to other problems.

2. A comparison is made of the images that legislators and commissioners have of which le­vel(s) of government should exercise responsibil­ity in taking action on water problems.

3. The respondents are compared on the basis of how effective they believe ten selected measures might be in dealing with any water use problems Florida might face.

14. See Appendix A for a summary of the response rates from the questionnaires and a reproduction of the questionnaire.

- 8 -

4. Since problems of growth and development intensify water problems, .the images that legis­lators and commissioners have of· growth ·and devel-opment are surveyed.. .

5. Conclusions are drawn.

- 9 -

2. THE PROBLEM CONTEXT

Public officials do not operate in a vacuum. In addition to the forces of social needs and public demands influencing the activities of public officials, substantive public problems are the grist for the policy makers' mill. As Charles O. Jones so cogently points out, a study of pu­blic officials' actions on public problems -- "how they get to the agenda of government, how they are acted on there, how solutions are applied, and what happens as a result of these events" -- is central to the study of public policy-making. 15

A central activity of policy-makers in taking action on public problems is choosing among alternatives; that is, establishing which problems should take priority. The purpose of this section is to establish the importance of the problem context of water problems (1) by assessing, generally, how important environmental and environmentally related problems are for the legislators and commissioners, (2) by determining the respondents' perception of the severity of water problems relative to a selected list of other public problems, and (3) by ascertaining which water problems are deemed ,by the respondents to be the most se­vere. In effect, the objective here is to obtain some idea of the respondents' images of water problems in terms of how severe water problems are relative not only to one another but also to other public problems (e.g. education, welfare, roads, etc.)

2.1 Importance of Environmental Problems

Legislators and commissioners were asked to indicate what problem they considered to be the most pressing one now facing them. In identifying the types of problems which they considered to be most pressing, both legislators and commissioners overwhelmingly noted environmental or environmentally related problems. As used here environmental problems are defined very broad­ly and include such diverse probiliems as pollution control,

15. Jones, p. 1.

- 10 -

population growth, .and transportation. Other types of problems that legislators and commissioners mentioned, but indicated were less important,weresuchthings as taxes and finances, health and hospitals,education, and welfare.

As the data in Table 1 show, 79.0 percent of the commissioners and 69.8 percent of the legislators interviewed identified an environmental or environmen­tally related problem as currently the state's most pressing problem. These data strongly suggest the saliency of environmental concerns for both legislators and commissioners. .

2.2 Problem Severity

2.2a Water Problems .. The respondents' assessment of the severity of

water problems was determined by asking them to indicate whether each specific problem was severe, not very severe, not at all severe, or not applicable. A mean ranking was obtained on a scale ranging from 4 (severe), 3 (not very severe), 2 (not at all severe), and 0 (not applicable).

The respondents' images of the severity of the selected water problems are displayed in Tables 2, 3, and 4. These Tables compare the legislators and commissioners in terms of their mean rankings of the severity of each group of water problems -- water supply, water pollution, and related water problems -- and of each individual pro­blem. Some interesting and important conclusions are revealed by these data both about the problems themselves and about the respondents' assessment of these problems.

Comparing the three groups of problems -- water supply, water pollution, and related water problems -- the data show that both legislators and commissioners were found to be certain that water pollution problems were more severe than either water supply or related water problems. As shown in Table 2, the legislators' average mean severity score for water pollution problems was

- 11 -

TABLE 1

LEGISLATORS' AND COMMISSIONERS' IDENTIFICATION OF

MOST PRESSING PROBLEM CURRENTLY FACING FLORIDA

MOST PRESSING COMMISSIONERS LEGISLATORS PROBLEM

Percenta9:e Number Percentage Number

Identified Environ- 79.0 79 69.8 44 mental Problem

Did Not Identify 21.0 21 30.2 19 Environmental Problem

TOTAL 100.0 100 100.0 63

TABLE 2

RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY

OF SELECTED WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS

Mean Score

Problem Legislators Commissioners

Pollution from Domestic Sewage 3.88

Pollution from Industrial Waste 3.80

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 3.44

TOTAL 11.12

AVERAGE 3.70

3.21

2.81

2.73

8.75

2.92

- 12 -

TABLE 3

RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY

OF SELECTED WATER SUPPLY PROBLEMS

Mean Score

Water

Water

Water

Water

Water

Problem Legislators

Supply for Domestic Uses 3.52

Supply for Fish-Wildlife 3.33

Supply for Industry 3.32

Supply for Agriculture 3.20

Supply for Recreation 3.12

TOTAL 16.49

AVERAGE 3.30

TABLE 4

RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF THE SEVERITY

OF SELECTED RELATED WATER PROBLEMS

Commissioners

2.76

2.49

2.62

2.70

2.40

12.97

2.60

Mean Score

Problem Legislators Commissioners

Salt Water Intrusion 3.49 3.00

Drainage 3.21 2.99

Flooding 2.97 2.66

TOTAL 9.67 8.65

AVERAGE 3.22 2.55

- 13 -

found to be 3.70. By comparison, .the legislators' average mean severity score for water supply problems was found' to be 3.30 (Table 3), and their average mean severity score for related water problems 3.22 (Table 4).

Essentially, the same order of priorities (in terms of the perceived severity of the three groups of problems) was found for the commissioners. The commissioners' average mean severity score for water pollution problems was found to be 2.92; for water supply problems, 2.60; and, for re­lated problems, 2.55. Thus, as was found to be the case with the legislators, the commissioners indicated that the order of importance of water problems was (1) water pollu­tion problems, (2) water supply problems, and (3) related water problems.

On individual problems, both legislators and commissioners indicated that pollution from domestic sewage was the most severe water problem. As Table 2 shows, the mean severity score for pollution from do­mestic sewage for legislators was found to be 3.88, for commissioners, it was found to be 3.21.

Moreover, almost without exception, both legis­lators and commissioners said that problems more closely associated with domestic water uses were more severe than problems associated with agricultural or recreational uses. For example, both legislators and commissioners said problems such as pollution from domestic sewage, pollution from industrial waste, water supply for domes­tic uses, and salt water intrusion were more severe than problems such as pollution from agricultural waste, water supply for agriculture, water supply for fish and wildlife, and water supply for recreation.

While these similarities were found in the atti­tudes of legislators and commissioners, some striking aif­ferences were also found. As the data displayed in Tables 2, 3, and 4 show, legislators, without exception, ranked all types of water problems (pollution, supply, and related) as more severe than did county commissioners. This find­ing is clearly shown by a perusal of the mean scores for both groups of respondents.

Second, the greatest differences between legis­lators and commissioners on perceived problem severity was found on water pollution problems. The average mean

- 14 -

severity score on water pollution problems for leg.islators was found to be 3.70. This score was found to be less for commissioners, 2.92 (see Table 2).

Third, legislators indicated that flooding was the least severe problem facing the state. The legisla­tors gave flooding a mean severity score of 2.97 (see Table 4). Among the various water problems investigated, this was the lowest mean ranking given by the legislators. On the other hand, the commissioners perceived flooding to be one of the more severe water problems they faced. The commissioners gave flooding a mean severity score of 2.66 (see Table 4). .

Fourth, another significant difference between the legislators and commissioners was found on their at­titudes about drainage. For the legislators, drain~ge was ranked as a relatively non-severe problem with a mean severity score of 3.21 (see Table 4). Only flooding, wa­ter supply for agriculture, and water supply for recreation were perceived by the legislators to be less severe. The commissioners, however, said that drainage was the second most severe water problem that faced them. The commission­ers indicated that only pollution frof6domestic sewage was a more severe water problem for them.

2.2b Other Problems

How do the respondents' assessment of water problem severity compare to their assessment of the se­verity of other important problems that they must deal with? To obtain an answer to this question, legislators and commissioners were asked to indicate their assess­ment of the severity of a selected list of problems. These included: (1) lack of business and industrial development, (2) planning and zoning, (3) welfare, (4) housing, (5) roads, (6) health/hospitals, (7) law enforce­ment, (8) solid waste management, (9) air pollution, (10) recreational development, and (11) education.

16. A word of caution should be noted in making these comparisons. Here the comparisons are being made within each group of respondents. When we compared legislators with commissioners, the legislators, overall, determined that water problems were more severe than did commissioners.

- 15 -

There is strong evidence to suggest that this list of problems are priority items for the state of Florida and give an adequate range of problems facing both legislators and commissioners. In examining state expenditures in 1962, Roscoe C. Martin found that pro­gram expenditures for the 50 states totaled $36.5 bil­lion. These expenditures were divided among programs as follows: education (34.3 percent); highways (25.5 percent); welfare (13.7 percent); health/hospitals (7.5 percent), and others (19.0 percent). Martin tells us that the others category consisted of a number of pro­grams such as natural resources, corrections, police protection, employment, security administration, finan­cial administration, general control, and miscellaneous and unallocable. II

Martin also found that local problems closely parallel those of the state because

.•• state aid to local government is •.• a long­established and well-understood practice. The states expect to dedicate somewhat more than one-third of each year's general expenditures to the aid of local governments, which in turn count on state payments for over one-fourth of their total revenue. 18

In program expenditures, Florida very closely resembles the national pattern. In fiscal year 1971, 87.6 percent of Florida's total state budget went for: (1) education (50.8 percent) i (2) highways (18.5 percent); (3) welfare (13.2 percent); and (4) health/hospitals (5.1 percent). The remaining l2~1 percent of the 1971 budget was allocated to: (1) business and agricultural consum­mer services (3.2 percent); (2) crime prevention (2.5 percent); (3) manpower and employment (2.7 percent); (4) natural resources and environment (1.1 percent); (5) re­creation and culture (0.6 percent)i and, (6) general di­rection and support (1.8 percent). Thus, when compared with other programs, these data show that the state spends a relatively minuscule amount on natural resources and en­vironmental programs. 19

17. Roscoe C. Martin, The Cities and the Federal System (New York: Atherton Press, 1965), pp. 72-73.

18. Ibid.

- 16 -

However t .it wa.sfound that state legislators per­ceived wa.ter problems to be more severe than those problems for which considerably more state funds are appropriated. When thelegislators'average mean severity scores for wa­ter pollutl.on,water supply, .and related prol1>lems are com­bined, we find an average mean severity score for water problems of 3.44. By comparison, as the data in TableS show, the legislators' average mean severity score for the selected list of other problems was found to be 3.00. Thus, the legislators indicated that water problems are slightly more severe than problems such as education, roads, wel­fare, and health/hospitals which receive the bulk of state expenditures.

Commissioners, on the other hand, did not consi­der water problems to be as severe as the selected list of other problems. As shown in Table 5, the commissioners' average mean severity score for these problems was found to be 2.99. For water problems, this score was 2.80. Thus, while legislators ranked water problems as currently the most severe problems facing the state, commissioners did not. For the commissioners, problems such as education, welfare, roads and health/hospitals were judged to be slightly more severe than water problems.

19. Appendix B shows a breakdown of state expenditures for natural resources and environmental programs for fiscal year '71.

- 17 -

TABLE 5

LEGISLATORSI AND COMMISSIONERSIIMAGES OF THE

SEVERITY OF ELEVEN SELECTED PROBLEMS

Mean Score

problem Legislators Com.m.issioners

Lack of Business and Industrial Development

Planning and Zoming

Welfare

Housing

Roads

Health/Hospitals

Law Enforcement

Solid Waste Management

Air Pollution

Recreational Development

Education

TOTAL

AVERAGE

2.83 2.88

3.21 3.20

2.96 3.03

2.88 3.05

3.04 3.41

3.00 2.81

2.96 2.86

3.08 3.40

3.04 2.68

3.00 2.84

3.04 2.76

33.04 32.92

3.00 (3.44)* 2.99

* Legislators I average mean severity score for eleven selected water problems. Included for comparative purposes.

** Comrnissioners l average mean severity score for eleven selected water problems. Included for comparative purposes.

(2.80)**

- 18 -

3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSES

This section deals with the level of government the legislators and commissioners feel should take the principal responsibility for handling the eleven selected water problems. Responses are viewed, first, in terms of single level governmental responsibility; that is, whether legislators and commissioners believe the water problems should be handled by the county, the state, or the federal government independent of one another. Then responses are viewed in terms of multiple level governmental responsibility; that is, whether the legislators and commissioners believe the water problems should be handled by multiple levels of government (multiple-local, local-state, local-federal, state-federal, or federal-state-Iocal) in concert with each other.

3.1 Parochialism

When legislators and commissioners were asked to indicate which level of government should take the principal responsibility for handling and solving the selected water problems, the most pervasive overall attitude expressed was one of parochialism. County commissioners very strongly indicated that the county should be responsible for water problems, and the le~­islatQrs just as strongly indicated that the state should be principally responsible. As the data in Table 6 show almost without exception for each group of problems con­sidered -- water supply, water pollution, and related water problems -- more than a majority of commissioners said it was the responsibilities of the counties to handle these problems. This pattern was reversed for the legislators. They were certain that it was the state's responsibility.

This parochial attitude stands out for multiple level responses as well as for single level responses. As the data in Table 7 clearly show, county commissioners be­lieve that water supply, water pollution and related water problems should be handled in a local context or with the local government(s) working with either the state govern­ment Or the federal government.

TABLE 6

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF SINGLE LEVEL RESPONSES

TO WATER SUPPLY, WATER POLLUTION, AND RELATED WATER PROBLEMS

Wa-Ger Supply Water Pollution Water Related Problems

Commissioners Legislators Commissioners Legislators Commissioners Legislators

% N % N % N % N % N % N

County 66.5 163 33.3 64 68.4 93 40.0 30 52.4 75 27.2 37 I-' \0

State 29.8 73 64.1 123 27.9 38 54.7 41 30.8 44 61.8 84

Federal 3.7 9 2.6 5 3.7 5 5.3 4 16.8 24 11.0 15

TOTAL 100.0 245 100.0 192 100.0 136 100.0 75 100.0 143 100.0 136

TABLE 7

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF MULTIPLE LEVEL

RESPONSES TO WATER SUPPLY, WATER POLLUTION, AND RELATED WATER PROBLEMS

Water Supply Water Pollution Water Related Problems

Conunissioners Legislators Commissioners Legislators Conunissioners Legislators

% N % N % N % N % N % N

Multiple-Local 38.0 143 13.5 34 27.5 49 17.4 26 22.6 55 4.4 7 N 0

Local-State 31. 9 120 59.4 149 31.5 56 58.4 87 25.5 62 46.9 75

Local-Federal 1.1 4 . 2.2 4 . 2.1 5 0.6 1

State-Federal 10.6 40 10.4 26 13.5 24 3.4 5 23.5 57 18.1 29

Local-State- 18.4 69 16.7 42 25.3 45 20.8 31 26.3 64 30.0 48 Federal

TOTAL 100.0 376 100.0 251 100.0 178 100.0 149 100.0 243 100.0 160

- 21 -

On the other hand, .the legislators are certain that other levels of government should work with the state in taking action on these problems. Table 7 shows that the legislators are certain that in a multiple governmental context, other governmental levels (local, federal) should operate with the state in exercising responsibility on wa­ter problems. Note, for example, that not one legislator said that water supply and water pollution problems are a local-federal responsibility, and only one legislator (0.6 percent of the sample) said that related water problems are a local-federal responsibility.

Parochialism is not only prevalent on the part of legislators and commissioners toward state versus local responsibility, it is also prevalent on the part of both legislators and commissioners toward the federal govern­ment. Where the legislators and commissioners disagree between themselves over whether water problems should be a state or local responsibility, there is almost no disa­greement between them that the federal government should exercise little or no authority on these water problems.

Tables 6 and 7 very clearly substantiate this conclusion for both single and mUltiple level responses. On single level responses both commissioners and legis­lators indicated that the federal government should have almost no responsibility on water supply and water pollu­tion problems. Only on related problems (flooding, drain­age, and salt water intrusion) did either the legislators or the commissioners have an image of federal involvement. For example, 16.8 percent of the commissioners and 11.0 percent of the legislators indicated a federal responsi­bility on these problems (see Table 6).

The images of legislators and commissioners on multiple level responses revealed the same pattern. Both legislators and commissioners indicated that governments within the state should be responsible for water problems. That is, local governments either should exercise responsi­bility on water problems or should work with the state in exercising this responsibility, but should not work with the federal government. The only minor exception to this pattern was found on related water problems. Here, both legislators and commissioners saw a larger role for the federal government working in a state-federal or a local­state-federal context.

- 22 -

Thus, .the parochial attitude expressed by legis­lators and commissioners is ·twofo1d. On the one hand', it is expressed inter'nally. .commissioners see ,either the county operating singularly, or other units of local govern­ment operating singularly, or the state operating with local governments as principally responsible for water problems.

On the other hand, ,the parochial attitude is ex­pressed externally. Both commissioners and legislators view the responsibility that should be exercised by the federal government as almost non-existent. In effect, when we look at the respondents' attitudes about the federal government's responsibility in the water resources area (as defined by the eleven selected water problems), we find an attitude of virtual federal exclusion.

3.2 Responses on Individual Problems

With several minor exceptions, the attitudes of parochialism and federal exclusion were expressed by legis­lators and commissioners on each of the individual water problems without much variation. Tables 8 through 15 sum­marize single and multiple level responses on individual water problems by presenting the percentage differences between the commissioners and legislators on their images of the responsibility that should be exercised by different levels of government. The percentage difference is a very simple, yet a most useful, measure of one-way association between two variables. 20 As used here, the percentage difference goes from 0.00 percent when there is complete agreement between legislators and commissioners on govern­mental responsibility on water problems to 100.0 percent when there is complete disagreement between legislators and commissioners.

3.2a Counties' Responsibilities

The data presented in Table 8 indicate some strong differences between legislators and commissioners with res­pect to their attitudes about the counties' responsibility

20. Robert S. Weiss, Statistics in Social Research (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968) pp. 181-182.

TABLE 8

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF COUNTIES' RESPONSIBILITY

ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2) (3)

Problem Conunissioners Legislators Percentase Difference (1 minus 2)

Water Supply for Agriculture 71.8 46.9 24.9

Water Supply for Domestic Uses 87.5 62.5 25.0 . Water Supply for Industry 78.4 57.1 21.3

Water Supply for Recreation 82.2 14.3 67.9 tv W

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 43.5 9.5 34.0

Pollution from Domestic Sewage 72.1 50.0 22.1

Pollution from Industrial Waste 60.0 31.6 28.4

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 71.7 37.0 34.7

Flooding 47.2 30.3 16.9

Drainage 92.0 42.9 49.1

Salt Water Intrusion 41.9 22.9 19.0

- 24 -

on individual water problems. Those problems on which commissioners and legisl:ators disagreed the: most about the counties' responsibility were drainage and water supply for recreation. The problem on which.commission­ers and legislators agreed the most about the. counties' responsibl.lity was flooding.

3.2b state's Responsibility

Essentially, the same differences were found on the respondents' images of the state's responsibility. As Table 9 shows, on water supply for recreation there was a -64.4 percentage difference between the commissioners and legislators on the state's responsibility. This compared to a 67.9 percentage difference on their images of the counties' responsibility on the same problems (see Table 8). On drainage, the percentage difference between the commissioners and legislators was found to be - 46.1 for the state's responsibility and 49.1 for the counties' re­sponsibility.

3.2c Federal Government's Responsibility

On the eleven selected problems, there were no significant percentage differences between the respondents' images of the federal government's responsibility. These data are displayed in Table 10.

3.2d Multiple-Local Responsibility

On multiple-local responsibility, the greatest amount of agreement between legislators and commissioners was found on water pollution problems. The percentage difference between commissioners and legislators, for example, was found to be 11.7 percent for pollution from domestic sewage, 10.3 percent for pollution from industrial waste, and 7.1 percent for pollution from agricultural waste. These findings suggest relative agreement between commissioners and legislators on their images of local governments (city, county, special district) exercising joint responsibility on water pollution problems.

TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY

ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2) (3) Percenta~e * Problem Commissioners Legislators Difference (1 minus 2)

Water Supply for Agriculture 25.6 53.1 -27.5

Water Supply for Domestic Uses 12.5 33.3 -20.8

Water Supply for Industry 18.9 42.9 -24.0

Water Supply for Recreation 15.6 80.0 -64.4

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 54.3 83.3 -29.0

Pollution from Domestic Sewage 25.6 40.9 -15.3

Pollution from Industrial Waste 32.5 rJJ7.7 -25.2

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 26.4 63.0 -36.6

Flooding 33.3 57.6 -24.3

Drainage 5.3 51. 4 -46.1

Salt Water Intrusion 41.9 65.7 -23.8

* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger state responsibility than did commissioners.

I\.)

U1

"~

I')

TABLE 10

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2) (3) Percenta9:e *

Problem Conunissioners Legislators Difference (1 minus 2)

Water Supply for Agriculture 2.6 . 2.6

Water Supply for Domestic Uses

Water Supply for Industry 2.7 . 2.1

Water Supply for Recreation 2.2 5.7 - l.9

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 2.2 7.1 - 4.9

Pollution from Domestic Sewage 2.3 9.1 - 6.8

Pollution from Industrial Waste 7.5 7.7 - 8.2

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 1.9 --.- 1.9

Flooding 19.4 12.1 7.3

Drainage 2.7 5.7 - 3.0

Salt Water Intrusion 16.1 11.4 4.7

* A negative percentage difference indicates that the legislators perceived a larger federal government responsibility than did conunissioners.

N 0'\

- 27 -

By contrast, the greatest disagreement between commissioners and legislators on multiple-local responsi­bility was found on water supply problems. Here, the greatest disag"reement was found on water supply for in­dustry (34.7 percentage difference), and water supply for domestic purposes (32.0 percentage difference). Legis­lators and commissioners also expressed considerable dis­agreement on drainage. The percentage difference on drainage was found to be 31.1 percent. Thus, for multiple­local responsibility the commissioners and legislators were found to be in relative agreement about water pollu­tion problems and relative disagreement about water sup­ply problems (see Table 11) ..

3.2 e Local-State

Over the entire range of selected water problems, the commissioners and legislators expressed a relatively high degree of disagreement about local-state responsibil­ity. The major exception was found on the problem of salt water intrusion where the respondents indicated a low de­gree of disagreement, -13.2 percentage difference between commissioners and legislators (see Table 12).

There are some patterns that standout, however. On water supply for industry, the commissioners and legis­lators indicated a high degree of disagreement between themselves about local-state responsibility. Also, on water supply for domestic purposes considerable disagree­ment was found to exist between the commissioners and legislators (see Table 12).

3.2f Local-Federal

The most striking characteristic of the data displayed in Table 13 is the extremely low number of ei­ther commissioners or legislators who indicated a local­federal responsibility on the selected water problems. This is significant in light of the federal government's historical role in participating in such programs as flood protection, drainage, and recreation; and its more recent role in water pollution control. Moreover, in most of these programs, federal agencies have operated

TABLE 11

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF MULTIPLE-LOCAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2)

Problem Conunissioners Legislators

Water Supply for Agriculture 38.1 9.5

Water Supply for Domestic Uses 64.0 32.0

Water Supply for Industry 54.7 20.0

Water Supply for Recreation 28.6 5.0

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 14.8 .

Pollution from Domestic Sewage 34.3 22.6

Pollution from Industrial Waste 24.6 14.3

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 22.0 14.9

Flooding 21.9 5.0

Drainage 38.8 7.7

Salt Water Intrusion 13.8 5.0

(3) Percentage DifI'erence (1 minus 2)

28.6

32.0

34.7

23.6

14.8

11. 7

10.3

7.1

16.9

31.1

8.8

N 00

TABLE 12

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-STATE

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2 ) (3 ) Percentage *

Problem Commissioners Legislators Difference (1 minus 2)

Water Supply for Agriculture 38.1 61. 9 -23.8

Water Supply for Domestic Uses 22.7 56.0 -33.3

Water Supply for Industry 26.6 64.4 -37.8

Water Supply for Recreation 34.9 67.5 -32.6

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 34.4 55.9 -21. 5

Pollution from Domestic Sewage 26.9 56.6 -29.7

Pollution from Industrial Waste 31.1 59.2 -28.1

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 38.0 59.6 -21.6

Flooding 21.9 47.5 -25.6

Drainage 34.4 56.4 -22.1

Salt Water Intrusion 29.3 42.5 -13.2

* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger local-state responsibility than did commissioners.

N <.0

- 30-

through or with local governments. State agencies have only recently become invo.lved in a significant way. For example, .the Army Corps of Engineers has established a strong relationship with the· Central-Southern Florida Flood Control District. Th~ Flood Control Dist~ict was established in the first place· by the Florida Legislature to administer the Corps I flood control project. The same pattern is discernible in southwest Florida with the South­west Florida Water Management District. The Water Manage­ment District was originally created to administer the Corps' Four River Basin Project. More recently, the Environmental Protection Agency has established ties with local govern­ments through grants-in~aid to local governments (counties and municipalities) for the construction of sewage treat­ment plants.

3.2g State-Federal

As shown in Table 14, on the respondents' images of state-federal responsibility, a small number of respon­dents were found. Among those commissioners and legisla­tors who did indicate a state-federal responsibility, the greatest difference was found on the problem of water pol~ lution from industrial waste.

3.2h Local-State-Federal

As Table 15 shows, considerable agreement was found between commissioners and legislators on local­state-federal responsibility.

TABLE 13

CO~WARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-FEDERAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

Problem

Water Supply for Agriculture

Water Supply for Domestic Uses

Water Supply for Industry

Water Supply for Recreation

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife

Pollution from Domestic Sewage

Pollution from Industrial Waste

Pollution from Agricultural Waste

Flooding

Drainage

Salt Water Intrusion

(3)

Commissioners

le6

1.3

1.6

1.5

1.6

4.0

3.1

1.7

(2)

Legislators

2.6

(3) Percentage Difference (1 minus 2)

1.6

1.3

1.6

1.5

1.6

4.0

3.1

- 2.6

1.7

*

* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger local-federal responsibility than did commissioners.

tN I-'

TABLE 14

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF STATE-FEDERAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2) (3) Percentage *

Problem Commissioners Legislators Dif'fe'rence (1 minus 2)

Water Supply for Agriculture 7.9 9.5 - 1.6

Water Supply for Domestic Uses 1.3 . 1.3

Water Supply for Industry 6.3 6.7 - 0.4

Water Supply for Recreation 3.2 10.0 - 6.8

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 26.2 20.6 5.6

Pollution from Domestic Sewage 7.5 . 7.5

Pollution from Industrial Waste 19.7 6.1 13.6

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 14.0 4.3 9.7

Flooding 26.6 27.5 - 0.9

Drainage 7.5 10.3 - 2.8

Salt Water Intrusion 29.3 20.0 9.3

* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger state-federal responsibility than did commissioners.

VI N

TABLE 15

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' IMAGES OF LOCAL-STATE-FEDERAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON ELEVEN SELECTED WATER PROBLEMS

(1) (2) (3) Percentage *

Problem Commissioners Legislators Difference (1 minus 2)

Water Supply for Agriculture 14.3 19.0 - 4.7

Water Supply for Domestic Uses 10.7 12.0 "": 1.3

Water Supply for Industry 10.9 8.9 2~ 0

Water Supply for Recreation 33.3 17.5 15.8

Water Supply for Fish-Wildlife 23.0 23.5 - 0.5

Pollution from Domestic Sewage 29.9 20.8 9.1

Pollution from Indulstrial Waste 23.0 20.4 - 2.6

Pollution from Agricultural Waste 22.0 21.3 - 0.7

Flooding 26.6 20.0 6.6

Drainage 19.4 23.1 - 3.7

Salt Water Intrusion 25.9 32.5 - 6.6

* A negative percentage difference indicates that legislators perceived a larger local-state-federal responsibility than did commissioners.

tN tN

- 34 -

4. EFFECTIVENESS. OF TEN SELECTED MEASURES

The respondents.' images were compared on another dimension: how effective they thought certain selected measures might be in dealing with any water use problems the state might face. Both :legislators and commissioners were asked:· "How effective do you think each of the fol­lowing measures might be in dealing with any water use problem Florida might face?" The measures included:

(1) water rationing . (2) flood plain zoming (3) control population growth (4) desalting . (5) land use planning (6) river basin planning (7) regional planning . (8) weather modification (9) interbasin transfer of water

(10) higher water and sewer rates.

A ranking of the respondents' assessment of the effective­ness of these measures was obtained on a four-point scale ranging from 4 (very effective), 3 (fairly effective), 2 (not very effective), 1 (not at all effective). Then, a

mean score of the respondents' rankings was obtained. These data are presented in Table 16. The most outstand­ing feature of these data, in terms of the respondents' rankings of the effectiveness of the selected measures, is the identical rankings given to the first five mea­sures: land use planning, regional planning, river basin planning, flood plain zoning, and control population growth.

This is a particularly significant finding in view of the strong parochial attitude found between the legislators and commissioners about who should be respon­sible for handling water problems. On the one hand, the legislators and commissioners, when asked who should have the responsibility for attending to water problems, were certain that it should be within their own government's purview. On the other hand, almost complete agreement was found between the legislators and commissioners on what actions should be taken to deal with water use problems.

- 35 -

TABLE 16

LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS'IMAGES OF EFFECTIVENESS

OF TEN SELECTED MEASURES

MEAN SCORES

MEASURES LEGISLATORS COMMISSIONERS

Water Rationing 2.280 2.388

Flood Plain Zoning 3.250 2.794

Control Population Growth 2.842 2.686

Desalting 2.625 2.271

Land Use Planning 3.584 3.437

River Basin Planning 3.455 3.175

Regional Planning 3.500 3.267

Weather Modification 2.135 2.051

Interbasin Transfer Of Water 2.580 2.449

Higher Water & Sewage Rates 2.108 2.143

RANKING

Legislators

Land Use Planning Regional Planning River Basin Planning Flood Plain Zoning Control PopuIl::.atlllon Growth Desalting Interbasin Transfer Water Rationing Weather Modiflcation Higher Water-Sewer Rates

Commissioners

Land Use Planning Regional Planning Rlver Basin Planning Flood Plain Zoning Control Population Growth Interbasin Transfer Water Rationing De s'al t'ing , Higher Water-Sewer Rates Weather Modification

- 36 -

5. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Water problems are directly related to factors of growth and development. Growth and development include popu­lation and economic growth and those concomitant aspects of development which are necessary to sustain public needs and demands. In Florida, growth and development is anything but evenly distributed. Although the state has experienced a 56.3 percent increase in its population over the last three decades, the concentration of this population is diversely located. It has come in those areas where the balance be­tween man and nature is most delicate. The greatest concen­tration of this population has been in coastal areas and interior wetlands where the weather is the most desirable but resources the most frail.

The diversity of population growth is vividly il­lustrated when we consider that while Florida is the eighth most populated state in the United States, slightly over one-third of her people live in three counties: Dade, Bro­ward, and Palm Beach. Between 1950 and 1970, Broward, at an annual rate of 10.5 percent, was not only the most rapid­ly growing county in Florida, but in the United States as well. (See Table 17).

During the same years that Broward and other coun­ties were experiencing a phenomenal increase in population, other Florida counties were losing population. Moreover, the U. S. Census shows that 43 of Florida's 67 counties (64.1 percent) had less than 50,000 in 1970.

Against this background of diversity, .the legis­lators and commissioners were asked to respond to two groups of statements about growth and development. On the one hand, to illicit their attitudes about stimulating growth and development, they.were asked.ifthey~~~~,. tendeQ. . -to agree, tended to disagree, or disagreed with the follow­ing statements:

(1) "We should promote state growth and develop­ment."

(2) "We should allow private landowners to use their land as they see fit for growth and development." .

- 37 -

TABLE 17

POPULATION OF DADE, BROWARD, AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES:

1950, 1960, 1970

county 1950 1960 1970

Dade 495,084 935,047 1,267,792

Broward 83,933 333,946 620,100

Palm Beach 114,688 228,106 348,753

TABLE 18

FLORIDA COUNTIES WHICH LOST POPULATION BETWEEN

1950-1960 and 1960-1970

1950-1960

Calhoun

Gilchrist Hamilton Holmes

Jefferson Lafayette Levy Liberty Madison Suwannee Union Wakulla Washington

1960-1970

Flagler G1adsden

Holmes Jackson Jefferson

Madison

- 38 -

(3) IIWe should provide more services to our citi­zens as a means of encouraging more people to live in Florida. 1I

On the other hand, to assess their attitudes about controlling growth and development, the legislators and com­missioners were asked if they agreed, tended to agree, tended to disagree, or disagreed with the following statements:

(1) IIWe should encourage statewide control of growth and development. 1I

(2) IIWe should stabilize current state growth and development. II

(3) IIWe should utilize stricter zoning practices to limit growth and development. I'

Responses to these two groups of statements about growth and development offer some interesting insights into the respondents' attitudes about growth and development.

5.1 Stimulating Growth and Development

Commissioners tended to agree that efforts should be made to stimulate growth and~development in the state, while legislators tended to disagree that efforts should be made to stimulate growth and development in the state. In­sofar as the manner in which growth and development should be stimulated, the commissioners tended to agree that ef­forts should be made to promote growth and development, but in these efforts the commissioners disagreed that private landowners should be allowed to use their land as they see fit. They tended to agree, however, that the counties should provide more services to citizens as a way of stimu­lating growth and development.

The legislators, on the other hand, tended to disagree that growth and development should be promoted. Also, the legislators tended to disagree that either private landowners should be allowed to use their land

- 39 -

as they see fit (here they were in agreement with the com­missioners) or that more services should be provided as a way of stimulating growth and development (here they were in disagreement with the commissioners) • (See Table 19)

5.2 Controlling Growth and Development

Legislators tended to agree that growth and development should be controlled. They tended to agree that this control should be carried out through state­wide control and stricter zoning practices. Commission­ers, by comparison, tended to disagree that growth and development should be controlled. Their attitude about statewide control was in marked contrast to the legis­lators' attitudes. Also they were somewhat less anx­ious than legislators to advocate stricter zoning prac­tices (see Table 20).

- 40 -

TABLE 19

LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS'ATTITUDES ABOUT

STIMULATING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mean Scores

Legislators Commissioners

nWe should promote state growth and deve1opment. n

nWe should allow private land­owners to use their land as they see fit for growth and develop­ment. "

"We should provide more services to our citizens as a means of en~ couraging more people to live in Florida."

TOTAL

AVERAGE MEAN

2.480 3.143

1.904 1. 966

1.667 2.384

6.051 7.493

2.016 2.731

- 41 -

TABLE 20

LEGISLATORS'AND COMMISSIONERS' ATTITUDES ABOUT

CONTROLLING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

"We should encourage state­wide control of growth and development." .

"We should stabilize cur­rent state growth and development."

"We should utilize stricter zoning practices to limit growth and development. 1I

TOTAL

AVERAGE MEAN

Mean Scores

Legislators Commissioners

3.181 1. 781

2.792 2.955

3.027 2.619

9.000 7.355

3.000 2.452

- 42 -

6. CONCLUSIONS

The preceding analysis has suggested some inter­esting and important conclusions about the images that Florida legislators and county commissioners have of the problem context of water resources in the state of Flori­da, intergovernmental responsibility that should be exer­cised in taking action on these problems, and related factors affecting water resources such as growth and de­velopment.

6.1 Problem Context

As shown in Ch~pter 1, both legislators and com­missioners are concerned with the immediacy of environmen­tal and environmentally related problems. However, the immediacy of environmental and environmentally related pro­blems was found to be difficult for legislators and commis­sioners in terms of how each group of public officials as­sesses the severity of water problems. A basic difference, for example, was found between legislators and commissioners in their orientation to the severity of water problems rela­tive to the severity of other public problems. Legislators indicated that water problems are more severe than other public problems such as education, welfare, health/hospi­tals, and roads. Commissioners, on the other hand, indi­cated that other public problems (education, welfare, etc.) are more severe than water problems.

Some important differences were also found be­tween the legislators and commissioners in their assess­ment of water problems. Overall, on the eleven water pro­blems investigated, legislators indicated that water pro­blems were more severe than did county commissioners.

On specific water problems, legislators indicated that water pollution problems were more severe than water supply and related water problems. Commissioners, while noting the severity of specific water pollution problems, (e.g., domestic sewage) indicated that certain water sup­ply and related problems were just as severe as pollution problems.

- 43 -

These findings suggest .that both legislators and commissioners are concernecI' about water probl.ems but their concerns (when examined in. light of hoW-they. perceive the severity of water problems)' run in different directions. Legislators appear to be oriented to water resources as they pertain to domestic uses (e.g., pollution from domes­tic sewage and industrial waste; and water supply for do­mestic uses and industry). Commissioners, on the other hand, appear to be oriented to water resources as they pertain to more "traditional" concerns (e.g., drainage and flooding).

6.2 Intergovernmental Responsibility

In their images of intergovernmental responsibility on water problems, both legislators and commissioners defined intergovernmental responsibility in parochial terms. Commis­sioners indicated that either the county operating singularly or other units of local government (city, special district) operating with the county should be principally responsible for water problems. Legislators indicated that either the state operating singularly or the state operating with some unites) of local government should be principally responsi­ble for water problems.

Although parochialism was apparent in the legis­lators' and commissioners' images of their responsibility on water problems, they strongly agreed about what solutions should be sought in dealing with water use problems. More­over, both commissioners and legislators strongly agreed that the federal government should exercise little or no responsibility on Florida water problems. When the respon­dents' attitudes about the federal government's responsi­bility in water resources was investigated, an attitude of virtual federal exclusion was found.

- 44 -

APPENDIX A: . QUESTIONNAIRE DATA

The following ques.tionnaire was sent to Flori­da's 167 legislators and 357 county commissioners. Three mailings were sent to both groups of respondents. The first mailing to the county commissioners (sent in May, 1972) produced a 15.5 percent return. The second mail­ing (sent approximately one month later) raised the re­turn rate to 24.0 percent. The second mailing was fol­lowed up by personally contacting selected county commis­sioners. Also, a third mailing was sent. These efforts raised the response rate to 35.0 percent.

The first mailing to the state legislators (sent in June, ,1972) produced a 25.6 percent return. The second mailing (sent approximately one month later) raised the return rate to 38.6 percent. As with the questionnaire sent to the commissioners, the second mailing was followed up by personally contacting selected legislators and a third mailing. This raised the response rate to 47 percent.

The questionnaire sent to the county commission­ers included 33 questions -- 19 attitudinal and behavioral questions and 14 biographical questions. The question­naire sent to the state legislators included 30 questions --15 attitudinal and behavioral questions and 15 biographical questions. This report utilized only those questions which pertain directly to water resources. (These questions are reproduced below.)

The county commissioners' questionnaire was also mailed to Georgia county commissioners. This effort was undertaken by Professor Vincent L. Marando of the State University of Georgia. At present, Professor Marando and I are engaged in a comparative state analysis of these data.

(1) For Legislators:

In your opinion, what is the most pressing problem now facing Florida?

For Commissioners:

In your opinion, what is the most pressing problem now facing your county?

- 45 -

(2) For Legislators:

Here.isa list of water. problems facing. certain sections of the. state. Would· you please indicate: to what degree these are now probl:emsfor the state? (If you feel one of these is not a problem for the state, check "not ap­plicable") •

For Commissioners:

Here is a list of water problems your county may now face. Would you please indicate to what degree these are now problems for your county? (If one does not ap­ply to your county, check "not applicable.")

Not Severe Not Very At All Not Ap-

Severe Severe plicable Water Supply for Agriculture Water Supply for Domestic Uses Water Supply for Industry Water Supply for Recreation Water Supply for Fish and Wildlife Pollution from Domestic Sewage Pollution from Industrial Waste Pollution from Agricultural Waste Flooding Drainage Salt Water Intrusion

(3) For both Legislators and Commissioners:

Would you please indicate which level of government you feel would take the principal responsibility for hand­ling and solving these water problems. (Check one or more as you see fit.)

~~~K~~~ 'V"1. ep'Y'V"Y."" 'Ve e.(,,1; e.(,,~' 'Ve! .o~'V"1. cP.§' ~-q,"¢.--".~ ~~1l-. ~I?-"(J. o'V~ ~.(,,"y

Water Supply for Agriculture ."

Water Supply for Domestic Uses Water Supply for Industry Water Supply for Recreation Water Supply for Fish and Wil~life Pollution from Domestic Sewage ,,-

Pollution from Industrial Waste Pollution from Agricultural Waste Flooding Drainage Salt Water Intrusionr

- 46 -

(4) For L~gislators:

How effective do you think each of the following mea­sures might be in dealing with any water use problems Florida might face? .

For Commissioners:

How effective do you think each of the following mea­sures might be in dealing with any water use problems your county might face?

Very Fairly Not Very Not at all Effective Effective Effective Effective

Water Rationing Elood Plain Zoning Control Population Growth Desalting Land Use Planning River Basin Planning Weather Modification

(e.g., Cloud Seeding) Interbasin Transfer of Water Higher Water and Sewer Rates

(5) F6r Legislators:

We hear a great deal these days about growth and development. Here is a list of statements about activities on growth and development. Would you tell us if you generally agree or disagree?

Tend To Tend To Agree Agree Disaqree Disaqree

I "We should promote state growth and development" "We should encourage statewide control of growth and develop-ment" "We should seek cooperation with local officials in planning for growth and development" "We should allow private land-owners to use their land as they see fit for growth and develop-ment" "We should stabilize current state growth and development" "We should provide more ser-vices to our citizens as a means of encouraging more peo-ple to live in Florida" "We should utilize stricter zoning practices to limit growth and development"

..

- 47 -

(5) (Cont.) For Commissioners:

We hear a great dealthes.e days about growth and develop­ment. Here is a list of statements about activities on growth and development. Would you tell us if you general­ly agree or disagree?

Agree! Tend To Tend To Agree Disagree Disagree

"We should promote county growth and development" "We should encourage statewide

I Icontrol of county growth and I jdevelopment"

I "We should seek cooperation with I i adjoining counties in planning for! \

growth and development" I ! ! ! "We should allow private land-

1 I t 1

jowners to use their land as j they see fit for growth and I "

I l !development" i .1 i !"we should stabilize current I 1 I I 'county growth and development" ! l "We should provide more services ! to our citizens as a means of en-couraging more people to live

J I here" ~

"

l"we should utilize stricter zon- I ! ;

ling practices to limit county I

I J

I i

growth and development" ! l !

- 48 -

APPENDIX B

STATE EXPENDITURES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS: FISCAL YEAR, 1971

Renewab~e Land Resources $

Non-Renewable Land Resources

Water Resources

Air Quality

Coastal-Ocean Resources

Amenities

General

Administrative Activities

TOTAL

Percentage of Natural Expenditure Resources-Env1ronmental

Programs Budget

6,475,000 24.2

931,000 3.4

10,099,000 37.8

509,000 1.9

3,956,000 14.8

---------

1,606,000 6.0

3,110,000 11.6

26,686,000 100.0