“Clear, predictable, and consistent implementation”

In 2011, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection began posting “policy documents” they were sending to the water management districts. For example, an April 25, 2021 document on permitting programs “stressed the importance of clear, predictable, and consistent implementation of our regulatory programs.” That letter was sent to the Governing Board Chair and Executive Director of the five water management districts. Only two of those eleven people are still affiliated with any of those agencies.

That degree of turnover must make it hard to ensure “clear, predictable, and consistent” implementation.


“Clear, predictable, and consistent implementation” — 3 Comments

  1. WMD’s are controlled by a governor picked “governing board”. In the past there have been some educated, caring individuals who genuinely cared about Florida’s resources.

    Unfortunately when you have a governor, for example,who takes a growth management agency the DCA and changes it to the Department of Economic Opportunity, all reason and concern begins to flee.

    The “economic theme” has been selected by supporters of the governor (mostly developers) and the pressure is on. History shows any agency that goes against current politics get their funding cut or worse, sunsetted. No wonder people are leaving.

    Until we have a governor and subsequent governing boards who are interested in
    conservation and preservation, we will very little interest in protecting our environmental resources from State agencies.

  2. The importance of institutional knowledge in water management can hardly be overstated. The St. Johns River Water Management District recognized this more than ten years ago. SJRWMD set up various programs to transfer institutional knowledge from a retiring work force to a younger generation of staff members who were identified to be the emerging leaders for the agency. I participated in several of those programs including the “District Academy” and the “Succession Planning” programs. However, in 2011 institutional knowledge was no longer considered to be an asset. In fact, for many employees it became a liability.

    • How true, Jim. We learned pretty quickly in 2012, that institutional knowledge IS a liability.

      Layin’ Low

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>