Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports·Decided April 7, 1981·Published

Opinion

Ms. Vicki Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation

QUESTION:

Do local governmental units, certain special districts, and the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) have adequate constitutional and/or statutory authority to meet the requirements of Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. ss. 1251et seq.)?

SUMMARY:

Counties, municipalities, and the Department of Environmental Regulation possess certain constitutional and statutory powers relating to the acquisition, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and management of sewage collection, disposal and treatment facilities and services. Neither Water Management Districts nor Soil and Water Conservation Districts possess any constitutional or statutory powers relative to sewage collection, disposal or treatment.

I understand that the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has requested that you obtain my opinion as to the legal authority of the aforementioned governmental units in order that those units might qualify for federal monies available pursuant to the Clean Water Act. While I will provide you with my opinion as to the constitutional and statutory authority possessed by these units of government, I must at the outset disclaim any ability to pass upon the question of whether the powers so possessed are adequate or sufficient to meet the requirements of the federal act. That is a question which only the federal agency charged by law with administering the federal program may decide. Consequently, this opinion will be limited to a discussion of whether counties, municipalities, water management districts, soil and water conservation districts, and DER have the constitutional and/or statutory power:

(1) to manage sewage collection, disposal, and treatment systems and related facilities both within and without the jurisdictional limits of said governmental units;

(2) either directly or by contract, to design and construct, operate and maintain both new and existing sewage collection, disposal, and treatment systems;

(3) to accept and utilize grants or other funds from any source for sewage collection, disposal and treatment purposes;

(4) to raise revenues, including the assessment of sewage treatment charges;

(5) to incur shortand long-term indebtedness;

(6) to assure in the implementation of an areawide sewage treatment management plan that each participating community or public or private corporation or person pay its or his proportionate share of treatment costs;

(7) to refuse to receive wastes from any municipality, subdivision thereof, public or private corporation, or person; and

(8) to accept for treatment industrial wastes.

COUNTIES

Before proceeding to a discussion of the general statutory powers of counties which are relevant to the instant inquiry, it seems appropriate to begin by describing the parameters of county power which are constitutionally imposed.

In accordance with the directive of s. 1(a), Art. VIII, State Const., the state has been divided into political subdivisions called counties. See ch. 7, F.S., for the boundary descriptions of the 67 counties. Counties may be abolished or changed by law. Section 1(a), Art. VIII, State Const. As subdivisions of the state, counties are subject to the legislative prerogative in the conduct of their affairs. See Weaver v. Heidtman, 245 So.2d 295 (1 D.C.A. Fla., 1971). Basically, there are two types of counties in Florida — charter counties and noncharter counties. Section 1, Art. VIII, State Const. But see s. 3, Art. VIII, State Const., with respect to consolidated county and municipal governments. See also s. 6(e), Art. VIII, State Const., and AGO 081-7. Noncharter counties have only such powers of self-government as are provided by general or special law. Section 1(f), Art. VIII, s. 1(f), State Const. In this regard, the Legislature has granted noncharter counties broad powers to carry on county government. See s.125.01(1), F.S. (1980 Supp.), providing that `the legislative and governing body of a county shall have the power to carry on county government (and to) the extent not inconsistent with general or special law . . .' to exercise the general powers enumerated therein. See s. 125.01(1)(k), F.S. (1980 Supp.); see also ch. 153, F.S. Section 1(f), Art. VIII, State Const., provides that the governing bodies or noncharter counties may enact ordinances not inconsistent with general or special law. However, a noncharter county ordinance which conflicts with a validly enacted municipal ordinance is not effective within that municipality to the extent of such conflict. See AGO 073-477, stating that a county ordinance may be enforced throughout the county unless it is in conflict with a municipal ordinance.

Section 1(c), Art. VIII, State Const., provides that, at the option of the electors, a county may establish a charter form of government in the manner provided by general or special law. See parts II and IV of ch. 125, F.S., for the general law provisions governing the establishment of a county charter. The governing body of a county operating under a charter form of government is vested with all powers of local self-government that are not inconsistent with general law or with a special law approved by the electors of that county. Section 1(g), Art. VIII, State Const. The county charter itself shall specify whether a conflicting municipal ordinance will control over a charter county ordinance.Id.

Section 3, Art. VIII, State Const., permits the government of a county and the government of one or more of the municipalities located within that county to be consolidated into a single governmental unit possessed of any and all powers of the county and several municipalities. Furthermore, Section 6(e), Art. VIII, continues in effect certain special provisions of the 1885 Constitution as those provisions relate to Jacksonville — Duval County, Key West — Monroe County, Dade County, and Hillsborough County.

It can be seen, then, that counties possess broad powers of self-government. Under the Constitution, a charter county may pass an ordinance on any subject relating to county government so long as it is not inconsistent with general law. Cf. Question 2 of AGO 081-7. Noncharter counties, pursuant to s. 125.01(1), F.S. (1980 Supp.), may exercise the general powers enumerated therein, including the provision for and regulation of waste and sewage collection and disposal (s. 125.01(1)(k)), and have all implied powers necessary or indicent to carrying out such enumerated powers (s. 125.01(3), F.S. (1980 Supp.)). Those powers which may be exercised by county governments, however, are ultimately derived from the state, and the jurisdiction of every county may be qualified by law. See Cross Key Waterways v. Askew,351 So.2d 1062 (1 D.C.A. Fla., 1977), affirmed, 372 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1979).

While counties do have broad general powers enabling them to conduct local government, you have requested me to discuss those specific statutory provisions which pertain to the exercise of those powers enumerated above.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ago, (Fla. 1981).

Ago (Ago) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Ormond Beach v. County of Volusia
383 So. 2d 671 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Cross Key Waterways v. Askew
351 So. 2d 1062 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
State v. Orange County
281 So. 2d 310 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1973)
State v. City of Sunrise
354 So. 2d 1206 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Gallant v. Stephens
358 So. 2d 536 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
HILLSBOROUGH ASS'N ETC. v. City of Temple Terrace
332 So. 2d 610 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1976)
Askew v. Cross Key Waterways
372 So. 2d 913 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
State v. Sarasota County
372 So. 2d 1115 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
State v. Alachua County
335 So. 2d 554 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1976)
Orange County Civic Facilities Authority v. State
286 So. 2d 193 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1973)
City of Temple Terrace v. HILLSBOROUGH ASS'N, ETC.
322 So. 2d 571 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Tucker v. Underdown
356 So. 2d 251 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Charlotte County v. Fiske
350 So. 2d 578 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Tweed v. City of Cape Canaveral
373 So. 2d 408 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Penn v. PENSACOLA-ESCAMBIA GOVERNMENT. CTR. AUTH.
311 So. 2d 97 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)
Weaver v. Heidtman
245 So. 2d 295 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
In re West Water Management District
269 So. 2d 405 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)