BILL SUMMARY DETAILS

SB 336 (Rodriguez) and HB 363 (Mooney) require the Department of Environmental Protection to submit updated reports analyzing the need for regulation of auxiliary containers, wrappings or disposable plastic bags to the Legislature. The bills also authorize specified coastal communities to establish pilot programs to regulate single-use plastic products. (O'Hara)

HB 1147 (Buchanan) and SB 1200 (Grall) create the Resilience District Act of 2023 by amending Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, relating to Community Development Districts. The bills establish the exclusive and uniform method for the establishment of a special district to address infrastructure through a petition from taxpayers who own real property within the district (“infrastructure resilience district”). The bills also establish the exclusive and uniform method for the establishment of a special district by petition from residents and taxpayers who are unit owners of condominiums or an associated group of condominiums within the district’s proposed boundaries (“condominium resilience district”). The bills prohibit local governments from creating resilience districts. They provide for the process of creation of taxpayer-initiated districts and condominium owner-initiated districts, with input, review and approval by the affected local government. For taxpayer-initiated petitions, the bills specify the petition must be filed with the local government, which will serve as manager for the district unless the district hires a private individual to serve as manager. It specifies the required contents of the petition, including a description of the property to be included in the district, why the district is needed, a proposed budget and a timeline for the expenditure of funds. The bills require the county or municipality receiving a petition to conduct a public hearing to consider its merits and whether it meets specified criteria. They authorize the local government to adopt a resolution supporting or opposing creation of the district by a supermajority vote. A local government is authorized to consider the following factors in granting of denying the petition: whether statements made in the petition are correct; whether the district boundaries comply with Section 190.1052, Florida Statutes; whether the local government has committed to funding the proposed infrastructure project, will implement the project within the next five years and it is included in the capital improvements plan; whether an engineering professional hired by the local government has determined the proposed plan would not adequately solve the problem; whether the district would primarily serve one parcel or owner; whether the projects being proposed are not within the jurisdictional boundary of any local government included as a cooperative partner in the project; whether the proposed improvements would have a significant negative impact on other property owners outside the district; whether the operation and maintenance of the proposed infrastructure would create an undue burden on the local government; and whether establishment of the district is inconsistent with the local government’s comprehensive plan. If the local government denies the petition and fails to implement the infrastructure improvement within five years, the petition must be reheard and may not be subsequently denied, and the local government is responsible for any increased costs of the project and may not receive a project management fee. If the local government inappropriately denies the petition without working with the petitioner to find an agreeable alternative, the local government will be responsible for implementing the project, paying all costs and commencing the project within 180 days. If the proposed district overlaps the boundaries of more than one local government, the affected local governments must enter an interlocal agreement. For condominium unit owner-initiated petitions, the bills specify that counties must develop processes to receive and process petitions by December 2023. The bills specify the required contents for petitions for the establishment of a resilience district by condominiums and the duties and responsibilities of county governments upon receiving a petition. The bills establish Section 190.1052, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of specifying requirements for district boundaries and property to be included in a proposed district. If a proposed district is identical to or shares more than 90% of the geography of any existing special taxing district that primarily serves a similar function, the bills specify the existing district must be dissolved and reconstituted as a resilience district and all assets transferred to the resilience district. The bills create Section 190.1054 to specify accepted uses of infrastructure resilience districts, which may include the following: projects that mitigate flood risk and sea-level rise; infrastructure to improve access to property during floods or storm events; septic to sewer conversion; redevelopment of nonresilient housing stock; and debt service. Acceptable uses of a condominium resilience district include fully funding condominium reserves and executing mandates of the Florida Building Code, Fire Prevention Code or local building codes. The bills create Section 190.1056, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of addressing management and service fees of infrastructure resilience districts and condominium resilience districts, including limitations on management fees paid to local governments and private providers. The bills specify board membership and eligibility for infrastructure resilience districts and condominium resilience districts. The bills create Section 190.111, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of describing the powers and duties of the district boards. Among these powers include the power to borrow money and issue bonds, levy special assessments, collect fees and charges, contract for professional consulting services, and cooperate and contract with other governmental agencies. The bills provide for the reduction, expansion or termination of districts. They provide a local government must take ownership of all infrastructure built by an infrastructure resilience district upon completion of the project, with the district continuing to service the debt. (O’Hara)

HB 691 (Basabe) and CS/SB 1030 (Trumbull) establish the statewide Covered Electronic Device Recovery Program within the Department of Environmental Protection. A covered electronic device means a computer, portable computer, computer monitor or television. The term does not include devices that are part of a car, an appliance or other equipment, and it does not include phones. The bills specify requirements for a statewide plan for the recycling of covered electronic devices and require counties to submit a plan for the disposal of covered electronic devices by January 2025. In addition, the bills require the owners or operators of industrial, institutional or commercial facilities to dispose of the facilities' covered electronic devices in a permitted reclamation facility beginning January 2026. The bills prohibit any person from disposing of covered electronic devices except at a permitted reclamation facility beginning January 2028. CS/SB 1030 was amended to expand the list of covered electronic devices. (O'Hara)

CS/SB 7002 (Environment and Natural Resources Committee) and HB 7027 (Water Quality, Supply & Treatment Subcommittee) ratify rules relating to the standards for on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems and for domestic wastewater facility planning for facilities expansion, collection/transmission systems and an operation and maintenance manual. State law requires legislative ratification of agency rules exceeding a specified fiscal regulatory impact threshold. (O'Hara)

CS/HB 111 (Hunschofsky) and SB 1170 (Calatayud) revise current law provisions that require certain public-financed projects and infrastructure to undergo a Sea Level Impact Projection Study prior to construction. The bills expand the types of projects and infrastructure subject to the requirement by including "potentially at-risk" projects within an area that is "at-risk due to sea-level rise." The bills define "at-risk due to sea-level rise" and "potentially at-risk structure or infrastructure." The bills also add a requirement that a public-financed constructor provide a list of flood mitigation strategies evaluated as part of the design of the potentially at-risk structure or infrastructure and identify the flood mitigation strategies that have been implemented or are being considered as part of the structure or infrastructure design. In addition, the bills revise entities and projects eligible for funding under the Resilient Florida Grant Program to include feasibility studies and permitting costs for innovative measures that focus on nature-based solutions and water management districts in support of local government adaptation planning efforts if the grant is used for the express purpose of supporting the Florida Flood Hub and the Department of Environmental Protection in data collection and creation, modeling and the implementation of statewide standards. (O'Hara)

CS/HB 1281 (Buchanan) and SB 1256 (Collins) prohibit a local government from enacting or enforcing an ordinance, resolution, rule, code or policy, or from taking any action that restricts or prohibits or has the effect of restricting or prohibiting the use of any major appliances, including stoves and gas grills. CS/HB 1281 was amended to exempt local government actions and regulations necessary to implement the Florida Building Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. (O’Hara)

SB 886 (Stewart) repeals a state law preemption of local government regulation of tree pruning, trimming or removal on residential property. (O'Hara).

SB 498 (Stewart) removes the state preemption of local government laws relating to auxiliary containers, wrappings or disposable plastic bags and removes the state preemption of local government laws relating to the use or sale of polystyrene products. (O'Hara)

CS/HB 1379 (Steele) and CS/SB 1632 (Brodeur) impose new requirements and restrictions on local governments relating to pollutant load reduction, local government comprehensive plans, basin management action plans, onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, mandatory connection to central sewer systems, septic system and wastewater treatment facility remediation plans and advanced waste treatment systems. 

Comprehensive Plans and Capital Improvements Schedule

Both bills require the comprehensive plan’s schedule of capital improvements to include a list of projects necessary to achieve the pollutant load reductions attributable to the local government pursuant to a basin management action plan. For groups of 50 or more parcels with a density greater than one septic system per acre, a local government’s comprehensive plan must consider the feasibility of providing sanitary sewer services within a 10-year planning horizon and identify the name of the intended wastewater facility could receive sanitary sewer flows after connection and a timeline for connection. 

Indian River Lagoon Protection Program

The bills establish this program within the Department of Environmental Protection, which consists of the various basin management action plans around the Indian River Lagoon. The Department water management districts, local governments and other stakeholders are directed to identify and prioritize strategies necessary to meet water quality standards. Beginning January 2024, the bills prohibit the installation of new septic systems for areas within the Program where central sewer is available. If central sewer is not available, only advanced nutrient-reducing onsite systems or distributed wastewater systems will be permitted. By July 2030, the bills require any existing septic system within the areas subject to the Program to connect to central sewer if available or upgrade to an advanced onsite system. 

Outstanding Florida Springs

HB 1379 requires a septic system remediation plan to be developed if septic systems are identified as contributors of nonpoint source nitrogen pollution, regardless of the percentage of contribution. Both bills prohibit the installation of septic systems where connection to central sewer is available. For lots of less than 1 acre where central sewer is not available, the bills require the use of advanced treatment onsite systems. 

Basin Management Action Plans

The bills specify additional required contents for basin management action plans, including a requirement that any entity with a specific pollutant load reduction requirement established in a plan identify the projects or strategies the entity will undertake to meet the plan’s current five-year milestone. Each project identified must include an estimated amount of nutrient reduction that is expected. The bills prohibit the installation of new septic systems within areas subject to a basin management action plan or reasonable assurance plan where connection to central sewer is available. In addition, the bills require the installation of advanced onsite septic systems on lots of 1 acre or less located within such areas if central sewer is not available. 

Wastewater Grant Program

The bills rename the Wastewater Grant Program in Section 403.0673, Florida Statutes, to the “Water Quality Improvement Grant Program” and expand the types of projects that reduce the amount of nutrients entering waters that are not attaining nutrient or nutrient-related standards, have an established TMDL, are located within a BMAP area or are within an alternative restoration plan area, or a rural area of opportunity. Expanded project types include: wastewater facility repair, projects to upgrade, construct or expand stormwater treatment facilities, wastewater reuse and collection systems, projects included in a septic system or wastewater facility remediation plan and projects listed in a city or county capital improvements element. The bills specify that funding priority must be given to projects most likely to achieve the maximum pollutant reduction. 

Advanced Waste Treatment

For facilities that discharge to specified waters and are required by current law to upgrade to advanced waste treatment by a specified date, the bill authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to require even more stringent treatment standards of these facilities if necessary to achieve the total maximum daily load or applicable water quality criteria. In addition, beginning January 2033, waters that are not attaining nutrient standards or that are subject to a nutrient basin management action plan or reasonable assurance plan are subject to the requirement to upgrade to advanced wastewater treatment facilities. Finally, the bills provide that sewage disposal facilities may not dispose of any wastes in the following waters without providing advanced waste treatment within a 10-year period: a waterbody that does not attain nutrient standards after July 2023; a water body that is subject to a nutrient related basin management action plan after July 2023; or a waterbody that is subject to an adopted reasonable assurance plan after July 2023. (O’Hara)

SB 1472 (Bradley) and CS/HB 1361 (Truenow) amend the Florida Right to Farm Act. The definition of “farm” is amended to include the production of organic material, and the definition of “farm operation” is amended to include the collection, storage, processing and distribution of organic material products. Organic material is defined as vegetative matter resulting from landscaping maintenance or land clearing operations, including clean wood and materials such as tree and shrub trimmings, grass clippings, palm fronds, trees and tree stumps and associated rocks and solids. (O’Hara)

HB 1425 (Caruso) requires onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems to be inspected at least once every five years and directs the Department of Environmental Protection to administer the inspection program with a phased-in implementation plan that prioritizes areas within a basin management action plan. The inspection is to be paid by the system owner, and an owner would be required to take remedial measures if an inspection identifies a system failure. (O’Hara)

HB 361 (Robinson, F.) and SB 1712 (Jones) require a municipality that operates a water or sewer utility providing services to customers in another recipient municipality using a facility or plant located in the recipient municipality to charge customers in the recipient municipality the same rates, fees and charges it imposes on customers within its own municipal boundaries. (O'Hara)

CS/HB 1331 (Busatta Cabrera) substantially amends provisions of law relating to municipal water and electric utility extraterritorial surcharges, extraterritorial service and transfers of enterprise funds. The bill authorizes a municipal utility to transfer a portion of its earnings to the municipality for general government purposes. The revenues transferred to fund general government purposes may not exceed a rate equal to the amount derived by applying the average of the midpoints of the rates of return on equity approved by the PSC for investor-owned utilities in the state. The amount of the transfer must be further reduced based on the percentage of extraterritorial customers served by the utility. The bill eliminates the automatic 25% surcharge that may be added to the rates and fees charged to extraterritorial customers. (O’Hara)

SB 1380 (Martin) provides that any municipal electric utility serving any electric retail customer located outside of the municipality’s corporate boundaries is a “public utility” subject to regulation by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a minimum of five years. The bill directs the PSC to develop rules for such regulation. (O’Hara)

HB 1167 (Duggan) and SB 1702 (DiCeglie) authorize the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the water management districts if mitigation credits are not available in sufficient quantities to be sold or used to offset imminent adverse impacts within a mitigation service area, to release mitigation credits to a mitigation bank before the bank meets the mitigation success criteria specified in its permit if the bank has been successfully constructed and there is a high degree of confidence that the required ecological performance standards will be met. If mitigation credits are not available in a basin, the bills authorize DEP or water management districts to allow the use of mitigation credits available within surrounding basins. The bills specify that mitigation credits are unavailable within a basin if the party requesting credits submits an affidavit signed by the mitigation banks within the basin attesting that credits are not available. The bills authorize certain projects to use mitigation banks on a case-by-case basis regardless of whether they are located within a mitigation service area, if sufficient quantities of mitigation credits are not available to be sold or used to offset imminent and otherwise allowable adverse impacts within a mitigation service area. The bills require DEP to initiate rulemaking by August 2023 to implement the bill. (O’Hara).

HB 371 (Killebrew) and SB 910 (Burton) provide an exemption from surface water management and storage regulations for implementing certain projects for environmental habitat creation, restoration and enhancement activities, and water quality improvements on agricultural lands and government-owned lands. The bills remove current law requirements for the Department of Environmental Protection and water management districts to be notified of such projects. (O'Hara)

HB 1197 (Maggard) and SB 1240 (Burgess) prohibit counties and municipalities from adopting laws, regulations, rules or policies relating to water quality, water quantity, pollution control, pollutant discharge prevention or removal or wetlands, and preempt such regulation to the state. The prohibition does not apply to an interagency or interlocal agreement between the Department of Environmental Protection and any agency or local government and does not apply to any local government conducting programs relating to or materially affecting the water resources of the state. In addition, the prohibition does not apply to the authority of a county or municipality to regulate and operate its own water system, wastewater system or stormwater system. The bills require the Department of Environmental Protection to notify the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of any violations of the preemption and authorize the CFO to withhold state-shared revenues from such county or municipality. (O’Hara)

HB 559 (Roth) and SB 928 (Stewart) extend the retirement date of bond issues to fund the Florida Forever Act. The bills revise distributions for various programs funded by the Land Acquisition Trust Fund. HB 559 specifies that the lesser of 40% or $350 million shall be appropriated annually to the Florida Forever Trust Fund. SB 928 specifies that the lesser of 40% or $300 million shall be appropriated annually to the Florida Forever Trust Fund. Both bills prohibit moneys distributed from the Trust Fund from being used for executive direction and support services by state agencies. (O'Hara)

HB 423 (Cross) and CS/SB 1538 (Stewart) would require septic tank owners to have the system inspected every five years and direct the Department of Environmental Protection to implement the inspection program. The bills require basin management action plans to include estimated pollutant load reductions that meet or exceed the amount of load reductions needed to meet the total maximum daily load requirements under the plan. The bills require the allocation of pollutant load reductions in a basin management action plan to consider projected increases in pollutant loading due to growth in population or agricultural activity and require the plan to provide strategies for mitigating or eliminating pollutant load increases for the life of the plan. They also require the Department of Environmental Protection to conduct assessments of projects included in a plan to determine whether the project is working as intended. CS/SB 1538 was amended to delete everything from the bill except for a requirement that each project listed in a basin management action plan with a total cost of $1 million be assessed and monitored by the Department to determine whether the project is working as intended. (O'Hara)

CS/SB 106 (Brodeur) and CS/HB 915 (Botana) authorize the Department of Environmental Protection to establish a program to recognize local communities located along or in proximity to one or more long-distance nonmotorized recreational trails as "trail towns." The bills revise provisions relating to the Florida Greenways and Trails Program. The bills authorize the Greenways and Trails Council to recommend priorities for regionally significant trails for inclusion by the Florida Department of Transportation in the Florida Shared Use Nonmotorized Trail Network. The bills revise the responsibilities of the Division of Tourism Marketing to include promotion of the Florida Greenways and Trails System and the Florida Shared-Use Nonmotorized Trail Network and to coordinate with the Office of Greenways and Trails to promote and assist local communities to maximize use of nearby trails as economic assets. They direct the Department of Transportation to give funding priority to specified trails and to ensure that local support exists for projects and trail segments. The bills authorize state agencies and local governments to obtain sponsorships from nonprofit or commercial entities and to use the sponsorship revenue for maintenance, signage, and amenities. CS/SB 106 passed the Senate (40-0) and the House (113-0) and is awaiting action by the Governor. (O'Hara)