part of the regional water supply plan and, thus, eventually the Florida Water Plan. It is this

language, from F.S. 373.0421 (2), that explicitly gave great weight to the minimum flows and

levels developed by the water management districts. Violation of a flow or level can result in

reduction of permitted withdrawals, and by extension, denial of proposed withdrawals that are

projected to cause a violation of a minimum flow or level. Thus, the 1997 statute corrected a

variance between the minimum flows and levels requirement and consumptive water use

permitting. Matthews and Nieto (1998) pointed out that the WMDs must attempt to develop

alternative water sources in conjunction with any reductions in permitted withdrawals. They

contended that combining the obligation to engage in environmental restoration with the

requirement for water resource development should protect the environment without inequitably

reducing water use or stunting economic development. Therefore, a balance between

maximizing water resource benefits for both consumptive use and natural systems protection

may be achieved.

 Response to the 1997 Law

 The mandate to give priority funding to water supply proj ects has been well implemented

and, in fiscal year 2001, the five water management districts spent between 17.7 % of their total

budget in the Northwest District and 40. 1 % of their budget in the Southwest District with all

five districts committing $287 million, or 26.9 % of their combined budget on water resource

development (DEP 2000). In 2002 the total climbed to $344 million, representing 28.0 % of the

combined WMD budgets. Fiscal year 2003 budgets included approximately $372 million for

water supply activities (DEP 2003a). Funds budgeted between 2001 and 2006 are projected to

exceed $1.4 billion (DEP 2002a).

 The 1997 amendments to Chapter 373 require all five water management districts to

implement regional water supply planning in areas where water supplies are inadequate to meet