Estevez (1988) further stated that another strong argument for 
viewing Sarasota Bay as an unmanaged resource is the lack of an 
institutional advocacy. There is no office or person at any level of 
government presently charged with planning for the whole bay and 
representing that view as local decisions are made. It is one thing to 
have a baywide outlook or plan; it is quite another to have a system in 
place which provides for the routine consideration of the plan and a 
speaker for the bay (Estevez 1988). 
Eckenrod (1988) reported that, in addition to reviewing the 
accomplishments of the Tampa Bay management effort, it is of value to 
managers of other coastal resources such as Sarasota Bay to examine what 
factors may have kept the Tampa Bay management effort from being more 
successful than it has been. He further suggested that factors which 
have impeded the progress of the management effort include: 1) the need 
for cohesiveness and greater simplicity; 2) the lack of full-time staff; 
and 3) limited involvement of the private sector. 
IS THERE A FUTURE FOR BAY MANAGEMENT? 
It is an interesting paradox that, although all of the interest 
groups of both Tampa and Sarasota Bay desire an effective management 
program, none truly exists. The Tampa Bay community has had the longest 
history of bay management exercises and still is unable to demonstrate an 
effective management scheme. The Tampa Bay Management Study Commission 
suggested that a Bay Management Authority would be the best mechanism. 
Although politically unpalatable at this time, it remains an option. 
The Agency on Bay Management is close to actually being a 
management program. To date, the Agency on Bay Management has served as 
a useful forum for discussion of information related to bay management 
issues. The Agency has been very successful in facilitating 
communication between responsible agencies and affected interests; 
providing coordinated recommendations regarding environmentally sensitive 
projects within the Tampa Bay watershed; establishing a vital link 
between Tampa Bay interests and the state legislature; and implementing 
the recommendations set forth in the Future of Tampa Bay . 
However, the Agency is comprised of volunteer members and has no 
regulatory authority and no delegated responsibilities for the management 
of Tampa Bay as a single, holistic system. The Agency is also stymied by 
severely limited funding, and is staffed by TBRPC employees on a part- 
time basis. Due to these constraints, the Agency is therefore not the 
final answer for bay management needs of Tampa Bay at this time. 
During the 1987 legislative session, the Florida Legislature 
passed the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act, the 
intent of which was to initiate the restoration and protection of surface 
water bodies on a statewide basis. The legislation mandated that the 
State’s five Water Management Districts implement the program. The State 
211 
