Whether the following proposed rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority as defined in Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes: 1. Rules 40E-400.417(1)(c), 40E-400.427(1)(b), 40E-431.(1)(g), 40E- 400.475(1)(a), (b), 40E-400.483, and 40E-400.487. Subsections 4.2.4.3(f), (g), (h), (i) of the South Florida Water Management District's Basis of Review. Subsection X.2.7(a) of Suwannee River Water Management District's Applicant's Handbook: Environmental Resource Permitting, St. Johns River Water Management District's Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters, and South Florida Water Management District's Basis of Review. Subsection X.2.7(b) of Suwannee River Water Management District's Applicant's Handbook: Environmental Resource Permitting, St. Johns River Water Management District's Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters, and South Florida Water Management District's Basis of Review. Subsection X.3.2.2 of Suwannee River Water Management District's Applicant's Handbook: Environmental Resource Permitting, St. Johns River Water Management District's Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters, and South Florida Water Management District's Basis of Review. 6. Rules 62-330.200(1)(d), 62-330.200(2)(h), and 62-330.200(4)(b).Engineer had standing to challenge Environmental Rules Permitting (ERP). Rules are valid.

Rule which tracked enabling statute did not enlarge, modify, or contravene statute.

The issue in this case is the sufficiency of the language of condition 17 of the St. Johns River Water Management District permit issued to Jim Saboff for the management and storage of surface waters.Land clearing and construction of house,pool,driveway in Wekiva River Riparian Habitat Protection Zone requires Management and Storage of Surface Waters permit to mitigate habitat loss.

The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether OUC should receive supplemental certification from the Siting Board for its proposed Unit 2 electrical power plant and associated facilities, including a transmission line and alternate access road, and what conditions, if any, should be incorporated within such supplemental certification to assure that minimal adverse consequences result from the new electrical power plant and associated facilities. The parties have reached substantial agreement on issues of fact and upon conditions of certification necessary to assure compliance with applicable nonprocedural requirements of the agencies having jurisdiction over the project. No party opposes the issuance of the supplemental certification sought by OUC, leaving a single dispute between OUC and SJRWMD as to SJRWMD's proposed condition of certification which would limit OUC's consumptive water use authorization to a ten-year period commencing on the date of certification and would essentially require OUC to reapply for subsequent consumptive use permits for water use thereafter.Intent of Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) is centralized one-stop permitting. Limiting duration of consumptive water use conflicts with PPSA & St. Johns Regional Water Management District rule. Supplemental Certification.

The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the corridor for the Seminole Plant-Keystone-JEA Firestone 230 kV Transmission Line proposed by the Applicants, Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Jacksonville Electric Authority, is proper for certification under the Transmission Line Siting Act, Sections 403.52-403.5365, Florida Statutes (1989 and Supp. 1990).The corridor adopted by applicants is proper for certification by the State sitting board.

This is a challenge to certain administrative rules adopted by the St. Johns River Water Management District relating to permitting criteria for isolated wetlands. Section 373.414, F.S. mandates that permitting criteria for isolated wetlands be adopted by water management districts, by rule, by March 31, 1987. The statute also includes four more specific requirements for those rules. Petitioners contend that St. Johns River Water Management District Rule Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook, Management and Storage of Surface Waters, adopted as a rule by reference, fail to comply with the statutory mandate and are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by the District. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District, contends that its rules comply with Section 373.414, F.S.. St. Johns River Water Management District contests the standing of Petitioner, the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. Intervenors, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. and Associated Minerals (USA), Inc., support the District's position and contest the standing of both Petitioners.Rules related to isolated welands are invalid for failure to protect wetlands as intended by statute and for failure to consider cummulative impact

The parties' Second Prehearing Stipulation filed on May 10, 1990, describes the nature of the controversy as follows: The issue in this case is whether the District should approve the City's consumptive use permit application. The City is seeking to renew and modify a consumptive use permit previously issued by the District on February 19, 1979 for a wellfield located in Orange County, Florida. The City is currently permitted to withdraw water at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons. The City is asking to increase these withdrawals up to a permitted annual average daily rate of 31 million gallons and a permitted maximum daily rate of 48 million gallons. Subject to certain limiting conditions to be set forth in the City's consumptive use permit, the water will be produced from 34 active Floridan Aquifer wells at an annual average daily rate of 29.1 million gallons and a maximum daily rate of 46.1 million gallons and from 14 Intermediate Aquifer wells at an annual average and maximum daily rate of approximately 1.9 million gallons. The District proposes to grant the permit application with certain specified conditions, as more particularly described in its Recommended Conditions, Application No. 2-095-0005 AUGMR, February 1990. Deseret Ranches, Holland, and Keller, et al challenge the issuance of a permit to the City on the basis of the City's alleged failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-2 and other applicable law. (pp. 2-3) The disputed issues of law or fact are more specifically described as follows: Whether the use of water reflected in the City's consumptive use permit application meets all the criteria specified in Rule 40C-2.301, F.A.C., with the exception of 40C-2.301(4)(g) and 40C- 2.301(5)(a)4., F.A.C., which are irrelevant to the application; What limiting conditions pursuant to Rule 40C- 2.381, F.A.C., should be imposed on the City's proposed consumptive use, if granted; and Whether Deseret Ranches, Holland and Keller, et al. have standing to challenge the City's consumptive use permit application pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S. Two issues raised in Petitioners' pleadings were ruled irrelevant to this proceeding in a prehearing order entered on April 26, 1990: the parties were precluded from presenting evidence related to adverse affects to water uses that were not in existence at the time the permit application was filed and evidence related to any interdistrict transfer of water.Standing pled but not proven. City entitled to CUP as a reasonable beneficial use, consistent with public interest and no interference with existing users

The City withdrew its initial application for a permit to construct the proposed southeast landfill, filed April 24, 1987, on December 11, 1987, the same day it filed the application which, with subsequent amendments, is now pending. After DER gave notice of its intent to issue the permit on April 15, 1988, petitioners filed timely requests for formal administrative hearing. DER also received timely hearing requests in response to its notice of intent to issue a dredge and fill permit for the construction of an access road to the site, filed May 20, 1988, in response to its notice of intent to issue a permit for the stormwater management system for the site, filed May 25, 1989, and in response to its notice of intent to grant a variance, filed August 31, 1988. In accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1987), DER elected to transmit these hearing requests to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where they were docketed as thirteen separate cases. By order entered December 20, 1988, proceedings on all hearing requests were consolidated. As recited in the City's proposed recommended order: The City and DER presented the testimony of Victoria Tschinkel, an expert in environmental regulation and environmental biology; David K. Nickerson, an expert in wetlands permitting, mitigation, and wetlands ecology; Samuel E. Wiley, an expert in wildlife biology; Janet J. Llewellyn, an expert in wetlands ecology, the assessment of impacts of dredge and fill projects, the evaluation of mitigation plans, and the application of DER's regulations to dredge and fill projects; Heather L. Nixon, an expert in wetland ecology; Glenn E. Lowe, Jr., an expert in zoology and wetland ecology; James A. Nissen, an expert design engineer for the design and operation of sanitary landfills; David E. Deans, an expert in landfill design and the design of liners and leachate collection systems; Hilary Theisen, an expert in landfill operations, odor control, and gas control; Mary C. Nogas; Stewart L. Stover, Jr., an expert in geology and hydrogeology; G. Warren Leve, an expert in geology and hydrogeology; Robert W. Bass, an expert in environmental engineering and leachate characterization; Frank A. Jones, an expert in environmental toxicology; Vincent P. Amy, an expert in geology, hydrogeology and groundwater quality; Firmin W. Southwell; Linda M. Danco, an expert in stormwater engineering; Caroline J. Mitchell, an expert in stormwater engineering; John E. Timberlake, an expert in stormwater engineering; David Miracle, an expert in environmental engineering, with a special expertise in stormwater and surface water management; James A. Horton, an expert in geotechnical engineering; Patrick T. Karney, an expert in wastewater treatment; Janice Nepshinsky, an expert in environmental engineering, with a special expertise in water chemistry and water quality; Mark Santarelli, an expert in well drilling and construction; Richard Wilkins, an expert in the regulation of pollution sources in Florida; Philip M. Coram, an expert in environmental engineering, the application of DER rules to solid, hazardous, domestic, and industrial waste facilities, the review and evaluation of groundwater monitoring plans, and the application of DER rules to stormwater sources. The McCormicks presented the testimony of J. T. McCormick, J. Haydon McCormick, and Theodore F. Petit. STOP, Inc. presented the testimony of Mr. Gordon Gruhn.Landfill applicant must show entitlement de novo to variance despite DER's intent to grant. No mixing zone allowed for carcinogens leaking from lining.

The issues in this cause are related to the question of whether Admiral Corporation (Admiral) should be granted a construction and operation permit for a management and storage of surface waters system for the Hammock Dunes, Phase I, development. The agency with permit review responsibility is the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). This hearing is occasioned by the challenge by Petitioners to the notice of intent to grant the subject permit.Recommend grant of a permit for management and storage of surface water.