APPLICATION NO. 21423 BY DR. ) CASE NO. 75-1914 PHILLIPS UTILITIES, INC. FOR A )
WATER USE PERMIT - DOCKET NO. 61 )
Pursuant to proper notice, an administrative hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, on October 8, 1975, at 65 East Central Avenue, Orlando, Florida, Room 327.
For Applicant: Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire
The subject application requests a permit from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District for Municipal water use in the applicant's service area which is approximately 8500 acres, in Orange County, Florida, which water source is the Floridan Aquifer. The public notice of hearing appearing in the Orlando Sentinel Star, Orlando, Florida, which noticed the permit application submitted on behalf of Dr. Phillips Utilities, Inc. was received into evidence without objection.
Mr. Garwood, as representative for the applicant and Mr. Wheeler, on behalf of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District stipulated to the introduction of the application as received by the staff, without objection. The applicant's exhibit #1, well driller's log; applicant's exhibit #2, standard water analysis report; and applicant's exhibit #3, engineers master water plan, were admitted as applicant's exhibits without objection, although these aforementioned exhibits were not provided to the staff prior to the hearing date. Therefore, the applicant's exhibits 1 - 3 as contained are made a part of the record. The staff report was admitted as staff exhibit #1 without objection from the applicant and is therefore made a part of the record.
The amount of water requested by the application is 14,300,000 gallons per day, as shown in response to the application form requesting a statement on maximum quantity of water applied for. The application also requests an installed service capacity of 32,500 gpm. The staff report recommends an annual
allocation of 2.078 bgy, with an installed capacity of 14,500 gpm, and a maximum daily pumpage of 13.11 mgd, premised on the applicant's projection of demands to 1985. These recommendations by the staff report are subject to special provisions which will be developed later in this statement of the facts.
The applicant called upon David L. Baumgardner, Assistant Secretary- Treasurer for Dr. Phillips Utilities, Inc. The witness, Baumgardner's specialty was in the field of accounting and the witness's level of educational achievement was that of a certified public accountant. He testified in support of the application, particularly on the necessity of a utility which is serving an area certified by the Florida Public Service Commission, to have very advanced planning to provide mandated services within its service area. The witness further testified that the applicant's projections for demand were based upon zoning studies and population estimates within Orange County. The witness felt that if the staff report was accepted, the applicant would not have sufficient water to meet the demands beyond the 1985 projection. However, he did agree that the staff recommendation for an annual allocation of 2.078 billion gallons per year is a quantity sufficient to meet the needs for the year 1985. It was further indicated by the witness that although the utility drills wells and pumps water as needed, the utility must have sufficient lead time to accomplish the needs of the future in the way of funding and equipment.
The applicant next called Mr. Walter R. Fritz, 3025 East South Street, Orlando, Florida. Mr. Fritz is a professional engineer with the engineering firm of Michaels-Stiggins, Inc. of Orlando, Florida. Mr. Fritz's specialty is in the field of civil engineering and he is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The firm of Michaels-Stiggins, Inc., prepared the Master Water Plan, which is the applicant's exhibit #3. The witness indicated that the ultimate water use demand in the applicant's service area was 15,000,000 gallons per day to serve 50,000 people. He further testified that this ultimate demand of 5.22 billion gallons per year, would not be harmful nor a deprivation to the property owners who had land adjacent to the service area, nor would this ultimate demand have any environmental implications which were harmful. In his opinion, a utility company needs to project its usage over a long period of time, such as 20 years, so that they can fully serve the people and make financing and engineering plans adequately provide for their customers. He stated that the ultimate water use estimate was based on zoning and certain master plans within the Orange County area.
The witness testified that the maximum daily demand was determined from flow records of the immediate area and other adjacent systems. However, when being questioned by counsel for the staff, he indicated that he did not know the rate of movement of horizontal water in the service area.
The witness Fritz, indicated that the ultimate use was not necessarily correlated with the year 1985, which was the expiration date of the requested permit, and furthermore, that he the witness, was not able to reasonable project when the ultimate water use demand would be reached.
Summarizing the more germane portions of the Master Water Plan, applicant's exhibit #3, which was submitted through the witness, Mr. Fritz, I look to a portion of the introductory letter which is found at the beginning of the Master Water Plan in which Mr. Fritz indicated that the applicant's water system "--- is an excellent foundation on which to build an expanded system to serve an ultimate population of 51,000 within the service area." From this report it is indicated that the development of the ultimate population figure is based upon zoning and other data provided by the applicant.
The Master Water Plan states that statistics on water consumption were gathered from historical records of the applicant and acceptable engineering criteria.
Again at page 3 of the Master Water Plan, the applicant speaks to the need for service of a population of 51,000, in which the report says, "Exactly how and when this development will grow cannot be estimated, due to the uncertain timing of the plan development and related market conditions." A final reference to the ultimate use is as indicated on page 15, in which the report says, "No attempt has been made to estimate the staging necessary to implement the proposed expansion. To do so would require an estimate of staged population growth, and, as explained previously, this was not prepared."
It was indicated on page 3 of the report that based on existing water use data, and acceptable engineer designed criteria 15 million gallons per day at an average would constitute the water demand at the moment of ultimate development.
The maximum daily demand at ultimate development is 33 mgd, and at peak hourly demand 70.5 mgd, per page 11 of the Master Water Plan. It was indicated in the Master Water Plan that the basis for the 10 year projection of water use was based on, Traffic Zone Data, East Central Florida Planning Council, April, 1974.
The quality of recharge, according to the applicant's Master Water Plan report at page 11 is most effective, as indicated in the document, Appraisal of Water Resources in the East Central Florida Region, by U.S. Geological Survey, 1972. The applicant, through exhibit #3, shows that water management, now existing and in the future will utilize filtration ponds, large green belts, terracing, roadside swales and porous pavement.
The report indicates that the applicant now has an installed capacity of 8500 gpm with a requested capacity at the moment of ultimate water use demand of 32,500 gpm.
Mr. Wheeler, in his opening remarks in behalf of the staff, explained that the supplemental data sheet on the application requested a 10 year projection or demand because it was a policy of the governing board of the Flood Control District that in considering the granting of allocations to public water supply, that those permits not be based on a period further than 10 years in the future. Furthermore, he indicated that this was the reason for the constraint by the staff in their evaluation of the request for permit. Under my questioning, Mr. Wheeler indicated that this 10 year limitation as expressed, was not supported by any legal precedent, to wit, case law, nevertheless, it was a policy which had been exercised by the Flood Control District in the rendition of its orders on requests for permits.
The staff called Mr. Abe Krieitman to the stand, who is employed by the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District as the Director of the Ground Water Division. Mr. Krieitman is a professional geologist with a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Science Degrees from New York University.
The witness testified that the water source under discussion in the request for permit area was the Floridan Aquifer. He indicated that the distinguishing characteristics of this aquifer was that it was prolific in terms of the amount of water which may be withdrawn from it and that it was artesian
in nature. The recharge of the aquifer comes from remnants of precipitation and water moving from one area to another area outside its local confines.
Considering the service area, which is approximately 13 sq. miles, the witness indicated that 1,883,000 gallons a day is the quantity of water which is recharged to the Floridan Aquifer in the service area on a long term average annual basis. Based upon the applicant's request for withdrawal of 14,300,000 gallons per day at the point of ultimate development, Mr. Krieitman felt that the conclusion to be withdrawn from the statistics on recharge as indicated above, would be that the withdrawals of water would exceed the natural recharge or replenishment. The consequence of this on a long term basis would he a steady and continuing decline in head pressure in the aquifer, which is sometimes referred to as mining the aquifer. The witness felt that this was not a good water management practice on a long term basis to have withdrawals exceed recharges.
The witness, Mr. Krieitman, was familiar with the policy of the governing board concerning the length of time in which they consider a projection for public water supplies in terms of the number of years to be projected. He understood this to be a maximum length of 10 years as a policy. He further indicated that he had participated in the formulation of that policy. The only exceptions to the policy were in instances where requirements for bonding and borrowing of money allowed for the issuance of permits for periods beyond the 10 year limitation. The longer period of time on the permit was also recognized in the Water Resources Act of Florida, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in the case of municipal water supplies involving large capital investments needed to be used by industrial customers.
In comparative terms the witness indicated that the recharge area was a good recharge area. However, on a regional basis the recharge area was only average and the calculations on the question of the amount of recharge, to wit 1,883,000 gallons as testified to previously was based upon statistical data which refer to an area of 7,000 square miles of which the Dr. Phillips Utilities service area is apart. It was further stated that even though the 13 square mile area might be better than average in terms of recharge, the staff's assessment of water use had to be made on a regional basis if it were to be a responsible determination.
The witness said he based his testimony on published studies by the Geological Survey and the Department of Natural Resources, State of Florida as this relates to pumping tests and storage, aquifer co-efficients, recharge figures and other matters contained in the literature. Specifically, Report of Investigation 61, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, entitled Appraisal of Water Resources in East Central Florida Region, published by the Department of Natural Resources, State of Florida, and Report of Investigation 50, Water Resources of Orange County, Florida, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey and published by the Department of Natural Resources, State of Florida.
The staff's position according to the witness, was one which addressed itself to a 10 year projection and accepted that projection and would allow the permit to exist for 20 years, leaving open the opportunity of the applicant to come back at a later time with additional data, additional engineering studies to indicate that an increase in use would not damage the resource or damage other legal users or be against public interest.
The staff report was offered into evidence through the witness, Mr. Krieitman, and was received without objection by the applicant; however, one correction was made on page 2 of the report where a figure 250 was changed to a
figure 350 concerning the underground storage tanks. This exhibit #1 by the staff includes the basic report document with all the attachments.
The staff report recommended that based on considerations of water resource availability, reasonableness of use with respect to both the type of use and the resource, and the effect on other users, and the water use permit be issued pursuant to application 21423 for an annual allocation of 2.078 bgy. It indicated the following special provisions:
These analysis shall be submitted to the District. A standard complete analysis is defined including the following parameters:
Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations and special provisions set forth in the staff report (attached thereto).
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1975.
Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 231
