STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ) AUTHORITY and HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 85-0599
)
GARDINIER, INC., (Consumptive Use) ) Permit No. 201533) and SOUTHWEST ) FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
)
Respondents. )
) WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ) AUTHORITY and HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 85-0600
)
GARDINIER, INC., (Consumptive Use) ) Permit No. 201533) and SOUTHWEST ) FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
)
Respondents. )
) WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ) AUTHORITY and HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 85-0601
)
GARDINIER, INC., (Consumptive Use) ) Permit No. 201533) and SOUTHWEST ) FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
)
Respondents. )
)
GARDINIER, INC., )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 85-0602
) WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ) AUTHORITY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, )
(Consumptive Use Permit No. 204352) ) and SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER )
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on February 17-20, February 24-27 and April 21-25, 1986, in Tampa, Florida. Members of the general public were afforded the opportunity to testify on the evening of February 27, 1986. The issues for determination in these proceedings are whether Gardinier, Inc. is entitled to the renewal of three consumptive use permits for the withdrawal of water from locations at its East Tampa Chemical Plant, at Lithia Springs and at Buckhorn Springs; and whether the West Coast Regional Supply Authority and Hillsborough County are entitled to a consumptive use permit for a regional wellfield in south central Hillsborough County and renewal and consolidation of permits for approximately 75 existing wells in that area.
APPEARANCES
For west Coast Regional Edward P. de la Parte, Jr. water Supply Authority and Edward M. Chew Hillsborough County: de la Parte, Gilbert &
Gramovat, P.A.
705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602
For Gardinier, Inc.: Roger W. Sims
Julia Sullivan Waters Holland & Knight
600 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602
and
P. 0. Drawer BW Lakeland, Florida 33802
For Southwest Florida Water Management District: | J. Edward Curren 2379 Broad Street | |
Brooksville, Florida | 33512-9712 |
For Intervenors: L. M. "Buddy" Blain Charles G. Stephen Anita C. Brannon Blain & Cone
202 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602
For Intervenor Hebbard: George M. Hebbard, Jr.
Route 3, Box 430
Lithia, Florida 33547 INTRODUCTION
The Southwest Florida water Management District (WFWMD) initially proposed to grant the three consumptive use permits (CUP) applied for by Gardinier, Inc., Gardinier) and the one CUP applied for jointly by the west Coast Regional water Supply Authority (Authority) and Hillsborough County (County). Each challenged the other's permit applications and the cases were consolidated for a comparative hearing. The following persons and/or entities petitioned to intervene in opposition to the Authority's and County's permit application: George M. Hebbard, Jr., C. W. Davis, I. A. Albritton, A. H. Varnum, P.oger Dapson, Lamar Maxwell, Walter Plaag, Central Maintenance and Welding, Inc., John Purvis and the Lithia Pinecrest Civic Association.
In support of its own permit applications and in opposition to the Authority's and County's application, Gardinier presented the testimony of Rudy J. Cabina, accepted as an expert in chemical engineering; Lois George; Philip A. LaMoreaux, Ph.D., accepted as an expert in geology and hydrogeology; Bashir Ahmed Memon, Ph.D., accepted as an expert in hydrogeology and ground water modeling; Margaret L. Gilbert, Ph.D., accepted as an expert in plant ecology with special knowledge of the central Florida area: Anthony Michael Malatino, accepted as an expert in analytical chemistry; and Lester Charles Webb, Jr., accepted as an expert in water and wastewater treatment with expertise in water reuse and its treatment. Gardinier's Exhibits G-1 through G-23, G-26 through G-37, G-39 through G-41, G-43, G-44, 5-47 through G-54, G-57 through G-59, G-75, G-76, G-80, G-81, G-89, G-
93, G-119, and G-122 through G-124 were received into evidence.
The Authority and the County presented testimony from the following witnesses: Gene Elbert Heath, accepted as an expert in the management and administration of a water utility, including
planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance; Robert
C. Edmunds, accepted as an expert in water utility engineering; Peter L. Palmer, accepted as an expert in hydrology, including ground water computer modeling interpretation; James J. Geraghty, accepted as an expert in hydrogeology; Scott Emery, Ph.D., G., accepted as an expert in water quality, including testing and analysis; Kirk M. Stage, accepted as an expert in ecology, with special knowledge of the vegetation of west central Florida; Ronald N. Armstrong, accepted as an expert in water utility engineering, with expertise in water demand projections; Louis Tortora, accepted as an expert in water and waste water treatment system design; and Daniel O. Okun, Ph.D., accepted as an expert in water quality engineering and management. Exhibits 1, 3-5, 6B through 18, 22 through 28, 32 through 43 and 46 through 49 were received into evidence on behalf of the Authority and the County.
SWFWMD presented the testimony of Kenneth A. Weber, accepted as an expert in hydrology; Robert Gerald Perry, accepted as an expert in hydrology and hydrologic modeling; Richard McLean, Director of the District's Resource Regulation Department and Patricia Dooris, Ph.D., accepted as an expert in aquatic biology and aquatic ecology. Exhibits received into evidence were SWFWMD's Exhibits 1 through 7.
Testifying for the intervenors were Roger Dapson, Charles W. Davis, A. H. Varnum, I. A. Albritton and George Miller Hebbard.
Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 2 and 5 through 8 were received into evidence.
At the evening session provided for members of the general public, the following persons testified: Eric Hunter, Joe Smith, Judy James, Jan Platt, David Looms, Larry Dages, Rodney Colson, Bob Buckhorn, Fran Davin, Mack Ragland, Harry Zika, Henry Mirabo'd, Freeman Polk and Paul Tufts.
Subsequent to the final hearing, each party submitted proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law. To the extent that the parties' proposed findings of fact are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, they are rejected for the reasons set forth in the Appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts contained in the Prehearing Stipulation, the following relevant facts are found:
The Gardinier Applications.
l. The East Tampa Chemical Plant (plant) operated by Gardinier is located on approximately 3,500 acres of land owned by it at the mouth of the Alafia River and the Hillsborough Bay. The facilities have been there since 1924, and the withdrawal of water utilized to operate the plane predates the consumptive use permitting process. The plant manufactures various fertilizer products, including sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, diammonium phosphate, granular triple superphosphate, run of pile triple superphosphate, byproducts of phosphoric acid, as well as fluosilic acid and sodium silicofluoride. The phosphoric acid products are used by farmers to grow corn, soy beans, and wheat, and fluosilic acid and sodium silicofluoride are used by municipalities to fluorinate drinking water. When the plant is fully operating, Gardinier employs 950 people with a payroll of
$22 million a year. The company pays annual property and other
taxes of $1.5 million a year and annually purchases approximately
$25 million in materials and equipment in Hillsborough County. Garciinier was recently purchased by Cargill, Inc. after a bankruptcy proceeding.
In order to manufacture its products and operate the plant, Gardinier uses both salt water and fresh water. The salt water comes from salt water wells located on the plant's property, and has been used since 1924 for cooling purposes. It is used for once-through, non-contact cooling of sulphuric acid and is then discharged into the Alafia River at the Hillsborough Bay. Due to the naturally occurring radium in this discharged salt water, Gardinier intends to discontinue using its salt water wells and utilize fresh water for all its cooling requirements. This will require the construction of a fresh water cooling tower, for which a permit is currently being sought and which will take about two years to complete. Gardinier's existing CUP No. 7601530 for its salt water wells permits an average annual withdrawal of 56,260,000 gallons of water per day (gpd) and a maximum daily withdrawal of 64,890,000 gpd. Despite expansions in its plant over the years, the amounts of salt water and fresh water required has decreased. Gardinier's present renewal application for its salt water withdrawals proposes a reduction to an average annual rate and maximum daily rate of 31,968,000 gpd .
Fresh water is used at Gardinier's plant as boiler feed water, for manufacturing of product or process water, cooling and potable needs. This water is obtained from Buckhorn Springs and Lithia Sprlngs, both wholly owned by Gardinier. Gardinier purchased 148 acres at Buckhorn Springs in 1947, and 160 acres at Lithia Springs in 1967, including the spring pools, and has been withdrawing water from those springs since those times. Lithia Springs is leased to Hillsborough County for recreational purposes. Gardinier's withdrawals from the springs have been
gradually reduced since 1977. The original CUP No. 7601532 issued in 1977 for Buckhorn Springs authorized an annual average withdrawal of 2,176,000 gpd with a maximum daily withdrawal not to exceed 2,370,800 gpd. Gardinier requested a reduced withdrawal s renewal application, with an annual average and a maximum daily rate of 1,440,000 gpd. Gardinier's original CUP No. 7601533 for Lithia Springs issued in 1977 was for 5,840,700 gpd average annual withdrawal and 5,894.000 gpd as a maximum daily withdrawal. Gardinier's renewal is for a reduced average withdrawal rate of 5,822,000 gpd and a maximum daily withdrawal of 5,904,000 gpd. The increased maximum quantity is for the well used for the concession stand at the park.
Withdrawals from Gardinier's salt water wells consists of comingled waters from the intermediate aquifer, the Floridan aquifer and Hillsborough Bay. The water is salty, high in chloride and its constituents are very similar to bay water. The evidence is inconclusive as to whether Gardinier's operation of its salt water wells for a period of over 60 years has caused or contributed to salt water intrusion in thc area of the plant. There is some evidence that the pumping may have been beneficial in reducing salt water encroachment along the coast due to the release of pressure on the deeper Floridan aquifer which allows fresh water to move into the system. In any event, if there has been an adverse effect from more than 60 years of pumping, the effect would be reduced by the reduction in withdrawals which Gardinier now seeks in its permit renewals.
While Gardinier is the largest use of water in the plant area, there are domestic wells in the vicinity of the plant. Computer modeling demonstrates that present withdrawals from the salt water wells will affect the potentiometric surface at the plant's boundary by less than five feet and create less than a one-foot drawdown in the water table. The greater portion of the water pumped is recharge water from the bay. Any reduction in the amount of pumping would have a positive impact on the potentiometric surface, will decrease any impact on nearby domestic wells and will allow the quality of the water in domestic wells to either remain stable or improve.
Since the potentiometric surface in the plant's vicinity is already at sea level, it is SWFWMD's policy not to take into account the regulatory criterion relating to the lowering of the potentiometric surface below sea level. SWFWMD has not established regulatory levels for the rate of flow of streams or watercourses, the potentiometric surface or surface waters in the vicinity of the plant.
Salt water marshes, estuarine systems and uplands exist to the north, south and east of the plant. Any adverse
ecological impact suffered by these systems are more attributable to cultural impacts than to a less than one foot lowering of the water table. Since Gardinier's withdrawals have been occurring for over 60 years, it is likely that biological communities in the area have adapted, and the proposed reduction in pumping have no additional adverse effect.
In order to satisfy its requirements for fresh water of reliable quantity and quality, Gardinier has been withdrawing water from Buckhorn Springs for almost 40 years and Lithia Springs for almost 20 years. The boilers and cooling towers at the plant are designed to utilize water of that quality and temperature. But for Gardinier's withdrawals, these spring waters would flow into the Alafia River and eventually into the bay. The spring water from Lithia is pumped through a pipeline to Buckhorn Springs, comingles with the Buckhorn spring water and is pumped some 1< miles through a pipeline to the chemical plant for use as boiler feed water, process water, cooling water and sanitary and drinking water.
During full production periods, Gardinier uses all the water withdrawn from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs. Because of cutbacks in production in 1983, Gardinier installed a pressure relief valve to alleviate pressure problems in the plant during times of reduced production. This allowed water to be discharged into the Alafia River from the Lithia pipeline without passing through the plant. Over the past two years, approximately .5 to
1.2 million gallons of water per day has passed through the pressure relief valve and discharged in the Alafia River at a point downstream from where it would have entered the river naturally. Gardinier is presently in the process of developing an alternative pressure control system which would permit it to take from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs only the amounts actually required at the plant.
Lithia Springs and Buckhorn Springs are typical karst artisian sink springs. The geology and hydrogeology of the area of both springs demonstrates a series of fault features, where solid rock has fractured and the fractures extend into the Floridan aquifer. Solutioning occurs and a sinkhole system is created. The springs are discharge points of the Floridan aquifer. These aquifer waters discharge into the springs from artisian pressure. An examination of various well logs and literature on Florida geology leads to the conclusion that the water in Lithia Springs and Buckhorn Springs withdrawn by Gardinier are supplied primarily by the Floridan aquifer with very minimal contribution from the intermediate or surficial aquifers. The withdrawals at both springs constitute ground water, as opposed to surface water, withdrawals.
As noted above, Gardinier owns 148 acres at Buckhorn Springs and 160 acres at Lithia Springs. There are 350 feet from the edge of Buckhorn Springs to the nearest property line and 400 feet from the edge of Lithia Springs to the nearest property line. Pump tests designed to determine the lateral and vertical extent of the impact from the stress of pumping in amounts far greater than usual demonstrate that the impacts from withdrawals do not extend beyond 300 feet from the edge of either spring. After stabilizing the springs and pumping at a greater rate than normal, the pump tests revealed only a 1.25 foot decline in the spring boil, a 1.06 foot decline in the spring pool and no appreciable change in the water table or surface water at Buckhorn Springs. The impacts from pumping at Lithia Springs were even more minimal -- a two inch decline in the water level of the spring boil and a decline in the pool level of less than one inch. These results lead to the conclusion that the artisian systems are not adversely affected by Cardinier's pumping at Buckhorn or Lithia Springs. Chemical analyses reveals that the quality of the waters at Buckhorn and Lithia Springs has not been adversely affected by Cardinler's pumping or withdrawals. The proposed withdrawals will have no adverse effect upon vegetation in the areas of Lithla or Buckhorn Springs. There will be no inducement of salt water encroachment as a result of Gardinier's withdrawals from Lithia or Buckhorn Springs. SWFWMD has set no regulatory levels pertaining to the rate of flow of streams or watercourses, the level of the potentiometric surface or the level of surface waters in the areas of Buckhorn or Lithia Springs.
It is the policy of the SWFWMD not to require extensive testing or monitoring when an applicant is applying for a renewal of a presently existing legal use, particularly when the renewal is for a permit with reduced quantities.
In order to determine the future adequacy of the water supply available from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs, as well as to determine the effect of a diminuition of the outflow by outside sources, it would be beneficial to place continuous recording gases on spring flow, spring height and pumpage at those spring sites.
Many industries are capable of and do now utilize reclaimed, recovered or recycled water in their plant operations. Dependent upon the plant's equipment and ;he quantity and quality of the reuse or recycled water, such water can be utilized in chemical plant operations for such nonpotable uses as cooling water, boiler feed and process water. A source of reuse water is treated effluent from advanced wastewater treatment facilities. Several new County wastewater treatment plants are presently in the planning stage, but none are currently on line nor are there
pipelines in existence which could supply reuse water to Gardinier's East Tampa Chemical Plant. Use of the existing pipeline for reclaimed or reuse water would contaminate Gardinier's existing fresh water supply from the springs.
Considering the quantity and quality of its present source of fresh water, reuse water has no technical or economic advantage to Gardinier. Its plant equipment would have to be retrofitted, a new distribution system both within and outside the plant would be required and experience by other industrial users has demonstrated problems with scaling, increased temperature and the consistency of water quality. When weighing the potential for reuse water in plant operations, a large factor to be considered is the economic feasibility, including the cost of treatment, maintenance costs, the cost of the current supply, availability, etc. While the reuse of water should be encouraged as a conservation measure, the economic feasibility of such use must be considered. Gardinier has studied and has agreed to continue to study the feasibility, both technical and economical, of reuse water for some of the plant operations.
The Authority's and County's Application.
The Authority is a five member governmental entity consisting of Pasco County, Pinellas County, Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa, and the City of St. Petersburg. Its obligations are to provide an adequate and dependable source of supply for all citizens within the tri-county area and to do so without concentrating withdrawals to the point where they would have an adverse environmental or hydrological impact. The Authority first began operating public supply wellfields in 1978. Currently, the Authority operates the Cypress Creek Wellfield, the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield, the Starkey Wellfield, the Section
21 Wellfield, the Cosme-Odessa Wellfield, and the Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield. The permitted average annual withdrawal rate and maximum daily withdrawal of these wellfields are 30 million gallons per day (mgd)/30 mod for Cypress Creek, 30 mgdt45 mgd for Cross Bar, 8 mgd/15 mgd for Starkey, 13 mgd/22 mgd for Section 21 and Cosme-Odessa and 8.8 mgd/18.q mgd for the Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield. In addition, the Authority has a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from the Tampa Bypass Canal at a rate of 20 mgd average annual withdrawal and 40 mgd maximum daily withdrawal.
The south central Hillsborough County region and service area has been described in this proceeding as an area bounded by Interstate ~ on the north, by Valrico on the east, by the Little Manatee River on the south and by Tampa Bay on the west. The area is largely a rural area, but has several population centers, including Brandon, Ruskin, Apollo Beach, Sun City and Riverview. The County's current public water supply
facilities in the south central region comprise some 75 dispersed wells permitted under 8 different CUPs. The evidence is conflicting and inconclusive as to the actual number of existing wells and the quantities presently permitted. Some of the presently permitted wells have been converted to monitoring wells and others have been plugged.
The Authority and the County have concluded that it is no longer possible to continue to use the County's existing public water supply facilities in the south central area. Consequently, they have applied for a CUP which would renew and consolidate their existing 8 CUPs and add 17 new wells to be located at a regional wellfield. It is the intent of the Authority and the County to continue using the existing wells during construction of the planned wellfield and then to discontinue their use and serve the entire area from a centralized wellfield. The amended application requests total average annual combined permit withdrawals of 24,100,000 gpd and total maximum daily withdrawals of 44,600,000 gpd.
The current, existing Brandon water supply system is comprised of some 30 dispersed wells capable of producing from 7 to 10 mgd of good quality water. However, there are problems in this system, as well as the smaller systems serving Sun City, Apollo Beach, Ruskin and Riverview. The Brandon wells have individual chlorinators and, on occasion, suffer pressure problems. Because of their dispersed locations, the County's operators can only visit each well site once a day. If a problem occurs after the operator's visit, it will not be discovered until the following day and recipients of the water may use water that has not been disinfected. It is difficult to monitor and sample the well waters due to their dispersed locations. The existing system relies totally on local wells for local distribution as there is a complete lack of transmission facilities. The systems are hydraulically isolated and there is no transmission capacity within the Brandon system at all. While there is one intertie with the City of Tampa's water system, this is not used primarily because the City has its own supply problems and also because the City's water treatment is different than and incompatible with the County's water treatment. Some of the existing wells located south of the Alafia Rlver are old, in poor repair and violate Florida's drinking water standards for total dissolved solids, sulfates, fecal coliform and occasionally odor. Many of the existing well sites are not secured and their locations are such as to constrain access to the larger repair equipment.
The existing system has inadequate storage capacity.
On the basis of present demand for water within the system, there should be at least 10 million gallons of available storage. The
current storage capacity is slightly more than 4 million gallons and not all of this storage is available. A storage tank is generally kept at least half full to provide for local fire demand and, therefore, the effective storage capacity of the existing system is about 2 to 3 million gallons. The existing water supply system lacks the capacity for both adequate fire protection and adequate emergency pumping. Retrofitting or refurbishing the existing system with newer or more dispersed wells would simply perpetuate the existing inadequacies in the system. For these reasons, the Authority and the County have determined that the only feasible alternative to solve the inadequacies and to meet the current and future demand is to provide a centralized system of transmission lines, centralized master pumping facilities and a centralized source of water supply. As the wellfield production wells, pump station and transmission lines are constructed and become operational, the existing wells will be either taken out of service or will be utilized as monitor wells. It is estimated that the construction of the proposed wellfield will take from 18 to 24 months.
In reaching a determination as to the location and design of the proposed south central wellfield, the Authority and the County analyzed various alternatives. Studies and testing were done regarding the placement of a regional wellfield in the Brandon area. However, testing demonstrated that the potential yield would be very low in that area and could cause the upconing of highly mineralized water. Tests conducted further to the east, in the Medard area, demonstrated a productive aquifer with good water quality. However, because large amounts of water are withdrawn from that area by strawberry farmers, particularly during freezing weather, that site was found unsuitable for a regional wellfield. The Authority also investigated the feasibility of creating a surface water supply and constructing reverse osmosis plants. These alternatives were rejected due to concerns regarding economics, adverse environmental impacts and the production of sufficient yield. Testing performed at the Lithia site resulted in findings that the aquifer was productive and had a good quality of water. To confirm these findings, further testing was done to the east of the Lithia site at Alderman's Ford Park. This testing resulted in a finding of a high yield of water that met drinking water standards. While traces of a volatile organic compound were revealed, these were determined to have resulted from the laboratory cleaning process. Thus, the Alafia River corridor was determined to be the appropriate location for a regional wellfield because it would not compete with the agricultural irrigation to the north, would avoid the poorer water quality to the south and would produce an adequate yield.
The Authority and the County have completed the preliminary design of the proposed wellfield. It is to consist of 17 production wells and a pump station. Wells 1 and 2 are to be used as standby wells and pumpage is to be rotated among wells
3 through 17 so that withdrawals are evenly distributed among those wells. The standby wells are only to be used if there is a failure at another well within the wellfield. Well 1 is already constructed and is located about 1 1/2 miles from Lithia Springs on 80 acres of land purchased by the County for the master pump station. Well 1 is located about 100 feet from the nearest property boundary to the south. The remaining wells would be placed on one-acre well sites to be purchased by the applicant and located somewhere within the 40 acre quarter-quarter sections which the authority submitted to the SWFWMD as proposed well locations. The total additional land area to be acquired for the well sites is 14 acres. Two of the wells will be located on land already owned by the County. Some of the wells are concentrated, with three in one section. The Authority has attempted to locate the wells adjacent to road right-of-ways which could be used for transmission pipelines. The Authority has not yet developed a management plan or a monitoring plan for the proposed wellfield.
Each of the wells within the regional wellfield is designed to pump at an average annual withdrawal rate of 3 mgd and a maximum withdrawal rate of 4 mgd. If only one well were turned on in the system and no other wells were running, the well would produce 4 mgd. However, with all of the other wells running, a single well would only produce 3 mgd due to friction loss and the energy required to pump a large mass of water through the pipe under greater pressure. Thus, while the wellfield would be able mechanically to pump 60 mgd, the optimum production capacity will be 45 mgd. On an average day, pumping will be rotated among a small number of wells to produce a total of 24.1 mgd. On a peak day, all 15 wells would be producing approximately 3 mgd each for a total combined withdrawal rate of
44.6 mgd. Based upon a per capita consumption of 189 gpd, it is
estimated that the total water supply requirements for the south central service area in the year 1990 to meet average day and maximum day demands is approximately 24 mgd and 44 mgd, respectively.
The proposed wellfield is located along the north and south prongs of the Alafia River. That area is characterized by rural and light agricultural land uses, residential areas and recreational sites. Land uses in the area have been dependent upon private, individual water wells, many of which are shallow and draw water from an intermediate aquifer. One proposed well site has 31 property owners within 1/2 mile of the well. One hundred property owners live within 1/2 mile of proposed well 17.
These domestic well users will not be served by the proposed system.
The Authority has issued revenue bonds to finance the construction of the regional wellfield and transmission lines. The regional wellfield will cost approximately $14,000,000 and the transmission lines will cost approximately S19.000,000. An additional S2,000,000 will be needed to complete construct on and these funds will be raised through the rate structure.
In order to determine the proposed wellfield's impacts upon the potentiometric surface, water table and lake stages, the parties in this proceeding utilized information gathered from literature, pump tests, computer modeling and hand-calculated modeling to predict the drawdowns expected during periods of average and maximum pumping. While the actual numerical drawdown 1evels anticipated vary greatly among the expert witnesses presented, it is clear that the wellfield withdrawals, after pumping for 30 days at 24 mgd, will lower the potentiometric surface by more than 5 feet at the boundary of a one-acre well site and that the 5-foot drawdown contour will extend at least 2 1/2 miles radially around the center of the wellfield . The water table level will not be lowered more than three feet at the boundaries of the one-acre tracts, surface waters of lakes and impoundments will not be lowered more than one foot, and the potentiometric surface will not be lowered below sea level. Withdrawals from the wellfield will not induce salt water encroachment.
When utilizing computer modeling to predict the impacts from withdrawals, it is essential to understand the site-specific geology and aquifer characteristics of the area. After studying the literature on the area of the wellfield, examining well logs and geophysical logs and conducting a well inventory in a 5-mile area across the wellfield, Gardinier's hydrogeologlsts found the area to be nonisotroptc and calibrated their modeling to account for the changes in geology throughout the area. The area of 'he proposed wellfield was fond to contain a thick clay confining layer which allows less water to permeate it. Inasmuch as less water moves through the layers to recharge the aquifer, the cone depression created by withdrawals from the wellfield extends over a larger and deeper area. Utilizing a value for leakance (defined as the vertical permeability through which water flows from the upper aquifer through a confining layer into the lower aquifer) of 1 x 104. Gardinier's experts predict that the potentiometric surface drawdown at Lithla Springs when the wellfield is pumping 24 mgd for 30 days will be about one foot under normal conditions. During a drought, the drawdown in the Floridan aquifer at Lithia Springs could be as much as 18.9 feet. The effects would, of course, be greater during pumpage rates of
45 mgd. During drought conditions, and possibly also when the wellfield is operating at maximum withdrawal rates, Gardinier may well have difficulty pumping water from Lithia Springs in the amounts for which it is seeking a permit.
Various methodologies demonstrate that the potentiometric surface drawdown in the center of the proposed wellfield will be from 20 to 6G feet, depending upon the pumpage amounts and seasonal conditions. Such drawdown levels can interfere with existing wells in the area. Also, a lowering of the potentiometric surface could potentially lead to catastrophic collapse or subsidence in the area of the wellfield. The area is karstic in nature, with solution features such as sin);holes and springs present. Rapid ground collapses can occur in such areas due to a loss in the bearing strength of the unconsolidated material that fills the solution features. Such collapses have been associated with large withdrawals of water from pumping, thus creating extensive drawdowns, followed by a heavy rain. because of the particular geologic and aquifer characteristics of the wellfield area and the potential for interference with existing users, there should be a controlled maximum amount of water development in this area, along with observation wells and extensive monitoring of the various aquifer systems.
In order to justify an exception to the District's rule that withdrawals not lower the level of the potentiometric surface more than five feet, the Authority proposes a mitigation program which it utilizes in other wellfields operated by it. This after-the-fact mitigation program consists of receiving complaints, sending a field representative to conduct an on-site investigation to determine the nature and cause of the problem, and sending a letter to the complainant and to SWFWMD documenting the results of the investigation. If the .authority determines that its wellfield operation caused the problem, if it takes mitigative action, such as reimbursing the complainant, hiring a contractor to solve the problem, or refurbishing or replacing the complainant's well or pumping equipment. The Authority also proposes various alternative mitigative actions if the wellfield affects Gardinier's ability to withdraw a sufficient quantity of water from Lithia Springs. These include the construction of new wells at Lithia Springs or along Gardinier's transmission pipeline, lowering the intake system at the springs and supplying Gardinier with water from the wellfield on an emergency basis. These suggested alternatives have not been fully investigated with regard to the effect upon the springs and fail to take into account the economic repercussions to Gardinier should it be unable to supply fresh water for the plant's operation while the Authority is investigating the problem and/or implementing the solution.
The SWFWMD has proposed a before-the-fact mitigation plan for landowners living within one-half mile of each well site. This preventative mitigation plan would require the Authority to conduct a detailed water well inventory of all property owners located within one-half mile of the withdrawal point of each production well when the sites are finally selected. The Authority is to review each well's depth, casing size and depth, pump type and depth and the static water level, and then determine whether each well will be adversely affected with regard to its intended use. If so, the Authority is to commence its mitigative actions prior to or during construction of its production well. If an adverse effect is determined during testing of any production well, the Authority is to commence mitigative action prior to withdrawing water for public supply. The mitigative actions for impacted wells are to include well deepening, lowering or replacement of pumping facilities or whatever action is required to maintain an adequate water supply. The five-foot potentiometric surface drawdown contour extends beyond one-half mile during certain scenarios of pumping or seasonal conditions.
The .Authority has been operating Well 1 as a test well under a temporary CUP, and has received six complaints from private well owners in the vicinity regarding water levels. No corrective action has been taken with regard to these complaints.
With the exception of some phosphate mining cuts and small farm ponds, there are no significant lakes or other impoundments in the area of the proposed wellfield. It is anticipated that such water bodies will be affected by less than one foot by withdrawals from the wellfield. The greatest water table drawdown predicted is 2.8 feet at the center of the wellfield, where there are no open bodies of water. The area is culturally impacted now and is not ecologically sensitive. Vegetative species in the area are able to adapt to a wide range of soil moisture situations, and a less than one-foot reduction in the water table should not adversely or significantly affect vegetation in the area.
Operation of the proposed wellfield at the requested rates of withdrawal will have no effect upon Buckhorn Springs or the East Tampa Chemical Plant.
Intervenor Hebbard's private well is located between Well l in the proposed wellfield and Lithia Springs. He is concerned that the proposed wellfield will adversely affect land values in the area and the quantity and quality of his water withdrawals. He is also concerned with the potential for terrorist activity in a centralized water supply source and feels
that the location of the proposed wellfield will not benefit existing Florida residents.
The Lithia-Pinecrest Civic Association is not incorporated and has no membership list or bylaws. Its 47 years, uses the Alafia River for fishing and boating and is that the proposed wellfield will adversely affect his well and pumping facilities without adequate or timely mitigation and that the wellfield will remove the very resource for which the area is zoned: to wit: agicultural.
Intervenor A. H. Varnum resides in the area of the proposed wellfield and also operates his business, Central Maintenance and Welding, Inc, in that area. He is concerned that the wellfield will adversely affect his water supply without sufficient mitigation. He is further concerned about the social impact of permitting a wellfield in this area when the water withdrawn will not benefit the persons who reside there.
Intervenor I. A. Albritton was in attendance throughout the hearing. He was born in the area and now resides near Wel1
He has noticed odors, ground vibrations and decreasing water levels when Well 1 is pumping. He is concerned with dropping water table levels and the general condition of the land in the area.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In order to qualify for a permit for the consumptive use of water, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed use is a reasonable, beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water and is consistent with the public interest. Section 373.223, Florida Statutes. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the regulatory criteria set forth in Rule 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code. When two applicants comply with the above requirements, but the quantity of water is inadequate for them both or the applications are otherwise in conflict, SWFWND may approve or modify the applications in a manner which best serves the public interest. Section 373.233(l), Florida Statutes; Rule 40D-2.311, Florida Administrative Code
The conditions for issuance of a CUP are contained in Rule 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code. As pertinent to the four applications in this proceeding, the technical criteria read as follows:
"(2) Issuance of a permit will be denied if the withdrawal of water:
Will significantly induce salt water encroachment.
Will cause the water table to be located so that the lake stages or vegetation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant.
(3) The withdrawal of water:
From a stream or other watercourse must not reduce the rate of flow by more than five percent (5%) at the time and point of withdrawal.
Must not cause the level of the potentiometric surface under lands not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered more than five feet (5')
Must not cause the level of the water table under lands not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered more than three feet ( 3')
Must not cause the level of the surface of water in any lake or other impoundment to be lowered more than one foot (1') unless the lake or impoundment is wholly owned, leased. or otherwise controlled by the applicant.
Must not cause the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level."
Subsections (2)(a) through (c) do not apply to these proceedings because SWFWMD has not yet established the regulatory levels referenced in these rules. SWFWMD is authorized to grant exceptions to the above conditions if it finds that it is consistent with the public interest. Rule 40D-2.301(4). Also, consideration must be given to the lowest quality water which an applicant has the ability to use, as well as to the availability of such lower quality water. Rule 40D-2.301 (11).
With regard to Gardinier's application to renew its CUP for the salt water wells located at the East Tampa Chemical Plant, it is concluded that compliance with all relevant statutory and regulatory criteria has been demonstrated. Present data is insufficient to confirm whether Gardinler's salt water withdrawals over a period of sixty years have aided or abetted salt water encroachment in the area of the plant. Likewise, it is not possible to conclude that such withdrawals have lowered the water table so as to adversely and significantly affect lake stages and vegetation on lands outside the plant boundaries. In
any event, Gardinier's renewal of the use in reduced quantities should have no additional or a lessened effect upon salt water encroachment, lake stages and vegetation. Pumpage of the salt water wells requested will not violate the 5-3-1 requirements of Rule 40D-2.301(3)(b)(c) or (d). Subsection (3)(e) of that rule is not applicable since the potentiometrlc surface is already below sea level.
Use of the low quality salt water for cooling purposes in a chemical fertilizer plant is a reasonable, beneficial use, is consistent with the public interest and has not caused interference or harm to existing legal users of water in the area. Due to environmental concerns not due to Gardinier's use, that water should not be returned to the bay, after it is withdrawn and used for cooling purposes. For this reason, Gardinier has agreed and intends to cease its salt water withdrawals within a period of two years. Accordingly, the renewal permit should be for a term of only two years.
Gardinier's spring withdrawals will not induce salt water encroachment and have little or no impact upon the water table or vegetation in the area. Since the withdrawals are from groundwater, as opposed to withdrawals from a stream or other watercourse, Rule 40D-2.301(3)(a), pertaining to reductions in flow rates, is inapplicable. The potentiometric surface water table and surface water levels on lands not owned by Gardinier will not be lowered beyond the regulatory criteria by the spring withdrawals proposed at Lithia or Buckhorn Springs.
With one reservation, the amounts requested and the use intended in the two springs permits are reasonable and beneficial, are in the public interest and will not interfere with existing legal users of water in the area. Gardinier utilizes this water for both potable purpose "and to manufacture products vital to the agricultural industry and to munlcipalities which fluorinate their water supplies. No harm to the environment or degradation of water quality has been demonstrated despite the use of greater quantities of water from Buckhorn Springs for .40 years and from Lithia Sprlngs for 20 years. By harnessing a portion of the spring waters which might otherwise be lost to Tampa Bay, Gardinier has avoided the alternative of drilling additional wells into the Floridan aquifer for its fresh water needs.
The one reservation as to the reasonableness or beneficial nature of the use concerns Gardinier's practice of utilizing the pressure relief valve to dispose of withdrawn water during periods of low productivity at the plant. Such a wasteful withdrawal of water cannot be considered an economical or efficient use, and is thus not a reasonable, beneficial use and
should be prohibited. See Rule 40D-0.021(15), Florida Administrative Code. Gardinier has agreed to develop bad install an alternate pressure relief system to more efficiently utilize its spring withdrawals, and this should be made a condition for issuance of the renewal CUP.
It is technically possible for a plant such as that operated by Gardinier to utilize water lower in quality than spring water from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs. However, the feasibility of such utilization is dependent upon both availability and economic considerations. There is presently no source of reuse water available to Gardinier, nor is there a distribution system available to transport such water to the plant. Unless reuse water is feasible for all plant uses, including potable uses, Gardinier would be required to build a new distribution system within the plant. It might also need to redesign and replace its existing equipment to accommodate a use of water different in quality and temperature than the spring waters it has been using for some 40 years. Gardinier is currently and will continue to study the feasibility of reuse water for some of the plant needs. It should also study the future availability of spring waters, particularly with respect to the impact from the proposed regional wellfield. It cannot be concluded, however, at this time, that Gardinier has the ability to use water lower in quality than that withdrawn from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs.
The proposed south central regional wellfield is intended to replace the existing dispersed public water supply facilities and to be a new, centralized source of water supply for the area. At average annual withdrawals of 24,100,000 and and maximum daily withdrawals of 44,600,00Q gpd, operation of the wellfield will not induce salt water encroachment, will not reduce the water table level at the property boundaries by more than three feet, and will not significantly and adversely affect lake stages or vegetation in the area. Lakes and other impoundments in the area should not be lowered more than one foot. Neither Gardinier's salt water withdrawals nor its Buckhorn Springs withdrawals will be affected by the operation of the proposed regional wellfield.
However, withdrawals from the wellfield at the requested amounts will lower the potentiometric surface by more than five feet on property not owned or controlled by the applicant. This constitutes a violation of Rule 4OD-2~301(3)(b). Florida Administrative Code. An exception to compliance with this rule may only be granted for good cause and when it is consistent with the public interest. Rule 40D-2.301(4), Florida Administrative Code.
The drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer anticipated from operation of the wellfield, particularly during periods of heavy pumping and dry conditions, have a high likelihood of causing interference with other existing legal users in the area, including private residents, businesses and Gardinier at Lithia Springs. Such interference would only be in the public interest if an adequate and timely policy of mitigation were adapted, implemented and enforced.
While the Authority's existing mitigation policy may work well at its other wellfields operated on large contiguous tracts of land owned by it, it is not sufficient to Justify an exception from the regulatory criterion in this instance. Here, the Authority and County intend to purchase only small, one-acre tracts for each well. The impacts from the withdrawals w111 extend to lands not owned or controlled by the Authority and will affect the private consumption and agricultural interests of individuals not even served by the water withdrawn. After-the- fact mitigation to only those the Authority deems entitled to mitigation is not sufficient.
Prior to any construction in the proposed wellfield, the Authority end the County should be required to set forth in writing an adequate preventative mitigation policy and this policy should be incorporated as a permit condition. The policy should be developed in conjunction with the Authority's monitoring plan and the selection of well sites based upon the monitoring results. The extensive and detailed well inventory suggested by SWFWMD should be implemented, only the area of the inventory should include all private wells located within the area encompassed by the greater than five-foot drawdown contour. An independent consultant should review the inventory and the Authority's determination of impact. Mitigative measures should be undertaken prior to construction and/or withdrawals of water for public supply, as suggested by the SWFWMD. With regard to Gardinier's withdrawals at Lithia Springs, the Authority's written mitigation policy should include a joint monitoring program with Gardinier as to the effect of withdrawals on the Spring and a means of immediately supplying Gardinier with an adequate supply of water should the Lithia Spring withdrawals be affected by the operation of the wellfield. The Authority should agree that in selecting its well sites, no wells will be placed closer to Lithia Springs than Wells 1 and 2 and that those wells will be utilized only as standby wells in emergency conditions.
The written mitigation plan and/or the monitoring plan should likewise provide for a staged development of wells and withdrawa1 amounts, with sufficient monitoring to occur before the next well or increased amount comes on line. The Authority should share its monitoring results with the District and consult
with and receive approval from the District prior to proceeding with withdrawals exceeding 15 million gallons per day. These requirements for monitoring and before-the-fact mitigation are feasible in light of the fact that a public water supply system, though not totally adequate, currently exists to serve the needs of the public. At each stage of development of the wellfield, the Authority can retire those existing water production facilities no longer needed, serve the former users from the wellfield and, at the same time, assure that existing legal users in the vicinity of the wellfield are not adversely affected.
Use of the water withdrawn from the proposed regional wellfield in the amounts requested for public water supply is a reasonable, beneficial use. The interest of the public is wel1 served by such withdrawals, so long as adequate planning, monitoring and mitigative efforts occur. While withdrawals in the requested amounts could interfere with existing legal users of water in the vicinity of the wellfield, a prudent production schedule, proper spacing of well sites, an extensive monitoring be undertaken prior to contruction an/or withdrawals of water for public suppy, as suggensted by the SWFWMD. With regard to Gardinier's withdrawals at Lithia Springs, the Authority's written mitigation policy should include a joint monitoring program with Gardinier as to the effect of withdrawals on the Spring and a means of immediately supplying Gardinier with an adequate supply of water should the Lithia Spring withdrawals be affected by the operation of the wellfield. The Authority should agree that in selecting its well sites, no wells will be placed closer to Lithia Springs than Wells 1 and 2 and that those wells will be utilized only as standby wells in emergency conditions.
Use of the water withdrawn from the proposed regional wellfield in the amounts requested for public water supply is a reasonable, beneficial use. The interest of the public is well served by such withdrawals, so long as adequate planning, monitoring and mitigative efforts occur. While withdrawals in the requested amounts could interfere with existing legal users of water in the vicinity of the wellfield, a prudent production schedule, proper spacing of well sites, an extensive monitoring program,. and the conduct of a predevelopment inventory and mitigation effort by the Authority should prevent such interference prior to the operation of the wellfield.
The four CUP applications were reviewed in a consolidated proceeding due to the competing interests between withdrawals from the wellfield and Lithia Springs. It is concluded that, if, and only if, the Authority adopts and implements an adequate hydrologic monitoring and mitigation program, both CUP applications may be approved.
Finally, it is concluded that the intervenors George M. Hebberd, C. W. Davis, I. A. Albritton, A. H. Varnum, Central Maintenance and welding, Inc., and Roger Dapson, as legal users of water and residents of the area of the proposed wellfield, have adequately demonstrated that their substantial interests may be affected by the outcome of this proceeding. As such, they have standing to intervene. The Lithia Pinecrest Civic Association has failed to establish the necessary requirements for standing, Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982) and intervenors Walter Plaag and John Purvis failed to present any evidence regarding their substantial interests in this proceeding. Accordingly, the latter three petitions to intervene are dismissed.
Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that:
CUP Number 7C01530 be ISSUED to Cardinier for its salt water wells at the East Tampa Chemical Plant for a period of two years an average annual and maximum daily withdrawal rates of 31,968,000 gallons per day:
CUP Number 7601532 be ISSUED to Gardinier for spring withdrawals from Buckhorn Springs for a period of six years at average annual and maximum daily withdrawal rates of 1,.40,000 gallons per day, with the condition that total discharge from the spring pool be recorded on a daily basis and reported to the SWFWMD on a monthly basis, and that continuous recording gages be placed to monitor spring flow, spring height and pumpage.
CUP Number 7601533 be ISSUED to Gardinier for spring and groundwater withdrawals from Lithia Springs for a period of six years at an average annual withdrawal rate of 5,822,000 gallons per day and a maximum combined withdrawal rate not to exceed 5,904,000 gallons during a single day, with the following conditions:
that Gardinier cease utilizing its existing pressure relief system and develop an alternate system for withdrawing sprirlg water only in the amounts actually required, and
that total discharge from the spring pool be recorded on a daily basis and reported to the SWFWMD on a monthly basis, and that continuous recording gages be placed
to monitor spring flow, spring height and pumpage; and
CUP Number 204352 be ISSUED to the West Coast Regional water Supply Authority and Hillsborough County for a period of six years, such permit to consolidate prior permits for approximately 75 existing wells used for public water supply and to construct and operate a regional wellfield containing 17 production wells, with total combined average withdrawal rates of
24 ,100, 000 gallons per day and a total maximum combined withdrawal rate not to exceed 44,600,000 gallons during a single day, with the following conditions, as amplified in the above conclusions of law:
that pre-development hydrologic conditions at the wellfield, particularly at each well site, continue to be monitored by the Authority;
that a report be submitted to the SWFWMD summarizing the planned schedule for retiring each of the existing wells and the schedule for the phased production of water from each wellfield well;
that a written mitigation policy be submitted to the SWFWMD and incorporated as a condition of the permit, said policy to contain adequate measures to eliminate interference without interruption of presently existing legal uses, as suggested by the SWFWMD and including those users who will be affected by a potentiometric surface level drawdown exceeding five feet and Galdinier's withdrawals from Lithia Springs; and
that, once production at the wellfield reaches a level of 15,000,000 gallons per day, the Authority will notify the SWFWMD staff and engage in a joint review of the hydrologic monitoring results of pumpage at that .ate and a joint determination of the future pumping scenario.
The conditions recommended herein are intended to be inclusive only, and not exclusive of other customary permit terms and conditions nor of those conditions suggested by the SWFWMD in its proposed CUPs Numbers 201530, 201532, 201533 and 204352.
Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE D. TREMOR
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904 ) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1986.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Edward M. Chew, Esquire
de la Parte, Gilbert & Gramovot, P.A.
705 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 3360-
Roger W. Sims, Esquire
Julia Sullivan Waters, Esquire Holland & Knight
P. O. Drawer BW Lakeland, Florida 33802
and
600 N. Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602
J. Edward Curren, Esqulre Southwest Florida Water
Management District 2379 Broad Street
Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712
L. M. Blain, Esquire Charles G. Stephen Esquire Anita C. Brannon, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A.
202 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602
George M. Hebbard, Jr. Route 3, Box 430
Lithla, Florida 33547
Gary W. Kuhl, Executive Director
Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street
Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 11, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 03, 1986 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 11, 1986 | Recommended Order | Permits issued, under certain conditions, where the existing system has inadequate storage capacity and the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use is a reasonable, beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use. |
