STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ) AUTHORITY, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, ) and PINELLAS COUNTY, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NOS. 95-1520
) 95-1521, 95-1522,
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER ) 95-1523, 95-1525,
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ) 95-1526, 95-1527,
) and 95-1528
Respondent, )
)
and )
)
PASCO COUNTY and )
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A formal administrative hearing in this case was held in Clearwater, Florida, before William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, on July 22-26, July 29-August 2, August 5-9, August 12-16, September
, September 16-20 and September 23-24, 1996.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner West Coast Regional Water Supply
Authority: Donald D. Conn, Esquire West Coast Regional Water
Supply Authority
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
Clearwater, Florida 34621
For Petitioner City of
John T. Allen, Esquire Post Office Box 14332
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733-4332
Karen E. Maller, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33711
St. Petersburg: Douglas Manson, Esquire
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1190 Tampa, Florida 33601
Daniel P. Fernandez, Esquire Laura A. Olson, Esquire
3820 Northdale Boulevard, Suite 312B Tampa, Florida 33624
Kim Streeter, Esquire Post Office Box 2842
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
For Petitioner Pinellas
County: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Michael A. Skelton, Esquire
Post Office Box 2350 Tampa, Florida 33601-2775
For Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management
District: James A Robinson, Esquire Richard Tschantz, Esquire Southwest Florida Water
Management District 2379 Broad Street
Brooksville, Florida 34609
John W. Wilcox, Esquire Derek Spillman, Esquire
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1500 Post Office Box 3273
Tampa, Florida 33601
E. Gary Early, Esquire
216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Stanley J. Niego, Esquire Prosperity Bank Building
100 Southpark Boulevard, Suite 405
St. Augustine, Florida 32086
For Intervenor
Hillsborough County: H. Ray Allen, Esquire
David Forziano, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
For Intervenor Pasco
County: Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire 5709 Tidalwave Drive
New Port Richey, Florida 34652 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in the case is whether applications filed for water use permits for the South Pasco, Section 21, Cosme-Odessa and Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfields meet the requirements set forth in Section 373.223(1), Florida Statutes and Rule 40D-2.301(1), Florida Administrative Code, governing issuance of water use permits, and accordingly, whether the water use permits should be granted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Additionally, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority asserts that a default permit for the Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield should be granted based on the alleged failure of the Southwest Florida Water Management District to take action on the permit application pursuant to the requirements of Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On August 18, 1992 the City of St. Petersburg filed an application to renew the existing water use permit for the South Pasco wellfield. Also on August 18, 1992, the West Coast
Regional Water Supply Authority and the City of St. Petersburg
filed applications to renew existing water use permits for the Section 21 and Cosme-Odessa wellfields.
On May 19, 1994, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority filed an application to renew an existing water use permit for the Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield.
On February 7, 1995, the Southwest Florida Water Management District issued a Notice of Proposed Agency Action indicating that the District proposed to grant the permits for a one year period. The Petitioners challenged the proposed agency action and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Hillsborough and Pasco Counties were granted leave to intervene on behalf of the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
The cases were consolidated and the hearing was scheduled to begin in December, 1995. On December 19, 1995, the District amended its proposed action to provide for ten year permits with the addition of conditions including "Environmental Protection Standards." Upon the stipulated request of the parties, the matter was continued. The case was rescheduled to commence in July, 1996.
Immediately prior to commencement of the hearing, the District again revised its proposed action, denying the permit applications.
At the hearing, the parties presented the testimony of
numerous witnesses and hundreds of exhibits. Demonstrative exhibits were admitted as Hearing Officer exhibits.
The transcript of the hearing was filed in November 1996.
In December 1996, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority filed its proposed recommended order. Joint proposed orders were filed by the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County, and by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hillsborough and Pasco Counties.
Motions for Official Recognition were filed by Pinellas and Pasco Counties. Insofar as the material cited within the motions is relevant to this proceeding, the motions are granted pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.020, Florida Administrative Code.
Pinellas County filed a First Motion to Tax Attorney's Fees, Expert Fees and Costs Against the District Concerning EPS Conditions and Violation of Stipulation. In the motion, Pinellas asserts that it is entitled to an award of fees and costs related to the attempt by the District to impose "Environmental Protection Standards" (EPS) on the permits in December 1995, and the District's abandonment of the effort just prior to commencement of the hearing in July 1996.
In July 1996, the District filed a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction to permit revision of its proposed action. The motion was granted for the sole purpose of revising the proposed action in accordance with the motion. The District revised the
agency action to proposed denial of the four permit applications at issue in this proceeding.
Pinellas and St. Petersburg assert that the imposition of the EPS was to obtain a continuance of the December hearing, and that they are entitled to an award of fees under the provisions of Section 120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that the District's proposed imposition of EPS on the permits at issue in this proceeding was an attempt to obtain a continuance of the proceeding or for any improper purpose. The motion is denied.
Pinellas and St. Petersburg also assert that their agreement to continue the hearing was based on the District's stipulation that it would not alter its position after the December 1995 amended agency action. The District's change in position is insufficient to support an award of fees.
Subsequent to the administrative hearing conducted in this matter, a relevant portion of the District's administrative rules were determined to be invalid by Final Order in Charlotte County, et. al. v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, et. al., DOAH Case No. 94-5742RP. The Final Order, entered March 26, 1997, is on appeal. For purposes of this Recommended Order, the rules of the District remain valid.
After the issuance of a Final Order in DOAH Case No. 94- 5742RP, Pinellas filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority citing certain sections of the Final Order which held that various rules
of the District were invalid. The District filed a response and moved to strike the Pinellas notice as premature. Pinellas filed a response to the District's motion and also filed a Second Motion for an award of fees and costs. Upon review of Pinellas' Second Motion for Fees, the motion is denied. The District's Motion to Strike is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority) is authorized and obligated to acquire water and water rights, store and transport water, and deliver and sell water to its member governments for public use.
The Authority exists pursuant to Sections 163.01 and 373.1962, Florida Statutes, and an interlocal agreement executed October 25, 1974, by the "member governments" which include the Cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa, and Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties.
The City of St. Petersburg is a member government of the Authority. St. Petersburg owns and operates a water utility system which receives water from the facilities at issue in this proceeding.
Pinellas County (Pinellas) is a member government of the Authority. Under conditions experienced during the rupture of defective pipelines, Pinellas' water utility received water from the facilities at issue in this proceeding. The defective pipeline is still in use and Pinellas may again require water
from these wellfields if another rupture occurs.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) is charged with the regulation of consumptive water use in west-central Florida, including all areas relevant to this proceeding. The District operates pursuant to the authority of Section 373.069, Florida Statutes.
Hillsborough County (Hillsborough) is a member government of the Authority. Hillsborough owns and operates a water utility system which receives water from the facilities at issue in this proceeding.
Pasco County is a member government of the Authority but does not receive water from the facilities at issue in this proceeding. The South Pasco wellfield is located within the boundaries of Pasco County.
All parties have standing to participate in this proceeding.
THE WELLFIELDS
The South Pasco wellfield is located in southern Pasco County and is owned and operated by St. Petersburg.
The South Pasco wellfield has been operating since 1973. Until 1977, the South Pasco wellfield produced approximately 15 million gallons per day (mgd) of water.
The South Pasco wellfield was first permitted by the District in 1978. The permit was renewed in 1982.
The current permit allows an annual average daily
withdrawal rate of 16.9 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 24 mgd. The permit also requires that withdrawals from this field be balanced with the withdrawal levels of the Section 21 and Cosme- Odessa wellfields.
The South Pasco wellfield is currently providing approximately 12 mgd to the Authority.
St. Petersburg applied to renew the South Pasco permit on August 18, 1992. The application to renew the South Pasco wellfield was deemed complete by the District on April 28, 1994.
No increase in the South Pasco wellfield maximum water withdrawal rate is being sought by the Petitioners.
The Section 21 wellfield is located in northwest Hillsborough County. The Section 21 field is owned by St. Petersburg and jointly operated by the Authority and St. Petersburg.
The Section 21 field has been operating since 1963. From the initiation of pumping through 1970, withdrawals varied between 10 and 18 mgd.
The Section 21 wellfield was initially permitted by the District in 1976. The 1976 permit authorized the withdrawal of an annual average rate of 18 mgd and a maximum daily withdrawal rate of 22 mgd.
The Section 21 wellfield currently operates under a permit issued in 1984. The permit effectively authorizes withdrawal of an annual average daily rate of 12 mgd and a
maximum daily withdrawal rate of 22 mgd. The face value of the permit originally authorized an additional 1 mgd in the event that the developing Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield could not produce sufficient capacity.
The Section 21 wellfield currently provides approximately 10 mgd to the Authority.
The Authority and St. Petersburg applied to renew the Section 21 permit on August 18, 1992. The applications to renew the Section 21 permit were deemed complete by the District on April 28, 1994.
No increase in the Section 21 wellfield maximum water withdrawal rate is sought by the Petitioners.
The Cosme-Odessa (Cosme) wellfield is located in northwest Hillsborough County, and like the Section 21 field is owned by St. Petersburg and jointly operated by the Authority and St. Petersburg.
The Cosme wellfield has been operating since the early 1930's. At various times withdrawal rates at the Cosme field have neared 20 mgd.
The Cosme wellfield was initially permitted by the District in 1976. The 1976 permit authorized the annual average daily withdrawal of 19 mgd and a maximum daily withdrawal of 22 mgd.
The Cosme wellfield currently operates under a permit issued in 1984. The current permit authorizes an annual average daily withdrawal of up to 12 mgd and a maximum daily withdrawal of 22 mgd The face value of the permit originally authorized an additional 1 mgd in the event that the developing Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield could not produce sufficient capacity.
The Cosme wellfield currently provides approximately 10 mgd to the Authority.
The Authority and St. Petersburg applied to renew the Cosme permit on August 18, 1992. The applications to renew the Cosme permit were deemed complete by the District on April 28,
1994.
No increase in the Cosme wellfield maximum water withdrawal rate is sought by the Petitioners.
The Northwest Regional Hillsborough wellfield (NWRHWF) is comprised of a vaguely linear series of wells located in northwest Hillsborough County and owned by the Authority. There is no actual Northwest Hillsborough "wellfield."
The NWRHWF was initially permitted in 1984 for 8.8 mgd annual daily average and 18.4 maximum daily rate.
The NWRHWF began production in the mid-1980's at a rate of approximately 8 mgd. The field currently produces close to
8.8 mgd, the maximum permitted withdrawal.
The Authority applied to renew the NWHRWF permit May 19, 1994.
Also included within the "wellfield" by the current permit application are two wells owned by Hillsborough County and operated by the Authority. The two wells are located at the Manors at Crystal Lake subdivision. The application for the Manors permit renewal seeks to combine the existing Manors permit with the NWRHWF and to allow the Authority to accept responsibility for the collection of wells.
The Manors at Crystal Lake wellfield provide about .2 mgd to a residential subdivision. They are not in the vicinity of the NWRHWF. There are no common withdrawal or distribution facilities shared by the Manors at Crystal Lake wells and the NWHRWF.
Hillsborough apparently intended to shed responsibility for the Manors wells and did not intend to be a co-permittee for either the Manors wells or the NWHRWF.
Hillsborough specifically notified the District that the Authority would assume responsibility for the permitting of the Manors wells and that Hillsborough was withdrawing from the application process.
Based on the Hillsborough representation, the District combined the Manors and the NWHRWF applications for processing and review.
The 9 mgd withdrawal rate sought by the Authority in the renewal permit application is the sum of the existing permitted withdrawals at the combined wellfields and does not constitute an increase in existing withdrawal rates.
The combined application was deemed complete by the District on June 21, 1994.
The permit renewal applications at issue in this proceeding were timely filed in accordance with applicable deadlines.
The evidence establishes that it takes from seven to ten years to bring new water supply facilities from the planning stage to operation. Otherwise stated, if the wellfields in these cases were to be closed, it would take up to ten years to bring new wellfields online.
Public water supply permits issued by the District are
typically valid for a period of ten years.
On the subject permit applications, the Petitioners seek to have 20 year permits issued. There is no evidence supporting an extension of the District's standard ten year permit term.
PREVIOUS WATER USE PERMITTING
Prior to 1972, water withdrawals from the subject wellfields were unregulated.
Beginning in 1972, the District established "regulatory levels" for the Cosme, Section 21 and South Pasco wellfields. Regulatory levels are measurements of the water pressure in the Floridan aquifer. As the pressure falls below the regulatory minimum, water withdrawals are restricted. Additional requirements were intended to balance the withdrawals from the three wellfields, an attempt to distribute the effects of large quantity water withdrawals on the water resources of the area.
Although in the current permit application, the Petitioners originally sought to have regulatory levels established by the District removed from the renewal permits, the Petitioners have since abandoned the position and now suggest that the existing permits should be renewed with applicable regulatory levels intact.
Beginning in 1975, the District initiated a permitting program. The Petitioners sought permits for the South Pasco, Section 21, and Cosme wellfields.
Prior to 1989, District rules provided for the award of
exemptions to permittees from meeting certain environmental criteria where such exemptions were "consistent with the public interest." The effect of the "public interest" exemptions was to permit withdrawal of water at rates which would otherwise have been prohibited and to allow water withdrawals to lower the Floridan aquifer.
In 1975, the District issued the Section 21 and Cosme permits, and granted the "public interest" exemptions to the permittees, allowing water withdrawals which would otherwise not have met environmental permitting requirements. The permits were valid through the end of 1980.
The initial South Pasco permit, issued in 1978, anticipated that withdrawals from the wellfield would be reduced when water from the Cypress Creek wellfield became available. The permit was valid through the end of 1980.
In 1982, the South Pasco wellfield received a permit valid to September 1992. In 1984, the Section 21 and Cosme wellfields received permits valid to September 1992. The NWHRWF received its initial permit valid to September 1987. In all four permits, the District granted "public interest" exemptions to the permittees from meeting certain environmental criteria. The effect of the exemptions was to allow the water withdrawals at rates which would otherwise have been prohibited and which lowered the level of the Floridan aquifer.
The District asserts that the Authority was advised
during the early 1980's permitting process that alternative water resources needed to be developed to provide for future demand and allow for rotational capacity in the subject wellfields. The
District asserts that little progress has been made in addressing these issues.
To the extent the Authority was directed in prior and somewhat vague permit conditions to consider alternative sources, the evidence establishes that the Authority has complied with the minimal directives provided by the District.
NORTHERN TAMPA BAY AREA HYDROGEOLOGY
In the mid 1980's, the District declared the area of Northern Tampa Bay , including the subject wellfields, to be an "area of special concern" regarding the condition of local water resources.
In 1987, the District undertook a water resource assessment project to examine local water resources. In 1989, based on preliminary information from the project (the "WRAP"), the District identified the subject wellfield area as the "Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area" in recognition of environmental stress identified by the District.
After rule changes in 1989, the District eliminated the rule provision which provided for the granting of exemptions to environmental requirements. The amended rules required a permittee to assume responsibility for both on-site and off-site impacts related to the water withdrawal. The District also began to consider the "cumulative" impacts of withdrawals.
At about the same time as the 1989 rule changes became effective, the District adopted the "Basis of Review" which
provides for procedures and additional information related to water use permit review.
In 1992, the WRAP study area was expanded and became identified as the "Northern Tampa Bay Water Resource Assessment Project" (NTBWRAP). The NTBWRAP is the District's most recent attempt at determining the condition of the water resources in the area of the subject wellfields.
The geology of the wellfields and of most of the surrounding area is essentially a three-layer structure. The top layer is the surficial aquifer. The bottom layer is the Floridan aquifer. Separating the two is a "confining" layer.
An "aquifer" is a geological formation in which water is stored and from which water may be obtained via the drilling of wells. The movement of water through geological materials is measured as "hydraulic conductivity."
The surficial aquifer is primarily made of sandy, fine- grained material. The level of water found in the surficial aquifer is what is commonly described as the "water table." Generally, the level of water found in wetlands and lakes is a rough approximation of the surficial aquifer water table.
The Floridan aquifer is a porous limestone formation with visible and sometimes sizable cavities and channels. The water of the Floridan aquifer permeates the limestone and flows within the limestone cavities and channels.
The cavities and channels in the limestone are referred
to as "karst" features, as are sinkholes, which result from the collapse of cavities in the limestone.
The subject wellfields withdraw water directly from the Floridan aquifer.
The confining layer between the aquifers is primarily made of clay. The impermeability and thickness of the clay deters the movement of water between the surficial and the Florida aquifers. The potential for movement of water between the aquifers is known as "leakage."
The thickness of the confining layer in the area of the subject wellfields varies considerably. In some areas, there may be an essentially intact confinement and little or no leakage.
In other areas, the confining layer is thin or nonexistent, and substantial leakage occurs.
For example, the formations known as "sinkholes" are generally areas of collapsed Floridan aquifer limestone formations where the confining layer can be completely breached, at least until the sinkhole fills with other material and leakage is reduced.
The level to which water will rise in a well drilled to the Floridan aquifer is known as the "potentiometric level." The water level identified through multiple Floridan aquifer wells is described as the "potentiometric surface." The potentiometric surface essentially measures the water pressure of the Floridan aquifer and can vary depending on factors including water
withdrawals from the aquifer.
The difference between the potentiometric level of the Floridan aquifer and the water table level of the surficial aquifer is referred to as "head difference."
When the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer is higher than the water table of the surficial aquifer, water can flow through a breached confining layer to the surface and appear as what is commonly called an "artesian well" or "spring."
Where the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer is lower than the water table of the surficial aquifer, surficial water can move through a leaky confining layer to the Floridan aquifer in a process known as "recharge."
Water within the Floridan aquifer can move horizontally from an area of higher potentiometric surface towards an area of low potentiometric surface, but such movement is very slow and can take many, many years.
Almost all of the Floridan aquifer recharge occurs through precipitation in areas where karst features are present and where the level of the surficial water table exceeds the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer, thus permitting the precipitation to defuse into the Floridan system.
The evidence establishes that the area of the wellfields at issue in this proceeding is generally characterized as one of a leaky confinement layer with substantial karst features. This finding is based on the credited testimony of the
Respondents' expert witnesses, on the results of ground penetrating radar tests, measurements at nested well sites, and historical observation. Additional data related to aquifer withdrawal levels and nearby well measurements further support this finding.
Ground penetrating radar tests are useful in measuring the existence of karst features below ground and under water bodies. To the extent that such tests have been performed in the area of the South Pasco, Cosme-Odessa, and Section 21 wellfields, the results indicate that karst features are prevalent and indicative of a leaky confining layer between the aquifers.
"Nested" wells are paired wells, one into the surficial aquifer and the other into the Floridan, which are located within close proximity to each other. Concurrent measurements of water level fluctuations can indicate a connection between the aquifers. Such measurements within the vicinity of these wellfields indicate the existence of a poor confinement between the aquifers.
WELLFIELD IMPACTS ON POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
The wells at issue in this proceeding withdraw water directly from the Floridan aquifer. The water withdrawals result in a lowering of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer.
The reduction of potentiometric surface by water withdrawal is referred to as "drawdown." The greatest drawdown
occurs at the site of the well and becomes reduced with distance, resulting in a "cone-shaped" impact centered around the withdrawal area. The impact is referred to as a "cone of depression" in the water level.
Drawdown impact can be influenced by the location of wells, the quantity and speed of withdrawal, precipitation, and the movement of water through the aquifer ("transmissivity") and between the aquifers ("leakage.")
The "cone of depression" extends outward from the withdrawal point until the effects of the withdrawal are balanced by surficial recharge and inflow from the Floridan.
Drawdown impacts are estimated by the use of groundwater flow models. The models generate contour lines which approximate the extent of drawdown related to specific water withdrawals. A drawdown contour "map" is generated by application of withdrawal projections to the model. The resulting map indicates the anticipated impact of water withdrawals.
As mathematical estimates, drawdown models may not accurately measure impacts of water withdrawals on aquifers, however, they provide a useful tool to direct further observation and can be corroborated by appropriate actual measurements.
The primary cause of the Floridan aquifer drawdown in the vicinity of the subject wellfields is the withdrawal of water by the Petitioners in accordance with water use permits issued by the District. This finding is based on the credited testimony of the Respondents' expert witnesses, on the results of aquifer performance tests and on review of monitoring well hydrographs. Additional support for this finding is provided by the groundwater flow model data analysis offered by the District.
According to the District groundflow modeling, the drawdown at the South Pasco wellfield is from nine to twelve feet at the wellfield boundary, from four to seven feet at a distance
of one mile from the boundary, and from three to five feet at a distance of two miles from the boundary.
According to the District groundflow modeling, the drawdown at the Section 21 wellfield is from six to ten feet at the wellfield boundary, from four to seven feet at a distance of one mile from the boundary, and from two to five feet at a distance of two miles from the boundary.
According to the District groundflow modeling, the drawdown at the Cosme-Odessa wellfield is from four to five feet at the wellfield boundary, from two to three feet at a distance of about a mile or so from the boundary, and from one to two feet at a distance of two and a half miles from the boundary.
According to the District groundflow modeling, the drawdown at the NWHRWF is from three to four feet at the linear "wellfield" approximate boundary, from two to three feet at a distance of one mile from the boundary, and from one to two feet at a distance of two miles from the boundary.
Floridan aquifer recharge in the vicinity of the subject wellfields occurs by surficial water flow through the porous confining layer.
WELLFIELD IMPACTS ON SURFICIAL AQUIFER, LAKES AND WETLANDS
The drawdown of the Floridan aquifer results in a lowering of the surficial water table as water leaks through the marginal confining layer and into the Floridan. The lowering of the surficial water table results in a lowering of area lakes and
wetlands.
The process by which water from the surficial aquifer leaks into the Floridan aquifer is known as "induced recharge." Induced recharge occurs where the head difference between the aquifers is reduced by Floridan aquifer withdrawals to the point at which surficial water will leak down through the confining layer and into the Floridan aquifer system.
While other factors including reduced rainfall and increased evapotranspiration can result in lowered lake and wetland water levels, the evidence in this case establishes that the primary cause of lowered lake and wetlands water levels in the vicinity of the subject wellfields is the withdrawal of water at the wellfields resulting in induced recharge from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan aquifer.
The evidence further establishes that the withdrawal of Floridan aquifer water in the area of the subject wellfields has resulted in dramatically increased fluctuations in the water levels of area lakes and wetlands.
Normal "day-to-day" fluctuations in local lake water levels (called "amplitude") have been greatly increased by the groundwater withdrawals. Historical data, to the extent it exists, indicates that the current lake water in the area of the wellfields fluctuates within wider ranges, and at lower levels, than reflected by prepumping data. This finding is based upon the credited testimony of the Respondents' expert witnesses and
on a review of historical hydrological data admitted into the record at hearing.
Although the area has experienced an abnormal period of reduced precipitation, the impact of the wellfield withdrawals has exacerbated the water level fluctuations which could otherwise be attributed to a lack of rainfall.
Surficial water table reductions related to induced recharge occur over an extended period of time. The quantity of water generally contained in the surficial aquifer tends to obscure the immediate impact of Floridan aquifer withdrawal, and accordingly, aquifer performance tests are generally poor measurements of the impact of Floridan aquifer withdrawals on the surficial aquifer, but review of historical data clearly indicates the impact.
The gradual reduction in the surficial aquifer water table has resulted in a corresponding reduction of water levels in lakes and wetlands.
Although each lake and wetland has different hydrogeologic features, and some are more impacted by groundwater withdrawal than are others, the evidence clearly establishes that the majority of lakes and wetlands in the area of the subject wellfields are hydrologically connected to the Floridan aquifer via the connection of the surficial aquifer to the Floridan, and that the lowering of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer has resulted in lowering of the surficial water table and
of lake and wetland water levels.
About nine percent of the land area within 100 square miles of the South Pasco, Cosme and Section 21 wellfields is covered with lakes.
Analysis of data related to lake levels at Lake Rogers on the Cosme wellfield and Starvation Lake on the Section 21 wellfield show substantial average lake level declines clearly
related to the groundwater withdrawal occurring in the wellfields.
Lake Rogers has declined from an average level in 1930 of 45 feet (prior to the start of withdrawals) to a level of 30 feet in 1995. The evidence establishes that the lake level decline is the result of continued groundwater withdrawal. In fact, despite a cumulative rainfall deficit during the early 1960s, the water levels around the Cosme wellfield increased during a period of time during which water withdrawal quantities were being reduced.
Starvation Lake has declined from an early 1960s average of 53 feet to 46 feet in about 1995. During a period when pumping from Section 21 was at greater quantities than now, Starvation Lake declined to about 42 feet. The evidence establishes that the lake level decline is the result of continued groundwater withdrawal.
During the period from late 1991 to mid 1992, the level of Starvation Lake declined by about 37 inches. An analysis of the area precipitation/evapotranspiration indicates that almost 14.4 inches of the decline are attributable to induced recharge from the lake to the aquifer.
As to the South Pasco wellfield, the depth to the water table was measured in the mid 70's (after the beginning of pumping from the wellfield) at approximately five feet at the wellfield center, and three feet near the wellfield boundaries.
However, one mile north of the wellfield, the depth to the water table was approximately one-tenth of a foot.
Camp Lake, located immediately east of the South Pasco wellfield, has shown a decline from a 1970 level of 63 feet to a 1995 level of 57 feet, a decline which corresponds to pumping activity and the related decline in the Floridan aquifer.
Water is the driving force in wetlands ecosystems. The duration of water inundation in a wetland is known as the "hydroperiod." A decline in water table levels results in a reduction of wetland hydroperiod. Water storage, wildlife viability and nutrient cycling are water dependent wetland functions which can be negatively affected by a reduction in hydroperiod.
Other impacts of reduced wetland hydroperiods include loss of hydric soils, wetland-dependent species declines, replacement of wetland species by upland species including "exotics," tree loss, and an increased incidence of fire.
Wetland water inundation or saturation results in the formation of hydric soils by the accumulation of "peaty" organic material at a rate of about one millimeter annually. The lack of oxygen in an inundated or saturated state allows for the accumulation of material at a very slow rate of decomposition.
The peaty deposits in the wetlands near the subject wellfields indicate that these wetlands have existed for at least a thousand years.
Normal drought conditions will result in some loss of hydric soil. The reduction of the wetland hydroperiod related to groundwater withdrawals near the impacted wetlands provides an increased opportunity for decomposition of the hydric soils.
Such decomposition, called "burning" or "oxidation" results in drying and destruction of the peat. As the peat soil dries, its volume is reduced; as the volume declines, the soil subsides.
Substantial tree loss is a visible indication that serious soil subsidence has occurred as the soil which formerly supported the tree with nutrients and physical support declines.
Wetland plants are those which thrive in the normal wetland environment. Variations in wetland hydroperiod can result in substantial alteration to the wetland community of species. As the wetland hydroperiod is reduced, the growth of "invasion" species such as Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper increased, another indicator of a stressed wetland system.
Cypress wetlands are utilized by a number of endangered or threatened species, including the wood stork and the indigo snake, and by various wading birds.
As the wetland hydroperiod is reduced, the ability of wetland dependent species to utilize the wetland is similarly reduced. Eventually, the loss of wetlands results in lost breeding grounds, nesting areas and roosts, and eventually the complete loss of the habitat for wetland-dependent species.
An increased incidence of serious and destructive fire
is another result of decreased hydroperiod and hydric soil alteration.
Under normal conditions, fire in cypress wetlands rarely occurs. There may be small fires every few years and a "serious" fire every few hundred years. In normal conditions,
fire will burn through vegetation, but inundated or saturated peat soils do not suffer severe fire damage.
In an area of reduced hydroperiod, fires can burn through dry soils and declining vegetation, resulting in extensive damage and additional soil loss.
About 21 percent of the land area within 100 square miles of the South Pasco, Cosme and Section 21 wellfields is covered with wetlands. Of the 100 square mile area, wetlands make up 35 percent of the land around the Section 21 field, about
15 percent of the land around the Cosme field and 55 percent of the land around the South Pasco field.
About 1,500 acres of wetlands are within a one mile radius of the Section 21 wellfield. About 2,000 acres of wetlands are within a one mile radius of the Cosme wellfield. About 1,600 acres of wetlands are within a one mile radius of the South Pasco wellfield.
In the area of the subject wellfields, wetlands have been and continued to be impacted by reduced water levels. The conditions existing in the wellfield-area wetlands include soil oxidation and subsidence, increased invasion by "exotic" species, increased incidence of fire, tree loss, and loss of habitat for wetland dependent species.
The primary cause of reduced water levels in the wetlands is the lowering of the surficial aquifer caused by water withdrawals at the subject wellfields. This finding is based on
the credited testimony of the District's expert witnesses including a review of historical data related to wetland impacts and the wellfield withdrawals, and comparison of wetlands in the vicinity of the wellfields to "control" wetlands away from the wellfield impact.
The control wetlands exhibit longer hydroperiods and display fewer signs of ecological stress than do wetlands closer to the wellfields. The control wetlands display a greater abundance of wetland-dependent species than do the wellfield-area wetlands.
Notwithstanding the adverse impacts of the permitted water withdrawal, the hydrogeologic systems in the area of the wellfields have reached "dynamic equilibrium."
A major water withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer results, after a period of several years, in a shifting of hydrological systems to accommodate the lowered levels. It can take as long as ten years for the changes and restabilization process to occur. Once the aquifer systems have stabilized, the systems have reached a "dynamic equilibrium."
The hydrologic systems in the area of the subject wellfields have reached dynamic equilibrium. The evidence establishes that the major adverse impacts which occurred in the vicinity of the subject wellfields began shortly after the inception of water withdrawals from the wellfields.
Although clearly adverse environmental impacts have
occurred and are the result of water withdrawal, the water systems in the area of the wellfields have "reset" and are now essentially stable at the lowered levels.
The Petitioners suggest that the adverse environmental impacts visible in the ecosystems on and near the wellfields can be attributed to natural ecosystem succession. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the major adverse environmental impacts are related to the withdrawal by the permittees of substantial quantities of water from the Floridan aquifer.
The Petitioners assert that recent levels of low rainfall are the primary cause for the lowered lake levels and reduced wetland hydroperiods. The evidence fails to support the assertion.
There is insufficient evidence to establish that recent low rainfall levels are indicative of a long term situation. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that recent low rainfall events are likely part of a cyclical precipitate system which historically experiences periods of increased and decreased rainfall.
The major adverse environmental impacts to the lakes and wetlands are the result of water withdrawal. The low rainfall levels have exacerbated the situation, resulting in a lack of surficial water inflow into lakes and wetlands sufficient to replace that water which is continuously leaking from the surficial aquifer into the Floridan aquifer, as well as that which is lost from the surface via evapotranspiration.
Although environmental monitoring efforts by the
Petitioner are suggested to indicate that the deleterious effects of the reduced water levels are being remedied by recent increased rainfall levels, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the impacts of reduced hydroperiods related to groundwater withdrawals will be remedied by a return to "normal" rainfall levels.
Recent increased rainfall has contributed to an increase in water levels. The typical changes which would be expected to accompany increased precipitation, such as signs of water in formerly dry littoral zones, are visible in a some areas. However, overall lake levels remain lowered, exposed lake beds are visible, and upland vegetation continues to grow on what was formerly lake bottom. The former shorelines are visible and clearly delineated by vegetation lines. The evidence fails to establish that the recent rainfall increase will correct the adverse impacts caused by the withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields.
While the greater Tampa Bay area has recently seen cyclical low levels of precipitation, the predominant cause of the lowered surficial water table in the vicinity of the subject wellfields is the groundwater withdrawals from the wellfields. A return to "normal" rainfall levels will not address the systemic alterations which have occurred in the wellfield-area wetlands.
If it is assumed that a lack of rainfall is the cause of the decline in the surficial water table, the conditions of
the wellfields should be generally similar regardless of whether the wetlands are on/near the wellfields, or whether they are located at some distance from the fields. The evidence establishes that the wetlands near the area of the wellfields display signs of a gradual and continuing decline. Wetlands outside the wellfield impact do not show the same level of decline.
It is reasonable to assume that periods of increased rainfall would result in increased water levels in area lakes, however, a review of data indicates that the lakes near the wetlands do not respond to rainfall in a normal manner. Despite two years of average to above average rainfall, the lakes at the Section 21 and Cosme wellfields continued to be substantially below normal.
A comparison of potentiometric surfaces at monitoring wells on and off the wellfield sites further establishes that the lowering of the water table is not a precipitation-induced event. Monitoring wells on the wellfield sites have shown substantially increased reductions in potentiometric surface as compared to monitoring wells located in areas not impacted by the withdrawals.
The Petitioners assert that area drainage projects have caused a reduction of water flow into the wellfield lakes and wetlands and that such flow reduction is the cause of the visible impacts to such water features. The evidence fails to
establish that there have been regional or local surficial flow changes sufficient to result in the reduction of water in nearby lakes and wetlands or in the decline in the surficial aquifer.
Although drainage projects near some wellfields could potentially impact surface water movement, the evidence that such drainage projects are responsible for the lowering of the surficial water table in the vicinity of the wellfields is not persuasive.
The Petitioners assert that land development in the area of the wellfields has resulted in reduced water flow into the wellfield lakes and wetlands and that such flow reduction is the cause of the visible impacts to such water features. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The type of analysis required to establish the impacts of drainage on surficial water systems has not been performed.
Current surface water management system permitting rules in effect since 1984 are designed to reduce the impacts of surface drainage on surrounding waterflow systems. Systems constructed in compliance with permitting rules retain water on the development site and can provide additional groundwater recharge.
The evidence is insufficient to establish that significant development near the Section 21 wellfield is the cause of the lowered water levels on or near the wellfield
There is relatively little urban development near the
Cosme and South Pasco wellfields which could potentially impact water flow. The evidence fails to establish that the existing development hydrologically impacts the wellfield.
The evidence fails to establish any relevant impacts caused by highway construction on the area hydrology.
The Petitioners also assert that, rather than the South Pasco wellfield pumping, it is the land management practices by property owners to the east of the South Pasco field which are responsible for degraded conditions. Although land management practices, specifically burning, may have damaged wetlands, dry conditions related to pumping-related surficial aquifer declines likely resulted in more severe burn damage than would have otherwise occurred.
"BASELINE"
The District has adopted by rule permitting criteria which are considered in the review of an application for water use permit. The permitting criteria are further addressed in the District "Basis of Review."
In part, the review of a water use permit application seeks to determine the anticipated impact of the proposed water withdrawal on wetlands, water resources and other natural systems by utilization of the permitting criteria and the Basis of Review (BOR).
Such analysis requires establishment of a "baseline" against which anticipated impacts may be predicted. The baseline
provides a point against which future impacts to a resource by a permitted water withdrawal can be measured. A baseline also provides a standard by which the success of mitigation efforts can be measured.
The permitting history for the subject wellfields, including review of staff analyses, indicates that the adverse environmental impacts related to the water withdrawals were known to the District during earlier permit application considerations.
The evidence establishes that in prior permit decisions, the District determined that the adverse environmental impacts were anticipated, and exempted the permittees from certain environmental standards which would likely have reduced the adverse impacts.
The District Governing Board's decision to exempt permittees from meeting certain criteria related to adverse environmental impacts where such exemption was in the "public interest" was a discretionary act by the Board.
The evidence fails to establish that the adverse environmental impacts caused by the actual withdrawal of water at current quantities from the subject wellfields have exceeded the adverse impacts which were previously deemed acceptable by the District.
Although the District's rules have been changed to eliminate the granting of exemptions from permitting criteria, the evidence fails to establish that the District was ever
required to exempt an applicant from meeting the criteria.
The four wellfields at issue in this proceeding have operated in compliance with the permits issued by the District. None of the wellfields have been cited for violations of permit conditions.
There is no evidence that any Notice of Violation has been issued regarding any operational aspect of these wellfields.
There is no evidence that the District has initiated any permit condition enforcement action related to these wellfields.
The District has been authorized under the previous permits to require mitigation of adverse environmental impacts related to the permitted withdrawals. There is no credible evidence that the District has taken formal action to require mitigation of adverse environmental impacts related to the subject groundwater withdrawals.
The environmental conditions caused by withdrawal of water at the subject wellfields are those which were previously deemed acceptable and consistent with the public interest by the District.
For purposes of this Recommended Order, baseline conditions are those conditions, including previously permitted adverse impacts, which existed at the time of the filing of the renewal applications.
EXISTING PERMITTED ADVERSE IMPACTS
The evidence establishes that there have been adverse environmental impacts in the area of the South Pasco wellfield caused by the withdrawal of groundwater. The evidence includes the credited testimony of expert witnesses, review of historic photographs, comparison of land use and cover classifications during the period of water withdrawals, and review of monitoring site data.
The current area impacts related to the water withdrawal at South Pasco include a reduction in wetland hydroperiod, significant biological change, alteration of normal wet-season water levels, extensive oxidation and subsidence of soils, substantial cypress tree decline, increased damage by abnormal fire, significant declines in wetland species composition, and impairment and loss of habitat for wetland dependent species, including threatened and endangered creatures. There has been an alteration in community zonation, community types and plant species composition.
Lake impacts related to South Pasco water withdrawal include adverse impacts to Camp Lake, Mary Lou Lake, Lake Ruth, and Long Sun Lake. The water level at Camp Lake has shown substantial impact since the initiation of pumping. Other lakes have been impacted to the extent that aesthetic and recreational values are impaired. Animal populations have been altered, and normal ranges of water level fluctuation have been impacted.
The evidence establishes that there have been adverse
environmental impacts in the area of the Section 21 wellfield caused by the withdrawal of groundwater. The evidence includes the credited testimony of expert witnesses, review of historic photographs, comparison of land use and cover classifications during the period of water withdrawals, and review of monitoring site data.
The current area impacts related to the water withdrawal at Section 21 include a reduction in wetland hydroperiod, alteration of normal wet-season water levels, extensive oxidation and subsidence of soils, substantial cypress tree decline, significant declines in wetland species composition, and impairment and loss of habitat for wetland dependent species, including threatened and endangered creatures. There has been an alteration in community zonation, community types and plant species composition.
Lake impacts related to Section 21 water withdrawal extend at least one mile from the wellfield and include adverse impacts to Starvation Lake, Lake Jackson, Lake Simmons, Lake Oakley and Lake Crum. Shorelines are exposed, upland and exotic species have invaded formerly wet areas, animal populations have been altered, and normal ranges of water level fluctuation have been impacted.
The evidence establishes that there have been adverse environmental impacts in the area of the Cosme-Odessa wellfield caused by the withdrawal of groundwater. The evidence includes the credited testimony of expert witnesses, review of historic photographs, comparison of land use and cover classifications during the period of water withdrawals, and review of monitoring site data.
The current area impacts related to the water withdrawal at Cosme-Odessa include a reduction in wetland hydroperiod, alteration of normal wet-season water levels, extensive oxidation and subsidence of soils, substantial cypress tree decline, significant declines in wetland species composition, and impairment and loss of habitat for wetland dependent species, including threatened and endangered creatures. There has been an alteration in community zonation, community types and plant species composition.
Lake impacts related to Cosme-Odessa water withdrawal extend at least one mile from the wellfield and include adverse
impacts to Horse Lake, Church Lake, Lake Rogers, Lake Raleigh, Lake Amelia and Calm Lake. Shorelines are exposed, upland and exotic species have invaded formerly wet areas, animal populations have been altered, and normal ranges of water level fluctuation have been impacted.
As compared to the other three wellfields at issue in this proceeding, the impacts related to the NWHRWF are minimal. Given the "linear" nature of the NWHRWF, wellfield-related adverse environmental are not localized but spread over a larger area than is the case with the other production wellfields. Accordingly the signs of environmental degradation which are visible at the other three wellfields are not visible in the vicinity of the NWHRWF.
Two wetlands in the vicinity of the NWHRWF currently exhibit hydrologic impacts and upland species invasion, one near the "NW-1" well and another near the intersection of Gunn Highway and Turner Road.
The evidence fails to establish that the adverse impacts at these two wetlands are related to the production of water at the NWHRWF.
PERMITTING CRITERIA AND ACTUAL CURRENT WITHDRAWALS
The evidence establishes that for the quantity of water currently being withdrawn from the wellfields, the applicants meet the relevant permitting criteria.
To obtain the water use permits sought in this
proceeding, the Petitioners must establish that the proposed use of water is a reasonable-beneficial use, that the proposed use will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of
water, and that the proposed use is consistent with the public interest.
As to the quantity of water currently being withdrawn from the wellfields, the evidence establishes that the proposed use of water is a reasonable-beneficial use, the proposed use will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and the proposed use is consistent with the public interest.
The evidence establishes that there will no new adverse environmental impacts caused by the continuation of pumping from the subject wellfields at quantities currently being withdrawn.
The continuation of water pumping at current actual levels of withdrawal will continue the ecological decline already in progress, but will not result in new kinds of adverse environmental impacts.
Over the long term, areas of reduced hydroperiod will continue to experience invasion by upland species and soil oxidation. The biological characteristics of the impacted areas have been altered. Wetland obligate vegetation will continue to decline. Populations of lake and wetland dependent creatures will be reduced as the water levels remain lowered by the impact of the pumping. Fires will continue to pose an increased threat to the already damaged wetlands.
Despite the existing adverse impacts, there is no
credible evidence that impacted areas would return to prepumping
conditions even if pumping were halted from the subject wellfields.
The actual withdrawal of water at levels not greater than those currently being pumped is a reasonable and beneficial use of the resource.
The provision of potable water to the customers of the water utility systems which receive water from the authority is a reasonable and beneficial use of the resource. There is no evidence that the existing potable water requirements of the end users may be met by any other currently available water resource.
The actual withdrawal of water at levels not greater than those currently being pumped will not interfere with other existing legal uses.
The evidence establishes that where existing water uses predate the District's water use permitting program, such existing uses are not required to demonstrate non-interference with other existing legal uses unless the applicant proposes to withdraw additional quantities or create an impact greater than was previously permitted. In this case, the Petitioners seek to have the existing permits renewed at the quantities set forth in the existing permits.
The proposed use is consistent with the public interest. The reliable provision of high quality water to the citizens of Florida is necessary to meet public health and safety requirements and is clearly consistent with the public interest.
The Authority supplies water to a total population estimated at 1.8 million residents. Although the wellfields at issue in this proceeding supply only about 35 percent of the permitted water capacity distributed by the Authority, the evidence establishes that it is unlikely the Authority could supply the quantities currently required without utilization of these wellfields.
Though the Authority operates an interconnected water supply system, the existing configuration of the supply lines does not allow for unrestricted provision of water from any wellfield to all users.
The Section 21 wellfield supplies water to the residents of northwest Hillsborough County. Were the Section 21 wellfields to be unavailable, the Authority could not immediately route water to the northwest Hillsborough users from other fields. Likewise, the other three wellfields supply water to St. Petersburg, and the Authority would be unable to meet water requirements were the wellfields closed or pumping was substantially restricted.
The District asserts that the lack of proper permits does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that these wellfields would be closed, and that water could be legally pumped via a series of emergency orders.
There is no evidence that the District has made any legally binding commitment to allow for water withdrawals outside
the appropriate permitting process.
There is no evidence that the denial of permit renewal applications is an appropriate method for remedying adverse environmental impacts which are the result of previous permitting decisions and which were identified prior to issuance of the existing permits.
Although the Petitioners estimate the cost of developing a water resource to replace the permitted capacity lost if these applications are denied to be about $180 million dollars, the cost estimate has insufficient supporting documentation to indicate that it is accurate. There is no evidence that the permittees have initiated any credible effort to replace the total quantity of water being withdrawn from the subject wellfields with new water sources of similar quality.
The evidence establishes that at current actual quantities of water withdrawal, the Petitioners comply with the criteria requirements for issuance of the permits.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the withdrawal of water at the quantities currently being pumped is necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand for water.
The actual quantity being withdrawn at the subject wellfields is necessary to meet current reasonable demand.
The evidence further establishes that the actual quantity being withdrawn at the subject wellfields is capable of continuing to meet potable water demand during the permit renewal
period.
As for projected future demand, St. Petersburg estimates that it will need 43 mgd of water by 2007. The maximum annual average daily withdrawal from these wellfields is as much as 40.9 mgd. St. Petersburg receives an additional 6.2 mgd from the Authority as part of a water agreement "entitlement." Absent any additional available resources, the total maximum available quantity of 47.1 mgd would be sufficient to meet the water requirements of St. Petersburg. However, the evidence as to future demand in St. Petersburg fails to establish that St. Petersburg will require actual total withdrawals at the maximum levels currently permitted.
Between 1983 and 1994, St. Petersburg's potable water use averaged about 39 mgd. From 1991 to 1994, the potable water use was about 37 mgd, indicating that potable water use is declining. At the hearing, St. Petersburg produced data which indicated anticipated total demand could be as low as 40.8 mgd, based on current usage patterns.
The evidence establishes that St. Petersburg's water requirements can be met without increasing the actual quantities of water currently being withdrawn from the subject wellfields. Expanded and more appropriate utilization of the reclaimed water which is already available, and additional conservation measures and use restrictions identified in the pending Water Resource Development Plan, will provide sufficient water without increased
withdrawals from the subject wellfields.
Given the reduction in water use though increased utilization of reclaimed water and additional conservation measures, the evidence establishes that the projected water needs can be met without increasing the quantities currently being withdrawn from the subject wellfields.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will cause no changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters, beyond those previously permitted by the District.
The continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will cause no changes which adversely impact water resources, beyond those previously known to and permitted by the District. There is no credible evidence that any new adverse environmental impacts will result from withdrawal at current actual quantities.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources waters, beyond those previously permitted.
Adverse environmental impacts have resulted from the permitted withdrawal of groundwater as identified elsewhere in
this order. The District has had the ability to require mitigation through conditions attached to prior permits. The District has the authority to continue to attach mitigation conditions to the permits issuing from this proceeding.
There is no evidence that adverse environmental impacts caused by groundwater withdrawal can not be mitigated, however, it is difficult to determine, absent any direction from the District, the type of mitigation which would meet the District's approval.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will not cause water levels or rates of flow to deviate from the ranges set forth in Chapter 40D-8.
To the extent that such ranges are established, the evidence establishes that water withdrawals at current actual levels will not result in deviation from established ranges.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will utilize the lowest quality water that the Applicant has the ability to use.
St. Petersburg initiated a water reuse program in 1977, and is committed to expansion of the reuse system. The reuse program replaces potable water with reclaimed water in irrigation and some industrial applications. The St. Petersburg reuse program is nationally recognized.
St. Petersburg currently has excess capacity in its reclaimed water system and has begun to increase the rate of expansion by reducing connection fees and taking other steps to allow easier neighborhood access to the reuse system.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application, beyond
those previously impacted by permitted withdrawals.
There will be no additional adverse impact to offsite land uses existing at the time of the application as a result of the continued withdrawal of water at current actual quantities.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will not adversely impact any existing legal withdrawal beyond those previously impacted by permitted withdrawals.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will utilize local resources to the greatest extent practicable.
The evidence establishes that the potable water being withdrawn from the subject wellfields constitutes utilization of local resources to the greatest extent practicable. There is no credible evidence that a sufficient potable water supply is located more proximately to the St. Petersburg water users.
The District asserts that the alleged misuse of excess reclaimed water demonstrates a failure to utilize local resources to the greatest extent practicable. The evidence does not support the assertion.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will incorporate water conservation measures.
The District has set a per capita water use goal for the Northern Tampa Bay region of 140 gallons per day (gpd) by the beginning of 1997 and 130 gpd by the start of 2001. St. Petersburg's current water use rate is 122 gpd, substantially below the District's level.
The evidence establishes that substantial efforts are being made by the Petitioners to reduce water use where such is economically feasible.
St. Petersburg enforces lawn watering restrictions. New construction standards and a program aimed at replacement of existing residential bath fixtures encourage use of water-saving fixtures. St. Petersburg utilizes a water use rate structure which encourages conservation. Specific water conservation goals have been established.
The District asserts that the Petitioners have not sufficiently demonstrated a commitment to conserve water to the satisfaction of the District. The fact that current water use in St. Petersburg is less than in other local areas, and in fact is below the District's mandated rate for 2001, suggests otherwise.
While it is almost always possible to suggest that "more should be done," the evidence establishes that the Petitioners are making a good faith effort to conserve water resources. It is reasonable to expect that the Petitioners will continue to explore methods of reducing potable water use.
Reasonable assurances have been provided that the
continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields at the quantities currently being pumped will not cause water to go to waste.
The District criticizes St. Petersburg's reluctance to meter the use of reclaimed water and suggests that the lack of metering results in excess use of the available reclaimed water, which could otherwise (assuming expansion of the system) be available to other users. St. Petersburg states that metering would discourage use and that one of the goals of the reuse program is to dispose of wastewater. Unused reclaimed water is disposed of by deep-well injection.
St. Petersburg asserts that the reuse program has the capacity to serve about 11,750 customers. At the end of 1994, there were about 7,600 customers.
The evidence establishes that there is excessive use of reclaimed water by some consumers. Moderating excessive reclaimed water use would permit the system capacity to serve a total of about 17,000 customers. Increasing reclaimed water service to 17,000 customers could reduce the need for potable water by five mgd.
It is logical to assume that as the potable water supply becomes less available and more costly, reclaimed water will become more valuable and more important in meeting the water needs of St. Petersburg
It is likely that limitations on water withdrawals from the subject wellfields will serve to increase the value and utilization of reclaimed water.
The District asserts that St. Petersburg's reuse
system encourages overuse of reclaimed water and discourages citizens from connecting to the reuse system. Expansion of the reuse system requires installation of distribution lines. While there is no credible evidence that St. Petersburg's expansion program has been intentionally delayed, high connection charges and threshold for neighborhood participation have delayed system expansion.
The evidence establishes that there is additional demand for reclaimed water by users in St. Petersburg. Reuse distribution lines are installed in neighborhoods where water users express interest in obtaining the reclaimed water.
During a recent "sale", citizens were encouraged to connect to the reuse system through subsidized connections. St. Petersburg reduced from 50 percent to 30 percent, the number of homeowners who must agree to connect to the system prior to distribution line installation. Reduced-interest and extended payment loans were made available to homeowners to pay for the cost of connection.
More than 2,000 customers signed up during the "sale." It will take about a year and a half for the city to meet the expansion demand established through the sale.
The District asserts that metering of the reuse system will reduce waste of the reclaimed water. Although St. Petersburg suggests that metering will discourage use of the reclaimed water system, St. Petersburg is currently installing
water meters to test the impact created by metered use. At this time, the evidence fails to establish that metering will reduce waste, though it is reasonable to assume that metering, and a conservation oriented rate structure, will reduce excess use.
PERMITTING CRITERIA AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES
The existing permits allow for water withdrawals at quantities higher than those currently being withdrawn. The combined actual average daily withdrawals at the four wellfields total about 40 mgd. The maximum permitted capacity at the four subject wellfields is about 49 mgd.
The evidence is insufficient to establish that at the
49 mpg maximum withdrawal levels set forth in the current permits, the Petitioners comply with the criteria requirements for issuance of the permits.
The Petitioners assert that adverse environmental impacts will not occur even if pumping is at full permitted capacity. The evidence fails to support the assertion.
Testimony that pumping from the subject wellfields could be increased by as much as 25-30 percent without an increase in the severity and extent of adverse environmental impacts is without credible foundation and is rejected.
The issue of "rotational capacity" is offered by the Petitioners as rationale for issuance of permits which permit pumping beyond the quantities currently being withdrawn. Interconnected wellfields offer the ability to rotate withdrawals
between the connections in order to allow time for repairs to a well, and to allow some facilities to "rest" and recover from environmental stress.
In order to provide this ability, pumping from one of the interconnected wellfields is increased to reduce pumping from the stressed wellfield. The "rotational capacity" of the system is the quantity of water above that which is currently being withdrawn and which allows for pumping to be increased at the less stressed wellfield.
The evidence fails to establish that "rotational capacity" can not be achieved without permitting withdrawals from the wellfields to increase above those quantities currently being withdrawn.
The evidence fails to establish that increased water withdrawals, up to the maximum quantities set forth in the existing permits, will not interfere with other existing legal uses.
The evidence fails to establish that pumping from the subject wellfields at maximum permitted quantities will not result in additional adverse environmental impacts.
The evidence fails to establish that the withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields in excess of the quantities currently being pumped will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact water resources, including both surface and ground waters.
The evidence fails to establish that the withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields in excess of the quantities currently being pumped will not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources waters.
The evidence fails to establish that the withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields in excess of the quantities
currently being pumped will not cause water levels or rates of flow to deviate from the ranges set forth in Chapter 40D-8.
MITIGATION
The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioners have proposed any appropriate mitigation which would address the existing environmental impacts of water pumping from the subject wellfields. Further, no acceptable mitigation plans have been proposed to address the adverse impacts which would accompany increased withdrawals from the four wellfields.
The Authority has proposed an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which provides a method of monitoring environmental conditions to determine whether mitigation of impacts would remedy adverse impacts. Although the EMP could provide reliable data in addition to that already available, the EMP, even if implemented, does not constitute mitigation of adverse impacts.
One form of possible mitigation suggested by the Petitioners is the concept of "augmenting" lakes and wetlands by the addition of water taken from other lakes or wells to lakes with lowered water levels, or by the addition of excess reclaimed water to wetlands.
The augmentation proposal is specifically addressed in St. Petersburg's "4-D's" report. The evidence fails to establish that the 4-D's report presents a reasonable mitigation proposal.
Augmentation presents a number of biological concerns related to the addition of one type of water to another. Such
issues include alteration of water balance, introduction of
different non-native microscopic organisms into the receiving water, nutrient alteration, and coliform bacteria concerns.
The evidence fails to establish that lake and wetland augmentation is an adequate or appropriate means of mitigating adverse impacts related to groundwater withdrawal.
The evidence that the District has permitted lake augmentation in other situations fails to establish that such mitigation is an adequate method of addressing adverse impacts related to groundwater withdrawal.
The evidence establishes that the Authority has implemented a "Good Neighbor Policy" under which the Authority repairs or replaces local private wells which experience problems possibly related to the water withdrawals at the NWHRWF. There is evidence that the Authority makes such repairs without determining the actual cause of the problem in an attempt to address local citizen complaints. The Authority has implemented the policy voluntarily.
In two cases, the District received complaints from citizens unsatisfied by the Authority's response. The Authority provided additional assistance and eventually remedied the problems.
Although the "Good Neighbor Policy" provides an adequate program to address the concerns of private individuals in the area of the NWHRWF, the evidence fails to establish that the general policy is adequate mitigation of the adverse
environmental impacts caused by the wellfield water withdrawal.
A monitoring program being performed on behalf of the Petitioners could provide an acceptable framework for monitoring and mitigating future adverse environmental impacts.
Beginning in 1983, an environmental monitoring program was established by Water and Air Research, Inc., (WAR) for the NWHRWF. The water use permit for the NWHRWF requires implementation of a monitoring program.
The NWHRWF monitoring program includes 67 monitoring stations and additional transect areas, and covers an area of approximately 120 square miles including areas near the Section
21 and Cosme-Odessa wellfields.
The data collected from the monitoring program was published in annual reports which have been submitted by West Coast to the District.
Beginning in 1991, WAR established an environmental monitoring program at the South Pasco wellfield on behalf of the Authority and St. Petersburg. The South Pasco wellfield permit does not require implementation of an environmental monitoring program.
The WAR/South Pasco monitoring program includes nine monitoring stations. The data collected from the WAR/South Pasco monitoring program was published in three annual reports.
In addition to the WAR monitoring program, CH2M Hill was retained in anticipation of these permit renewal applications to assess the condition of the South Pasco, Section 21, and
Cosme-Odessa wellfields.
CH2M Hill designed a three phase assessment program which includes a comparative review of land uses around the wellfields, a comparative review of ecological function both on- site and off-site of the fields with available historical data, and a detailed quantitative survey of current ecological conditions at the wellfields and at identified control sites.
Although the WAR monitoring programs or the CH2M Hill assessment project are not without flaws, they provide the ability to quantify any future adverse environmental impacts caused by the continued withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields against a more detailed "baseline" measurement than that which has previously been available. The WAR/CH2M Hill programs also appear to provide the ability to gather more site- specific data than any program currently being utilized by the District.
The WAR/CH2M Hill projects are not accepted for the purposes of determining historic impacts which have occurred since the inception of water withdrawals from the subject wellfields.
The analysis of land use changes in the areas of the four wellfields, suggesting that the adverse environmental conditions were primarily related to factors other than pumping, was not persuasive.
Evidence as to whether the selection of monitoring sites for the WAR/CH2M Hill projects appropriately represent the
current state of the lakes and wetlands in the area of the wellfields was unpersuasive.
Further, the WAR/CH2M Hill analysis of the current data provided by the witnesses involved in the project was not credible as to conclusions that the adverse impacts were being reversed by the recent cyclical return to more rainfall.
It is not unusual to expect that where wetlands still exist, increased rainfall would show increased abundance of wetland dependent species. Increased rainfall results in temporarily increased lake levels and visible upland vegetation die-off will occur when the water level reaches the vegetation.
The data is insufficient at this time to establish that there is any general "recovery" occurring in the ecosystems impacted by the withdrawal of water from the Floridan aquifer.
The Petitioners assert that the WAR/CH2M Hill projects are more intensive than the monitoring projects utilized by the District. The evidence establishes only that over an extended period of time, the WAR/CH2M Hill projects are capable of providing quantities of detailed data related to the condition of the wellfields. The evidence fails to establish that the data currently generated by the WAR/CH2M Hill projects provides a basis for reliable long term analysis.
THE NWHRWF DEFAULT PERMIT ISSUE
As stated previously, the Authority asserts entitlement to an unrestricted default permit for the NWHRWF.
The evidence establishes that the Authority is entitled to a default permit, but does not support issuance of an unrestricted water use permit.
During the permit renewal process, the NWHRWF application was combined with the Manors at Crystal Lake wellfield permit which had been held by Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County turned operational responsibility over the wellfield and over the renewal permitting process to the Authority.
Notice of the District's completeness determination was sent not to Hillsborough but to the Authority, which was identified on the permit as the applicant.
Prior to the District's first decision deadline, the District sought by letter to Hillsborough and copy to the Authority, an extension of the deadline to December 31, 1994.
By separate letters, both Hillsborough and the Authority consented to the extension.
The District was apparently unable to act by the deadline and sought a second extension to March 1, 1995, but the District's request was sent only to a representative of Hillsborough County. No copy of the request was provided to the Authority.
At the time the District sought the second extension from Hillsborough County, the District had been notified that the Authority had assumed responsibility for the NWHRWF/Crystal Lake
renewal application.
The District claims that the request to Hillsborough County, rather than to the Authority was proper because Hillsborough had been the permittee on the expiring permit.
However, the District had notified only the Authority that the combined applications had been deemed complete.
Apparently unaware that Hillsborough had withdrawn from the permit renewal application process, the Hillsborough representative consented to the second extension, but did so without consultation with the Authority.
The Authority did not consent to the second extension.
At the time the District sought the second extension, Hillsborough County had no responsibility for or authority regarding the combined NWHRWF/Crystal Lake renewal application.
The District issued it notice of proposed action on the NWHRWF on February 7, 1995.
The Authority asserts that it is entitled to an award of a default permit for the NWHRWF based upon the failure of the District to grant or deny the permit by the December 31, 1994 deadline extension to which the Authority had consented.
The evidence fails to establish that the Authority is entitled to receive an unconditioned permit based on the District's failure to meet the December 31 deadline.
The evidence does establish, based upon the failure of the District to meet the December 31 deadline or obtain an extension from the Authority as the applicant for the permit, that the Authority should receive a ten year permit for operation of the NWHRWF subject to the conditions set forth herein.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District is responsible for the regulation and permitting of ground water withdrawals in the area where the wellfields at issue in this proceeding are located. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes.
All parties have standing to participate in this proceeding.
The Petitioners have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to the permits sought. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
In order to meet the burden an applicant must meet the requirements of Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows:
373.223 Conditions for a permit.
To obtain a permit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the applicant must establish that the proposed use of water:
Is a reasonable-beneficial use as defined in s. 373.019(4);
Will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water; and
Is consistent with the public interest.
The District has adopted Rule 40D-2.301, Florida
Administrative Code, which implements Section 373.223(1), Florida
Statutes. In relevant part, Rule 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows:
In order to obtain a Water Use Permit, an Applicant must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water, by providing reasonable assurances on both an individual and a cumulative basis, that the water use:
Is necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand;
Will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters;
Will not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources;
Will not cause water levels or rates of flow to deviate from the ranges set forth in Chapter 40D-8;
Will utilize the lowest quality water that the Applicant has the ability to use;
Will not significantly induce saline water intrusion;
Will not cause pollution of the aquifer;
Will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application;
Will not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal;
Will utilize local resources to the greatest extent practicable;
Will incorporate water conservation measures;
Will incorporate reuse measures to the greatest extent practicable;
Will not cause water to go to waste; and
Will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District.
The District has also adopted the "Basis of Review" (BOR) which includes additional information related to water use permitting. BOR Part IV sets forth technical criteria related to permit applications.
The BOR contains "performance standards" which are used in determining the existence of adverse environmental impacts." Where application of performance standards indicates that excessive withdrawals have occurred, no new withdrawals are permitted.
There are no new withdrawals sought by the applications at issue in this proceeding.
The BOR also contains "presumptions" which serve as guidelines for determination of whether impacts are unacceptable. The District asserts that the presumptions are applicable only when predicting impact and that the impact in this situation was already known to be unacceptable.
The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the assertion that the impacts were unacceptable. In prior permitting, the District has determined that such impacts were acceptable, and has in fact accepted them.
Adverse environmental impacts which have resulted from water pumping in the subject wellfields occurred via water withdrawals permitted by the District with knowledge that the adverse impacts would occur. There is no evidence that any adverse environmental impacts have been caused by any unpermitted
water pumping activities at the subject wellfields.
The District asserts that the rules in effect at the time of the existing permits allowed for the award of exemptions for certain environmental criteria where such was determined to be in the "public interest." The District's rules allowing for granting of exemptions did not require that such exemptions be issued.
There is disagreement as to the establishment of a "baseline" against which the impacts of a proposed permit can be measured. The District appears to propose that the baseline should be at some indeterminate point prior to issuance of the current permits and perhaps prior to the initiation of pumping.
The statute and rule citations set forth herein clearly indicate that the review being conducted should address the anticipated future impact of the proposed withdrawal on the conditions existing at the time the application is filed.
Here, the adverse environmental impacts have been occasioned by the withdrawal of groundwater from these wellfields and began to occur at the time large quantities of water were initially pumped for public use.
The baseline against which projected impacts conditions are those conditions, including previously permitted adverse impacts, which existed at the time of the filing of the renewal applications.
The Petitioners assert that there is no definition of "adverse" set forth in statute or rule. The assertion is
correct, but immaterial.
While it is true that not every environmental impact will be "adverse," in this case, the environmental impacts caused by the withdrawal of substantial quantities of water from the Northwest Tampa Bay water systems are clearly adverse by any definition.
The transformation of wetlands into uplands is an adverse environmental impact to the wetlands. The reduction of wetland hydroperiod is an adverse environmental impact. The extensive oxidation and subsidence of hydric soils is an adverse environmental impact. A substantial decline in the number and health of the cypress trees is an adverse environmental impact. Loss of habitat for wetland dependent species, including threatened and endangered creatures, and significant declines in wetland species composition, are adverse environmental impacts.
The permanent lowering of water levels in nearby lakes is an adverse environmental impact to the lake. The reduction of water levels, exposition of shorelines, and reduction in former animal populations located within the lake habitat are adverse environmental impacts.
The suggestion that the environmental changes in the vicinity of the wetlands are signs of ecological succession ignores the increased rate at which such "succession" has occurred since the initiation of groundwater withdrawal.
The District acknowledges that reasonable assurances have been provided as to the subject wellfields for criteria set
forth in Rule 40D-2.301 (f), (g) and (n), Florida Administrative Code. The District also acknowledges that reasonable assurances have been provided as to the Section 21, Pasco and Cosme wellfields for criteria set forth in Rule 40D-2.301 (i), Florida Administrative Code.
The evidence establishes that the criteria are met as to the continued withdrawal of average actual daily quantities being withdrawn from the subject wellfields.
The evidence fails to establish that the criteria are met as to permitting withdrawals in excess of the actual daily withdrawals currently being withdrawn.
The evidence fails to establish that increased water withdrawals, up to the maximum quantities set forth in the existing permits, will not interfere with other existing legal uses.
The evidence fails to establish that pumping from the subject wellfields at maximum permitted quantities will not result in additional adverse environmental impacts.
The evidence fails to establish that the withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields in excess of the quantities currently being pumped will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact water resources, including both surface and ground waters.
The evidence fails to establish that the withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields in excess of the quantities
currently being pumped will not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources waters.
The evidence fails to establish that the withdrawal of water from the subject wellfields in excess of the quantities currently being pumped will not cause water levels or rates of flow to deviate from the ranges set forth in Chapter 40D-8.
Subsequent to the District's review of these applications and to the administrative hearing conducted in this matter, the above-cited rules were determined to be invalid by an Administrative Law Judge in Charlotte County, et. al. v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, et. al., DOAH Case No. 94-5742RP. Although the Final Order entered in that case states that the a number of District rules applicable to this case are invalid, the order also provides that "most of the District's 'conditions for issuance' of a water use permit are appropriate considerations in implementing the statutory three- prong test. "
The Final Order in DOAH Case No. 94-5742RP has been appealed, and the rules of the District remain in effect. It should be noted however that had the Final Order not been appealed, the above-cited rules would have been addressed as "appropriate considerations in implementing the statutory three- prong test" in accordance with and as limited by the Final Order in Charlotte County, et. al. v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, et. al.
As to the NWHRWF, the Authority asserts entitlement to a default permit based on the provisions of Section 120.60(1),
Florida Statutes.
Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, provides that an agency must approve or disapprove an application for a permit within 90 days of the permit being deemed complete. As set forth herein, the District failed to obtain a second waiver of the deadline for the NWHRWF from the Authority. The Authority was identified on the application as the applicant.
The District's attempt to justify the failure to contact the Authority at the time the second extension request was made is not persuasive.
The Authority asserts entitlement to an unrestricted
20 year permit as a result of the default. Although the evidence supports issuance of a default permit, there is no credible evidence which supports issuance on an unrestricted permit for longer than the standard ten year permit typically issued by the District.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order:
Granting water use permits for the subject wellfields with the following conditions:
The permits should be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issuance.
The maximum permitted quantities for each of the four permits should be reduced to not more than the average annual daily quantity currently being withdrawn at each wellfield. In order to provide rotational capacity, the permits should be structured to provide,
upon approval of the District, for water withdrawal in excess of the permitted quantities at any of the four wellfields, so long as the increase in withdrawal from one wellfield is balanced by decreased withdrawal at another wellfield. The renewal permits should provide for no increased water withdrawals beyond the actual quantities currently being pumped from these wellfields.
Environmental monitoring should continued and be expanded to include areas not currently being monitored. The monitoring program should be jointly undertaken and funded by the permittees and the District. The District shall determine the number and placement of monitoring stations and the frequency with which data shall be collected and reported.
The Authority's "good neighbor" policy at the NWHRWF should be made a condition to the NWHRWF permit.
The City of St. Petersburg's water reuse program should be expanded to provide additional service where such expansion is feasible. St. Petersburg shall implement continuing measures to encourage enrollment of new customers, including permanent reductions in connection fees and neighborhood participation thresholds, as has been done during the recent campaign to increase connections. St. Petersburg shall also implement measures to reduce the excessive use of reclaimed water by current customers. The District shall establish time-specific deadlines by which St. Petersburg's compliance with this condition can be measured.
The permits should include all standard conditions which are generally applicable to the subject water use permits.
RECOMMENDED this 29th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1997.
COPIES FURNISHED:
E. D. “Sonny” Vergara Executive Director Southwest Florida Water
Management District 2379 Broad Street
Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Donald D. Conn, Esquire West Coast Regional Water
Supply Authority
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
Clearwater, Florida 34621
John T. Allen, Esquire Post Office Box 14332 St. Petersburg, Florida | 33733-4332 |
Kim Streeter Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida | 33731 |
Daniel P. Fernandez, Esquire Laura A. Olson, Esquire
3820 Northdale Boulevard, Suite 312B Tampa, Florida 33624
Douglas Manson, Esquire
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1190 Tampa, Florida 33601
Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Michael A. Skelton, Esquire
Post Office Box 2350 Tampa, Florida 33601-2775
Richard Tschantz, Esquire James A. Robinson, Esquire Southwest Florida Water
Management District
2379 Broad Street
Brooksville, Florida 34609
E. Gary Early, Esquire
216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
John W. Wilcox, Esquire Derek Spillman, Esquire
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1500 Post Office Box 3273
Tampa, Florida 33601
Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire 5709 Tidalwave Drive
New Port Richey, Florida 34652
H. Ray Allen
Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
Karen E. Maller, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33711
David Forziano
Assistant County Attorney
601 East Kennedy, Boulevard, 27th Floor Post Office Box 1110
Tampa, Florida 33601
Stanley J. Niego, Esquire Prosperity Bank Building
100 Southpark Boulevard, Suite 405 St. Augustine, Florida 32086
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 02, 1999 | (D. Conn, D. Manson, R. Tschantz, K. Owens, E. de la Parte, Jr., D. Forziano) Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed. |
| Apr. 20, 1998 | (City of St. Petersburg) Notice of Change of Address Telephone Number and Fax Number filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1997 | Letter to WFQ from E. de la Parte Re: Enclosing copy of Pinellas` Notice of Withdrawing Motion to Vacate or Modify Automatic Stay filed in case no. 94-5742RP filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1997 | Order Denying Pinellas` Motion to Correct and/or Clarify Recommended Order sent out. |
| Jun. 06, 1997 | City of St. Petersburg`s Motion to Correct and/or Clarify Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 05, 1997 | Pinellas` Motion to Correct and/or Clarify Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| May 29, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 07/22-26/96, 07/29-08/02/96, 08/05-09/96, 08/12-16/96, 09/09-13/96, 09/16-20/96 & 09/23-24/96. |
| May 28, 1997 | Pinellas Notice of Filing Copy of Motion to Vacate or Modify Automatic Stay; Pinellas Motion to Vacate or Modify Automatic Stay; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile). |
| May 06, 1997 | Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Reply to Pinellas County`s Response Concerning Notice of Supplemental Authority (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 30, 1997 | Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Objection to Pinellas` Second Motion for Attorneys` Fees and Costs filed. |
| Apr. 18, 1997 | Pinellas` Second Motion for Attorneys` Fees and Costs; Pinellas Response to District`s Objection to and Motion to Strike Notice of Supplemental Authority (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 09, 1997 | Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Objection to and Motion to Strike Pinellas` Notice of Supplemental Authority (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 04, 1997 | Pinellas` Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Proposed Recommended Order; Attachment filed. |
| Dec. 26, 1996 | Disk ; Cover letter from J. Robinson filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg`s Closing Argument and Memorandum of Law (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 16, 1996 | Pinellas' Closing Argument and Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Recommended Order; Index to Joint Proposed Recommended Order of theCity of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County and Summary of Exhibits and Witnesses; Joint Pro posed Recommended Orde |
| Dec. 16, 1996 | West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority`s Index to Proposed Recommended Order and Final Argument/Memorandum of Law; Proposed Recommended Order of West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority; Final Argument and Memorandum of Law by West Coast Regional |
| Dec. 16, 1996 | (From SWFWMD and Hillsborough and Pasco County) Notice of Filing; Proposed Recommended Order; Joint Closing Argument by Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hillsborough County and Pasco County filed. |
| Dec. 13, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Motion for Official Recognition; (4 Volumes) Exhibits filed. |
| Dec. 04, 1996 | (From J. Robinson) Original demonstrative exhibits filed. |
| Nov. 22, 1996 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed via facsimile). |
| Nov. 20, 1996 | Transcript Volume 27B (09/17/96 Hearing Date), Volume 28-A (09/18/96 Hearing Date), Volume 29-A (09/19/96 Hearing Date), Volume 29B (09/19/96 Hearing Date), Volume 30-B (09/23/96 Hearing Date), Volume 30-A (09/23/96 Hearing Date), Volume 31-B (09/24/96 |
| Nov. 20, 1996 | Transcript Volume 23-A (09/11/96 Hearing Date), Volume 23-B (09/11/96Hearing Date), Volume 24 (09/12/96 Hearing Date), Volume 24-B (09/12/96 Hearing Date), Volume 27-A (09/17/96 Hearing Date), Volume 26-B (09/16/96 Hearing Date), Volume 26-A (09/16/96 |
| Nov. 20, 1996 | Notice of Filing Transcript of Final Hearing; Volume 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 10A, 11A, 11B, 12A,12B, 13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, 15A, 16A, 16B, 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B, 19A, 19B,20, 21, 22, Transcript filed. |
| Nov. 08, 1996 | District`s Exhibits (2 boxes, tagged) filed. |
| Nov. 04, 1996 | Exhibits (11 boxes, tagged) filed. |
| Nov. 01, 1996 | Letter to WFQ from Krista Simon (RE: transmittal of exhibits) (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 28, 1996 | CC: Letter to James Robinson from Donald Conn (RE: notification that Pam Gifford retrieved all District exhibits) (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 25, 1996 | Memo to Counsel of Record from Donald Conn (RE: transmittal date for exhibits) (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 21, 1996 | Notice of Filing, Deposition of Ronald L. Wycoff filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1996 | Memo to Counsel of Record from Donald Conn (RE: transmittal date for exhibits) (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 09, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Sep. 03, 1996 | Pasco`s Reply to Pinellas` Response to Pasco`s Motion for Official Recognition filed. |
| Aug. 29, 1996 | Pasco`s Reply to Pinellas` Response to Pasco`s Motion for Official Recognition (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 28, 1996 | Pinellas` Response to Pasco`s Motion for Official Recognition filed. |
| Aug. 21, 1996 | Pasco`s Motion for Official Recognition filed. |
| Aug. 19, 1996 | Letter to WFQ from Donald Conn (RE: parties agreed to continue case on September 9 and 16, 1996 at Oakbrook Plaza) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 15, 1996 | Subpoena Duces Tecum (from F. Reeves); Affidavit of Service filed. |
| Aug. 13, 1996 | Pinellas` Reply in Support of Its Second Motion for Official Recognition filed. |
| Aug. 12, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 9/9/96; 9:00am; Clearwater. |
| Aug. 06, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Deposition of Ronald L. Wycoff filed. |
| Aug. 05, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 8/12/96. |
| Aug. 05, 1996 | Joint Response of Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hillsborough County, and Pasco County in Opposition to Pinellas County`s Second Motion for Official Recognition filed. |
| Aug. 05, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Second Motion for Official Recognition filed. |
| Jul. 29, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 8/5/96. |
| Jul. 26, 1996 | Joint Notice Clarifying Intervenors` Hillsborough And Pasco County`s Position Regarding Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 26, 1996 | Pinellas` Reply in Support of Motion to Tax Attorneys` Fees, Experts` Fees, and Costs Against District filed. |
| Jul. 23, 1996 | (SWFWMD) Notice of Filing; Deposition of Kirk Stage ; Deposition of Peter Nesmith ; Deposition of Brian Ormiston ; Deposition of Robert Knight ; Deposition of Patricia Fesmire ; Deposition of David Elso Bracciano |
| Jul. 22, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 7/29/96. |
| Jul. 22, 1996 | District`s Memorandum In Opposition to Pinellas County`s Motion to Tax Fees And Costs (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 22, 1996 | (SWFWMD) Notice of Filing; A Rapid Regional Wetland Assessment Method for Wetlands Potentially Impacted by Drainage and Groundwater Withdrawal filed. |
| Jul. 19, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Response to Pinellas County`s Motion In Limine (EPS and Wetland Assessment and Rating Methodology) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 19, 1996 | Joint Response of Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hillsborough County and Pasco County In Opposition to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority`s Motion for Partial Summary Recommended Order; Affidavit of James P. Guida filed. |
| Jul. 19, 1996 | Order Addressing Pending Motions sent out. |
| Jul. 19, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Motion for Official Recognition; Pinellas` Motion to Tax Attorneys` Fees Experts` Fees, And Costs Against District Concerning EPS Permit Conditions And Violation of Stipulation (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 18, 1996 | Pretrial Memorandum of Law of Southwest Florida Water Management District Regarding the Applicability of Section 373.171(3), Florida Statutes and Response to Pinellas Renewed Motion for Order Clarifying Burdenof Proof Under Sectio n 373.171(3), Florida |
| Jul. 18, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg`s Joiner In Pinellas` Motion In Limine Concerning District`s EPS and Wetland Assessment And Rating Methods; Cover Letter; City of St. Petersburg`s Joinder In Pinellas` Renewed Motion for Clarifying District`s Burden of Proof Unde |
| Jul. 18, 1996 | Deposition of William J. Veon, Junior, P.E. filed. |
| Jul. 18, 1996 | Pinellas County's Second Notice of Filing Deposition Transcripts; Pinellas' Notice of Filing 1956 Commission Report; Florida's Water Resources Report to the Governor of Florida and the 1957 Legislature by the Florida Water Resources Study Commission (Ta |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Deposition of Steven Edward Dicks ; Deposition of Mark T. Brown, Ph.D. ; Deposition of Gene Boles (no disk enclosed); Deposition of Ronald James Basso, Junior (no disk enclosed); Pinellas County's Notice of Filing Depos |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | (2 Volumes) Deposition of Robert Cleary, Ph.D. ; (2 Volumes) Deposition of Leonard Francis Bartos (no disk enclosed); Deposition of Timoth DeFoe ; Deposition of W. Michael Dennis, Ph.D. ; Patricia M. Dooris, Ph.D. (Tagge |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Deposition of Jay Yingling ; Deposition of Mark T. Stewart, Ph.D. ; Deposition of Ian C. Watson, P.E. ; Deposition of Kenneth A. Weber ; Deposition of Harry C. Downing, Jurior (no disk enclosed); Deposition of Sa |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Deposition of Robert Gordon (No disk enclosed); Deposition of John E. Garlanger, Ph.D., P.E. ; Deposition of Wendall B. Smith ; Deposition of David Anderson Smith ; Deposition of Richard W. Schultz, P.E. ; Deposi |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Deposition of John Michael Emery (No disk enclosed); Deposition of Gary Florence ; Deposition of John Emery ; Deposition of Scott H. Emery, Ph.D. ; Deposition of Donald L. Ellison (No disk enclosed); Deposition |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Deposition of Robert G. Perry, Ph.D. ; Deposition of Charles Thomas Haan, Ph.D. ; Deposition of C. T. Haan, Ph.D., P.E. ; Deposition of James P. Guida ; Deposition of Michael C.Hancock, P.E. (Tagged ); (2) Deposition of M |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Deposition of Wayne Mather ; Deposition of H. Clark Hull, Jr.(Tagged); Deposition of Peter G. Hubbell ; Deposition of Peter S. Huyakorn, Ph.D. (no disk enclosed); Deposition of David L. Moore ; Deposition of Donald Odom |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | (2) Deposition of Richard McLean ; Deposition of W. Ross McWilliams (no disk enclosed); Deposition of Michael W. McWeeny ; Deposition of Donald F. Richters ; Deposition of Theodore F. Rochow, Ph.D. ; Deposition o |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Joint Notice of Clarifying Petitioners` Position In Light of The District`s Change of Position; (West Coast) Motion for Clarification of Position (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Pinellas` Renewed Motion for Order Clarifying District`s Burden of Proof Under Section 373.171(3), Florida Statutes filed. |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Deposition of Brian Harrison Winchester filed. |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Pinellas` Motion for Partial Summary Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Pasco`s And Hillsborough`s Notice of Joinder In Support of District`s Motion In The Alternative to Amend Its Official Position Or To Relinquish Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | Pasco`s And Hillsborough`s Notice of Joinder In Support of District`s Motion In The Alternative to Amend Its Official Position Or to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jul. 16, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Withdrawal of Motion filed. |
| Jul. 16, 1996 | Hillsborough County`s Motion to Clarify Or Amend Hearing Officer`s Order Granting Hillsborough County`s Petition to Intervene (fax) filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1996 | Order of Clarification, Addressing Pending Motions, and Dismissing Intervenor Reese sent out. |
| Jul. 15, 1996 | Notice of Filing of Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Second Amended Proposed Agency Actions (fax) filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1996 | Pinellas Motion for Partial Summary Recommended Order (fax) filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg`s Response to District`s Motion to Strike (fax) filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg`s Joinder In Pinellas Motion to Strike Hillsborough Exhibits; Cover Letter (fax) filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1996 | Joint Motion for Prehearing Conference filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1996 | Pinellas` Response in Support of St. Petersburg`s Motion for Summary Recommended Order Concerning Default Permits filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Response to District`s Second Motion to Strike; Pinellas` Motion in Limine Concerning District`s EPS and Wetland Assessment and Rating Methods filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District Water Use Permit Information Manual filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1996 | Pinellas Response In Support of St. Petersburg`s Motion for Summary Recommended Order Concerning Default Permits filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1996 | Joint Response of Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hillsborough County And Pasco County In Opposition to Petitioners` Joint Motion for Summary Recommended Order Based Upon Confession of Error filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1996 | District`s Motion In The Alternative to Amend Its Official Position Or to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1996 | Pasco`s Motion to Clarify Or Amend Hearing Officer`s "Order Granting Pasco County Petition to Intervene" filed. |
| Jul. 11, 1996 | Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Denying Motion for Summary Recommended Order Based on Confession of Error sent out. |
| Jul. 11, 1996 | Letter to J. Wilcox from M. Skelton Re: Facsimile letter dated 7/5/96 filed. |
| Jul. 11, 1996 | Petitioners` Joint Response to Joint Motion for Prehearing Conference filed. |
| Jul. 11, 1996 | Pinellas' Motion to Strike Hillsborough Exhibits; Pinellas' and the District's Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order Protecting Proprietary Interest in Certain Modeling Software; Stipulated Order on Pinellas' and District's Joint Motion for Entry o |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Order Clarifying Previous Order Granting Pasco County's Petition to Intervene sent out. |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Order Denying District's Motion to Compel sent out. |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Order Denying Pinellas County's Motion for Sanctions sent out. |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Order on Pinellas` Motion for Prehearing Order, Denying District`s Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction sent out. |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Order Denying City of St. Petersburg`s Motion for Summary Recommended Order sent out. |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Order Denying District's Motion to Strike sent out. |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Joint Reply of Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hillsborough County And Pasco County to Response of Pinellas And St. Petersburg In Opposition of Respondents` Alternative Motion for Relinquishment of Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Joint Motion to Compel filed. |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Response of Pinellas and St. Petersburg in Opposition of Respondents` Alternative Motion for Relinquishment of Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jul. 09, 1996 | Joint Motion for Prehearing Conference filed. |
| Jul. 09, 1996 | Response of Pinellas And St. Petersburg In Opposition of Respondents` Alternative Motion for Relinquishment of Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jul. 09, 1996 | Pasco`s Motion to Clarify Or Amend Hearing Officer`s Order Granting Pasco County Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Jul. 09, 1996 | West Coast`s Joinder In Pinellas` Response to District`s Motion to Strike filed. |
| Jul. 09, 1996 | Pinellas` Response to District`s Motion to Strike; Petitioners` Joint Motion for Summary Recommended Order Based Upon Confession of Error; Notice of Deletion of Witnesses From Pinellas County`s Final Witness List filed. |
| Jul. 08, 1996 | Letter to A. Cole from J. Wilcox Re: Enclosing appendices to Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed on 7/05/96; Appendix 1 thru 10 filed. |
| Jul. 08, 1996 | Hillsborough County Exhibits; Cover Letter filed. |
| Jul. 08, 1996 | West Coast`s Partial Joinder In Response of Pinellas And St. Petersburg In Opposition to Respondents` Alternative Motion for Relinquishment of Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jul. 08, 1996 | Joint Response of Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hillsborough County, And Pasco County In Opposition to City of St. Petersburg`s Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 08, 1996 | Notice of Deletion of Exhibits From City of St. Petersburg`s Final List of Exhibits filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | Petitioners` Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | Notice of Filing Prehearing Stipulation By The District, And Hillsborough And Pasco Counties; Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | Letter to D. Spilman from J. Thomas Re: Remaining materials requested relating to depositions filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Motion for Extension of Time; District`s Third Motion to Strike filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority`s Motion for Partial Summary Recommended Order; Cover Letter filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority`s Motion for Partial Summary Recommended Order; Cover Letter; District`s Motion to Strike filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Response Memorandum In Opposition to Pinellas Motion for Sanctions filed. |
| Jul. 03, 1996 | Joint Response of Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hillsborough County And Pasco County In Opposition to Pinellas County's Motion for Rehearing Order Clarifying Burden of Proof; Or, In the Alternative, Motion for Relinquishment of Jurisdicti |
| Jul. 02, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Motion for Sanctions filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg`s Notice of Service of Responses to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1996 | Pasco County`s Motion to Strike St. Petersburg`s Final Witness List or, in the Alternative, to Designate Witnesses filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg`s Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1996 | Pinellas` Notice of Filing Requests for Admissions and Responses Thereto filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1996 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority`s, Notice of Deletion of Exhibits and Witnesses From West Coast`s Final Exhibit and Witness List filed. |
| Jun. 28, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Motion for Sanctions filed. |
| Jun. 27, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg`s Response In Opposition to Pasco County`s Motion to Strike St. Petersburg`s Final Witness List Or, In The Alternative, To Designate Witnesses; Cover Letter filed. |
| Jun. 27, 1996 | Pinellas` Motion for Prehearing Order Clarifying Burden of Proof filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1996 | Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Objections to Pinellas' Third to Hillsborough filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Response to Order on Pending Motions to Compel Dated June 18, 1996 filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1996 | Letter to J. Wilcox from J. Thomas Re: Rapid Wetlands Assessment Method Blind Study filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1996 | Pasco`s Responses to Pinellas First Request for Admissions to Pasco County filed. |
| Jun. 25, 1996 | Notice of Withdrawal of Pinellas' Motion for Protective Order; Noticeof Deletion of Exhibits From Pinellas County's Final Exhibit List; Pinellas' Response to District's Motion to Compel filed. |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | Pasco's Notice of Serving Supplemental Responses to Pinellas' First Interrogatories to Pasco; Pasco County's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Amend Pasco's Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | CC: Letter to Don Conn from David Forziano (RE: exchanging exhibits) filed. |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | Pinellas' Notice of Related Cases (95-1520, 96-2932RU, 96-2933RX) filed. |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | Order Denying District's Motion Related to Discovery Deadline sent out. |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | (Hillsborough County) Notice of Filing; Verification of Hillsborough County`s Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Leave to Intervene as a Party Concerning Cosme-Odessa, Section 21 and South Pasco Wellfields filed. |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Answers to Pinellas' First Request for Admissions to Hillsborough County; Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Answers to Pinellas' Second Request for Admissions to Hillsborough County filed. |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | Pinellas` Response to Pasco`s Request to Produce Documents; Letter to D. Foriano from E. de la parte Re: Faxed letter dated 6/20/96; Letterto K. Lloyd from E. de la Parte Re: SWFWMD`s exhibits filed. |
| Jun. 21, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District's Answers to Pinellas County's Designated 98 Requests for Admissions filed. |
| Jun. 21, 1996 | Pinellas Response to Pasco's Request to Produce Documents filed. |
| Jun. 21, 1996 | Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Answer to Pinellas' First Request for Admissions to Hillsborough County filed. |
| Jun. 21, 1996 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6) filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Objections to Pinellas' Third Interrogatories to Hillsborough filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | West Coast's Response to District's Motion to Take Depositions Out ofTime Permitted by Prehearing Order filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | Order Denying West Coast's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenas sent out. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | Order Denying Pasco's Motion for Reconsideration sent out. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | Pinellas' Notice of Related Cases filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | Pasco County's Motion to Strike St. Petersburg's Final Witness List or, in the Alternataive, to Designate Witnesses filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Cancellation of Deposition filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | (5) Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (5) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from E. de la Parte) filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District's Motion for Leave to Take Depositions Out of Time Permitted by Prehearing Order filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; AmendedNotice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 19, 1996 | Pasco's Notice of Serving Answers to City of St. Petersburg's Second Set of Interrogatories to Pasco County filed. |
| Jun. 19, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District's Response to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's Motion for Protective Order And to Quash Supbpoenas; West Coast's Reply to District's Response to Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenae; |
| Jun. 19, 1996 | Reese's Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice filed. |
| Jun. 19, 1996 | Pasco County's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Amend Pasco's Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Jun. 19, 1996 | (From D. Forziano) Notice of Filing; Verification of Hillsborough County`s Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Leave to Intervene as a Party Concerning Cosme-Odessa, Section 21 and South Pasco Wellfields filed. |
| Jun. 18, 1996 | Pinellas' Motion for Protective Order filed. |
| Jun. 18, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (6) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from J. Wilcox); Pinellas' Response to Pasco's Motion to Strike or to Designate Witnesses; Pinellas' Response to Hillsborough's Motion to Strike or to Limit Witnesses filed. |
| Jun. 18, 1996 | Order Denying Motions to Strike Pinellas Witnesses and Amending Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Jun. 18, 1996 | Order on Pending Motions to Compel sent out. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | (SWFWMD) Notice of Filing; Verification of District's Objection to Pinellas' First Interrogatories to SWFWMD and Answers to The first 30 Interrogatories ans Subparts Contained in Pinellas' First Interrogatories to SWFWMD; Cover Letter filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | (2) City of St. Petersburg's Cross Notice of Taking Depositions DucesTecum filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | Pinellas' Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6) filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Response to City of St. Petersburg's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike in Part and Response to Hillsborough Cunty's Amended Petition filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | District's Motion to Compel filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | West Coast's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenae filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | West Coast's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenae; Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum; (4) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 14, 1996 | (3) Pinellas' Notice of Continued Deposition Duces Tecum; (2) Pinellas's Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6); Pinellas' Amended Cross Notice of Taking Deposition; Letter to M. Zagorac from E. de la |
| Jun. 14, 1996 | Pinellas`` Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum of John Heuer; Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Response to Pinellas County`s Motion to Compel (NTB WRAP Comments - M. Brown); Pinellas` Response to District` s Motion to Strike or |
| Jun. 14, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Cancellation of Deposition; Pasco's Motion to Strike Pinellas' Final Witness List or, in the Alternative, to Designate Witnesses; Pinellas County's Notice of Serving Answers to Pasco County's First Interrogatories; Pinellas County |
| Jun. 14, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District's Response to Pinellas County's Motion to Compel Regarding Rapid Wetland Assessment Method; Southwest Florida Water Management District's Response to Pinellas County's Motion to Compel the District to Answer I |
| Jun. 14, 1996 | Order Denying Hillsborough County's Motion for Reconsideration sent out. |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Precluding Hillsborough County From Amending Its Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Motion to Strike or Limit Pinellas County's Witnesses filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | CC: 2 Letters to H.Ray Allen from John R. Thomas (RE: rescheduling depositions); CC: 3 Letters to John Wilcox from John R. Thomas (RE: scheduling dates for depositions); CC: Letter to Fred Reeves from John R. Thomas (RE: dates set for depositions) rec`d |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District's Response to Pinellas County's Motion to Compel Regarding Starvation Lake Field Notes; Southwest Florida Water Management District's Response to Pinellas County's Motion to Compel Regarding Vegetation Analysi |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | West Coast's Notice of Service of Responses to Pasco's First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | CC: Letter to John Thomas from David Forziano (RE: rescheduling of W. Ross McWilliams deposition) filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum; Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition; Subpoena; (3) Pinellas' Notice of Continued Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 12, 1996 | Order Denying Pinellas County's Second Motion for More Definite Statement and/or Motion to Dismiss or Strike sent out. |
| Jun. 12, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Response to City of St. Petersburg's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike in Part and Response to Hillsborough County's Amended Petition filed. |
| Jun. 11, 1996 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | Intervenor, Hillsborough County`s Answers to Pinellas County`s Second Interrogatories filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | (9) Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (10) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from E. de la Parte); Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition; Pinellas' Notice of Continued Deposition Duces Tecum; (From A. Klymenko) Notice of Appearance rec' |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Notice of Deposition Location Change filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | (Respondent) (3) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6) filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | (8) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (8) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from J. Wilcox) filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | (3) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum (from J. Wilcox) filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District's Motion to Strike or to Limit Witnesses filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | Reese's Notice of Service of Answers to Pinellas County's Interrogatories filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | Hillsborough County`s Response to Pinellas County`s Second Motion for More Definite Statement And/Or Motion to Dismiss Or Strike Hillsborough County`s Amended Petition filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | Reese's Notice of Vacation filed. |
| Jun. 07, 1996 | Pasco's Notice of Serving Answers to Pinellas' First Interrogatories to Pasco filed. |
| Jun. 07, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Amended Answer to City of St. Petersburg's First Set of Interrogatories to Hillsborough County filed. |
| Jun. 06, 1996 | District`s Objection to Pinellas` First Interrogatories to SWFWMD and Answers to the First 30 Interrogatories and Subparts Contained in Pinellas` First Interrogatories to SWFWMD filed. |
| Jun. 06, 1996 | (From D. Forziano) Notice of Deposition Location Change filed. |
| Jun. 06, 1996 | Pinellas' Motion to Compel the District to Answer Interrogatories; Pinellas' Notice of Filing its First Interrogatories to SWFWMD and SWFWMD's Objection and Partial Answers; Notice of Deposition Location Change; Pinellas' First Interrogatories to SWFWMD |
| Jun. 06, 1996 | Letter to J. Wilcox from J. Thomas Re: Deposition of Dave Slonena filed. |
| Jun. 06, 1996 | Pinellas County's Motion to Compel to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (Minimum Low Management Level Vegetation Analysis); Pinellas County's Motion to Compel the Southwest Florida Water Management District (Minimum Low Management Level - |
| Jun. 06, 1996 | Pinellas County's Motion to Compel to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (NTB WRAP Comments - M. Brown); Pinellas County's Motion to Compel to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (Regarding Rapid Wetland Assessment Method) rec'd |
| Jun. 06, 1996 | Letter to All counsel and parties of record from E. de la Parte Re: Deposition of G. Florence on 6/6/96 filed. |
| Jun. 06, 1996 | District`s Objection to Pinellas` First Interrogatories to SWFWMD and Answers to the First 30 Interrogatories and Subparts Contained in Pinellas` First Interrogatories to SWFWMD filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | (From J. Wilcox) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition; Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum (from J. Wilcox); City of St. Petersburg's Amended Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | Order Denying Pending Motions for Protective Order sent out. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | (3) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from E. de la Parte); Pinellas County's Motion to Compel to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (NTB WRAP Comments - M. Brown); Pinellas County's Motion to Compel to the Southwest Florida Water Management District ( |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | Order on Pending Motions to Amend, Motion to Enforce and Motion in Limine sent out. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | (Work Copy) Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District's Motion for Protective Order; (2 Work Copy) Amendment to Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District's Motion for Protective Orderfiled. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District's Motion for Protective Oder; Amendment to Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District's Motion for Protective Order filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike in Part and Response to Hillsborough County's Amended Petition filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | Pinellas County's Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6) filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | (Intervenor) Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | Pasco's Objection to Petitioner City of St. Petersburg's Amended Request for Production of Documents to Pasco County filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Rescheduling Deposition Duces Tecum (Bill Johnson); (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Cindy Hewitt); (Respondent) Subpoenas Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | (Respondent) Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | CC: Letter to John Wilcox from John R. Thomas (RE: Pinellas opposes any effort by the District to reschedule above depositions) filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | West Coast's Motion to Strike And Objection to Pasco County's Requestfor Production of Documents; Cover Letter filed. |
| Jun. 04, 1996 | Pinellas Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Second Notice of Removal of Witnesses From Hillsborough County's Final Witness List; Cover Letter (RE: notice of address change) filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1996 | (From E. de la Parte) Notice of Deposition Location Change; Pinellas County's Second Motion for More Definite Statement and/or Motion to Dismiss or Strike Hillsborough County's Amended Petition filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1996 | (Respondent) (5) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (5) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from J. Wilcox); (Petitioners) Notice of Deposition Location Change; (2) Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1996 | Hillsborough County`s Response to St. Petersburg`s Motion in Limine; Hillsborough County`s Notice of Removal of Witnesses From Hillsborough County`s Final Witness List filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1996 | (City of St. Petersburg) Notice of Supplemental Information in Support of the City's Motion in Limine filed. |
| May 31, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition; (Respondent) Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. |
| May 31, 1996 | (From F. Reeves) Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; PascoCounty's Response in Opposition to Hillsborough County's Motion to Amend Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| May 31, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Motion to Strike Pinellas County's Response in Opposition to Hillsborough County's Motion to Amend Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| May 31, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Notice of Removal of Witnesses From Hillsborough County's Final Witness List filed. |
| May 30, 1996 | Pinellas County Sheriff's Return of Service filed. |
| May 30, 1996 | (18) Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (14) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from E. de la Parte) filed. |
| May 30, 1996 | West Coast's Second Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Taking Deposition Directed to Donald Conn, Esq. filed. |
| May 30, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum (from J. Wilcox); Hillsborough County's Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Notice of Cancellation of Deposition filed. |
| May 29, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Response to St. Petersburg's Motion In Limine filed. |
| May 28, 1996 | Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 28, 1996 | Southwest Florida Water Management District's Response to City of St.Petersburg's Objection to The District's Final Witness List; Pinellass' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (Edward de la Parte)Subpoena Duces Tecum; Pinellas Cross Notice |
| May 28, 1996 | Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Response to Pinellas, Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Pasco's and Hillsborough's Objections to Pinellas' First Request for Admissions; Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Objections to Pinellas' Second Request for Admi |
| May 28, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Motion to Strike Pinellas County's Response in Opposition to Hillsborough County's Motion to Amend Preliminary Witness List; Pinellas County's Response in Opposition to Hillsborough County's Motion to Amend Preliminary Witness List |
| May 28, 1996 | (Pasco County) Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Pinellas` Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum (from J. Wilcox) filed. |
| May 28, 1996 | Respondent's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion in Limine; (3) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (3) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from J. Wilxoc); Hillsborough County's Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 24, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Motion in Limine filed. |
| May 24, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Amended Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum; (2) Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 24, 1996 | Pinellas' Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum of B. J. Jarvis filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas Notice to Pasco Pursuant to Hearing Officer Order of Which Requests for Admission Are to Be Answered filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Amended Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | (2) City of St. Petersburg' Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas County's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum Pursuant toFlorida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6); CC: Letter to John Wilcox from John Thomas filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas' Notice of Filing Request for Admissions; Petitioner, Pinellas County's Notice of Serving Second Request for Admissions to Intervenor, Hillsborough County filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas' First Request for Admissions to SWFWMD ; (6) Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (6) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum; Pinellas' Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Pasco's and Hillsborough's Objections to Pinellas' First Request for Admissions; Pinellas' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Ree |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas County's Response in Opposition to Hillsborough County's Motion to Amend Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas Second Notice to Hillsborough of Requests for Admission to Be Answered filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas Notice to Hillsborough Pursuant to Hearing Officer Order of Which Requests for Admission Are to Be Answered filed. |
| May 23, 1996 | Pinellas County's Response In Opposition to Hillsborough County's Motion |
| May 22, 1996 | Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Answers to Pinellas County's First Interrogatories filed. |
| May 22, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 22, 1996 | District's Notice of Removal of Richard Gant From District's Final Witness List; District's Notice of Scrivener's Error filed. |
| May 22, 1996 | Hillsborough County`s Response to Pinellas County`s Motion to Enforce Order on Prehearing Procedure Against Hillsborough County filed. |
| May 22, 1996 | (From J. Wilcox) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 21, 1996 | Order on Objections to Pending Requests for Admission sent out. |
| May 21, 1996 | Order Granting Motion for Protective Order sent out. |
| May 20, 1996 | Pinellas' Second Interrogatories to Hillsborough; Pinellas' Response in Opposition to District's Motion in Limine filed. |
| May 20, 1996 | (From J. Wilcox) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 20, 1996 | (Pasco County) Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (3) Request for Production Documents filed. |
| May 20, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Response In Opposition to Hillsborough County's Motion to Amend Preliminary Witness List; Hillsborough County's Response to Pinellas County's Motion to Enforce Order On Prehearing Against Hillsborough County filed. |
| May 20, 1996 | Pinellas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 17, 1996 | (Respondent) Response to Pinellas` Motion to Determine Sufficiency of District`s Objections to Pinellas` First Request for Admissions filed. |
| May 17, 1996 | District's Motion in Limine filed. |
| May 17, 1996 | Pinelas' Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 17, 1996 | Petitioner City of St. Petersburg's Objection to Southwest Florida Water Management Distgrict's Final Witness List; City of St. Petersburg's Amended Notice of Taking Depositons DT filed. |
| May 17, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum; Subp DT filed. |
| May 16, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Response in Support of Pinellas' Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of District's Objections to Pinellas' First Request for Admissions filed. |
| May 15, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Leave to Intervene as a Party Concerning Cosme-Odessa, Section 21 and South Pasco Wellfields filed. |
| May 15, 1996 | (From J. Wilcox) (5) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Unsigned); (6) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 14, 1996 | (West Coast) Certificate Service; District's Final List of Potential Witnesses; District's Corrected Final List of Witnesses (corrected as to format only) filed. |
| May 13, 1996 | (6) City of St. Petersburg's Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (5) City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 13, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Motion to Amended Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| May 13, 1996 | Reese's Motion for Protective Order From Pinellas County's Request for Admissions filed. |
| May 13, 1996 | Supplement to West Coast`s Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Donald Conn, Esq., and Reply to District`s Response to West Coast`s Emergency Motion filed. |
| May 13, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Motion to Enforce Order On Prehearing Procedure Against Hillsborough County; (Pinellas) Cross Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 10, 1996 | District`s Response to Joint Motion to Set Location of Final Hearing; District`s Corrected Final List of Witnesses filed. |
| May 10, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Notice of Appearance; Hillsborough County's Response to St. Petersburg's Objection to Amended Preliminary Witness List; Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Objections to Pinellas' First Request for Admissions filed. |
| May 10, 1996 | (From S. Niego) Notice of Appearance; District's Response to West Coast's Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena DucesTecum Directed to Donald Conn, Esq. filed. |
| May 10, 1996 | Intervenor Pasco County's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, City of St. Petersburg filed. |
| May 10, 1996 | Intervenor Pasco County's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority; Intervenor Pasco County's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Pinellas County filed. |
| May 08, 1996 | Pinellas` Motion to Determine Sufficiency of District`s Objections to Pinellas` First Request for Admissions filed. |
| May 08, 1996 | (From K. Maller) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| May 08, 1996 | Reese's Final Witness and Exhibit List filed. |
| May 07, 1996 | Notice of Hearing Room Location sent out. (hearing set for July 22-26, July 29-31, Aug. 1-2, Aug. 5-9 & Aug. 12-16, 1996) |
| May 07, 1996 | Order Denying District's Motion to Set Deadline for Filing Amended Petitions sent out. |
| May 07, 1996 | Order Denying District's Motion to Shorten Time sent out. |
| May 07, 1996 | Notice Regarding Filing Of Amended Preliminary Witness Lists sent out. |
| May 07, 1996 | Hillsborough County`s Final Witness List; Hillsborough County`s Final Exhibit List; Hillsborough County`s Answer to City of St. Petersburg`s First Set of Interrogatories to Hillsborough County filed. |
| May 07, 1996 | District's Final List of Exhibits filed. |
| May 07, 1996 | Intervenor Pasco County's Response to St. Petersburg's Objection to Pasco County's Amended Preliminary Witness List or, in the Alternative,Motion to Amend Preliminary Witness List; Intervenor Pasco County's Objections to Pinellas' First Request for Adm |
| May 07, 1996 | District's Final List of Potential Witnesses filed. |
| May 06, 1996 | Joint Motion to Set Location of Final Hearing; West Coast's Final List of Witnesses and Exhibits filed. |
| May 06, 1996 | District`s Final List of Exhibits; Pasco County`s Final Witness List; Pasco County`s Final Exhibit List filed. |
| May 06, 1996 | Pinellas County's Response to Southwest Florida Water Management District's Request to Produce filed. |
| May 06, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Final Exhibit List; Pinellas County`s Final Witness List filed. |
| May 03, 1996 | The City of St. Petersburg's Final Witness List; The City of St. Petersburg's Final Exhibit List filed. |
| May 03, 1996 | Petitioner City of St. Petersburg's Objection to Hillsborough County's Amended Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| May 02, 1996 | West Coast's Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Donald Conn, Esq. filed. |
| Apr. 30, 1996 | Petitioner City of St. Petersburg`s Amended Request for Production of Documents to Pasco County filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1996 | Petitioner City of St. Petersburg's Objection to Pasco County's Amended Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1996 | Petitioner City of St. Petersburg`s Initial Request for Production of Documents to Pasco County filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1996 | Reese's Preliminary Witness and Exhibit List filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1996 | (24) City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1996 | Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District's Objections to Pinellas First Request for Admissions; (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Pinellas First Request for Admissions to SWFWMD ; Request for Admissions #1 thru 2338 filed. |
| Apr. 26, 1996 | Intervenor, Hillsborough County's Answers to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's Interrogatories filed. |
| Apr. 25, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1996 | Pasco County's Amended Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1996 | Petitioner, Pinellas County's, Notice of Serving First Interrogatories to Intervenor, Hillsborough County filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1996 | Petitioner, Pinellas County's, Notice of Serving First Interrogatories to Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District; Petitioner, Pinellas County's, Notice of Serving First Interrogatories to Intervenor, Thomas W. Reese; Petitioner, Pinella |
| Apr. 23, 1996 | Petitioner, Pinellas County's, Notice of Serving First Request for Admissions to Intervenor, Thomas W. Reese; Petitioner, Pinellas County's, Notice of Serving First Request for Admissions on Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District; Pinel |
| Apr. 23, 1996 | Petitioner, Pinellas County's, Notice of Serving First Request for Admissions to Intervenor, Pasco County; Petitioner, Pinellas County's, Notice of Serving First Request for Admissions to Intervenor, Hillsborough County filed. |
| Apr. 19, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Amended Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Apr. 18, 1996 | Notice of Service of City of St. Petersburg's Second Set of Interrogatories to Pasco County filed. |
| Apr. 18, 1996 | District's Preliminary List of Potential Witnesses and Exhibits filed. |
| Apr. 17, 1996 | Order on District`s Motion to Compel Discovery, for Sanctions and for Costs sent out. |
| Apr. 17, 1996 | Order on District's Notice of Status of Official Position sent out. |
| Apr. 17, 1996 | Order Granting Pinellas and St. Petersburg Motions for More Definite Statement sent out. |
| Apr. 17, 1996 | Pinellas County's Preliminary Witness List; Pinellas County's Preliminary Exhibit List filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1996 | Pasco County's Preliminary Exhibit List; Pasco County's Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1996 | West Coast's Preliminary List of Witnesses and Exhibits filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1996 | District's Reply to Pinellas County's Memorandum in Opposition to District's Motion for Order Setting Date By Which Amended Petitions Must Be Filed; Cover Letter from L. Faust filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1996 | Pinellas County's Memorandum in Opposition to District's Motion to Compel Discovery, for Sanctions and for Costs filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1996 | Pinellas County's Memorandum in Opposition to District's Motion to Compel Discovery, for Sanctions and for Costs filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1996 | The City of St. Petersburg's Preliminary Exhibit List; The City of St. Petersburg's Preliminary Witness List; City of St. Petersburg's Objection to District's Motion for Order Setting Date by Which Amended Petitions Must be Filed filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Preliminary Witnes List; Hillsborough County's Preliminary Exhibit List filed. |
| Apr. 12, 1996 | Pinellas County's Memorandum in Opposition to District's Motion for Order Setting Date by which Amended Petitions must be filed filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1996 | West Coast's Response to District's Motion to Compel Discovery, for Sanctions and for Costs filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1996 | West Coast's Response to District's Motion to Compel Discovery, for Sanctions and for Costs (Deposition of Dr. Brian Ormistion) filed. |
| Apr. 10, 1996 | Pinellas County's Memorandum in Opposition to District's Motion for Order Setting Date by Which Amended Petitioners Must be Filed filed. |
| Apr. 10, 1996 | Pinellas County's Memorandum in Opposition to District's Motion for Relief From Second Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure filed. |
| Apr. 09, 1996 | Pinellas County's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Shorten Time filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1996 | Pinellas County's Memorandum in Opposition to District's Motion for Relief From Second Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1996 | Notice of Entry of Final Order Nos. SWF 96-4 filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1996 | (Respondent) Request to Produce to Pinellas County w/cover letter filed. |
| Apr. 05, 1996 | District's Motion to Compel Discovery, for Sanctions and for Costs (Deposition of Dr. Brian Ormiston attached) filed. |
| Apr. 05, 1996 | District's Motion for Order Setting Date by Which Amended Petitions Must Be Filed w/cover letter filed. |
| Apr. 05, 1996 | District's Response to 'West Coast's Motion to Compel Compliance WithHearing Officer's Second Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure and for Imposition of Sanction, or in the Alternative, Motion for Order toPreclude Further Chan ge of Agency Position' |
| Apr. 05, 1996 | Notice of Service of City of St. Petersburg's First Set of Interrogatories to Hillsborough County w/cover letter filed. |
| Apr. 04, 1996 | West Coast's Reply to District's Response to "West Coast's Motion to Compel Compliance With Hearing Officer's Second Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure and for Imposition of Sanction, or in the Alternative, Motion for Order to Preclude Further Chan |
| Apr. 02, 1996 | District's Motion to Shorten Time filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1996 | Pasco County's Notice of Service of Responses to City of St. Petersburg's First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor, Pasco County filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Mar. 29, 1996 | Pasco County's Notice of Service of Responses to Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor, Pasco County w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1996 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor, Hillsborough County; Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor, Hillsbo |
| Mar. 26, 1996 | West Coast`s Motion to Compel Compliance With Hearing Officer`s Second Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure and for Imposition of Sanction, or in the Alternative, Motion for Order to Preclude Further Change of Agency Position filed. |
| Mar. 25, 1996 | District's Notice of Status of Official Position (Proposed Agency Action) w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 21, 1996 | District's Corrected Certificate of Service of District's Answers to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's Second Set of Interrogatories w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 19, 1996 | Notie of Filing District's Answers to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's Second Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 18, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 15, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 13, 1996 | Notice of Filing District's Answers to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's Second Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1996 | CC: Letter to J. Wilcox from D. Manson (re: witness depositions) filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1996 | District's Answers to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's First Request for Admissions w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1996 | (From M. Edenfield) Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel filed. |
| Mar. 04, 1996 | Order Denying West Coast's Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena sent out. |
| Mar. 04, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 01, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Motion for More Definite Statement w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 01, 1996 | District's Opposition to "West Coast's Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena" (w/exhibit A-D) filed. |
| Mar. 01, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Cancellation of Deposition; Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 29, 1996 | West Coast's Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena; (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum; Cover Letter filed. |
| Feb. 29, 1996 | Pinellas County's Motion for More Definite Statement filed. |
| Feb. 28, 1996 | Order Granting Hillsborough County's Petition to Intervene sent out. |
| Feb. 28, 1996 | Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Expedite Hearing Schedule sent out. |
| Feb. 28, 1996 | Order Granting West Coast's Motions for Leave to File Amended Petitions sent out. |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | (Pinellas County) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | District's Motion to Expedite Final Hearing Schedule filed. |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | Pasco`s Memorandum in Opposition to Pinellas` Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike, in Part, Pasco`s Second Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Party filed. |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 23, 1996 | (John R. Thomas) Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| Feb. 23, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Subpoena Duces Tecum; Exhibit "A" w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 22, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 20, 1996 | Pasco County's Responses to City of St. Petersburg's Initial Request for Admissions to Pasco County, Florida w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 20, 1996 | Pinellas County`s Response to Southwest Florida Water Management District`s Request to Produce; Pinellas County`s Notice of Serving Answers to Southwest Florida Water Management District`s First Interrogatories filed. |
| Feb. 20, 1996 | (2) City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 19, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9:00am; July 22-26, July 29 - Aug. 2, 5 - 9 & 12 - 16) |
| Feb. 19, 1996 | Second Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure sent out. |
| Feb. 19, 1996 | West Coast's Notice of Service of Responses to District's Second Set of Interrogatories; Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority; West Coast's Response to District's Second Set of Interrogatories w/cover l |
| Feb. 16, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Space Availability for Final Hearing (No Signature) w/cover letter; Pinellas' Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike, in Part, Pasco County's Second Petition to Intervene as a Party filed. |
| Feb. 15, 1996 | Pasco's Memorandum in Opposition to St. Petersburg's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Pasco's Second Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Party w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor, Pasco County; Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories to the Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District; Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's First Request for Admis |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Service of Responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | Pasco`s Memorandum in Opposition to St. Petersburg`s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Pasco`s Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Party w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, Notice of Service of First Request for Admissions to the Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District; Petitioner, West Coast Regional WaterSupply Authority's, N otice of Service of Fi |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Donald D. Conn, John T. Allen, Jr.) Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings Regarding Water Use Permit for Cosme-Odessa Wellfield; Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings as to Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield; Amended |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Donald D. Conn) Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for FormalProceedings as to Section 21 Wellfield; Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings Rearding Water Use Permit for Section 21 Wellfield; Motion for Leave to File Amen ded Petition for Forma |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | Hillsborough County's Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Party filed. |
| Feb. 08, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Motion to Dismiss Or Strike Pasco's Second Petition for Leave to Intervene As A Party; Cover Letter filed. |
| Feb. 02, 1996 | Letter to E. Moore from Deborah Keplin (RE: request for copies) filed. |
| Feb. 01, 1996 | Order Granting Pinellas County Petition to Intervene sent out. |
| Feb. 01, 1996 | Order Granting Pasco County Petition to Intervene sent out. |
| Feb. 01, 1996 | Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration sent out. |
| Feb. 01, 1996 | Pinellas' Reply to the District's Response to Petitioners' Joint Motion to Reschedule Final Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 31, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Reply to the District's Response to Petitioners' Joint Motion to Reschedule Final Hearing w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 29, 1996 | Pasco County's Second Petition to Intervene as a Party w/cover letterfiled. |
| Jan. 26, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Reply to The District's Response to Petitioners Joint Motion to Reschedule Final Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 25, 1996 | District's Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 25, 1996 | West Coast's Response to District's Motion for Reconsideration of Order On West Coast's Motion for Protective Order And to Quash Subpoenas filed. |
| Jan. 25, 1996 | Pinellas` Response in Opposition to District`s Motion for Reconsideration of Order on West Coast`s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena filed. |
| Jan. 22, 1996 | Respondent's Notice of Serving Interrogatories to Pinellas County; Request to Produce to Pinellas Coutny; Respondent's Notice of Serving Interrogatories to the City of St. Petersburg filed. |
| Jan. 22, 1996 | Respondent's Amendment to Notice of Serving Interrogatories to Pinellas County and to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories to PinellasCounty w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 22, 1996 | Respondent's Amendment to Notice of Serving Interrogatories to City of St. Petersburg and to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories to City of St. Petersburg; Respondent's Amendment to Notice of Serving Interrogatories to West Coast Regional Water Su |
| Jan. 22, 1996 | Reese's Notice of Service of Answers to West Coast's Interrogatories filed. |
| Jan. 22, 1996 | District's Motion for Reconsideration of Order on West Coast's Motionfor Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena; Request to Produce to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority; Respondent's Notice of Serving Interrogatories to W est Coast Regional Wat |
| Jan. 22, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Joinder in Pinellas' Motion to Dismiss or Strike Pasco's Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Party w/cover letterfiled. |
| Jan. 18, 1996 | (Respondent) Response to Petitioners Joint Motion to Reschedule Final Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1996 | Pasco's Memorandum in Opposition to Pinellas' Motion to Dismiss or Strike Pasco's Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Party filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1996 | Notice of Service of City of St. Petersburg's First Set of Interrogatories to Pasco County w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1996 | Notice of Fiing City of St. Petersburg's Initial Request for Admissions w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 12, 1996 | Pinellas County's Reply to Reese's Response to Motions for Continuance filed. |
| Jan. 11, 1996 | Joint Motion to Reschedule Final Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 11, 1996 | District's Response to St. Petersburg's Initial Request for Admissions w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg`s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Pasco`s Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Party w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1996 | (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum; (2) Affidavit of Service w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1996 | Letter to HO from James A. Robinson Re: Length of time for hearing filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1996 | Reese's Notice of Supplemental Information Concerning Rescheduling Final Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 08, 1996 | Pinellas Motion to Dismiss Or Strike Pasco's Petition for Leave to Intervene As A Party filed. |
| Jan. 08, 1996 | City of St. Petersburg's Motion to Dismiss Or Strike Pasco's Petitionfor Leave to Intervene As A Party filed. |
| Jan. 04, 1996 | Reese's Responses to City's Requests for Admission; Pinellas' Response in Opposition to District's Consolidated Motion to Compel, Motion for Contempt Order and Motion for Sanctions, Costs and Fees filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1996 | Letter to HEARING OFFICER from James A. Robinson Re: Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Jan. 02, 1996 | (4) Subpoena Duces Tecum; (4) Affidavit of Service w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 02, 1996 | Order on Pending Motions in Limine Motions for Protective Orders and to Quash Subpoenas, and on Joint Motion to Continue sent out. |
| Dec. 26, 1995 | District's Notice of Filing Amended Proposed Water Use Permits filed. |
| Dec. 26, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 26, 1995 | (J. Wilcox, K. Lloyd) Notice of Action by District; Notice of Cancellation of Depositions w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 26, 1995 | West Coast`s Response to District`s Consolidated Motion to Compel, Motion for Contempt Order And Motion for Sanctions, Costs And Fees Order filed. |
| Dec. 22, 1995 | (Respondent) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Notice of Cancellation of Deposition of Warren Hogg w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 22, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum w/coverletter filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | The City of St. Petersburg`s Notice of Service Responses to District`s First Set of Interrogatories; The City of St. Petersburg`s Notice of Service Responses to District`s Second Set of Interrogatories w/coverletter filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | (Respondent) 3/Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; District's Consolidated Motion to Compel, Motion for Contempt Order And Motion for Sanctions, Costs And Fees filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | Reese's Response to Motions for Continuance filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Cancellation of Deposition of Bill Johnson w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Cancellation of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1995 | (Respondent) Response to Petitioners Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 20, 1995 | Pinellas County's Notice of Serving Answers to Southwest Florida Water Management District's First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1995 | Pinellas First Supplemental Motion In Limine, Or In The Alternative, for Sanctions filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1995 | Pasco County's Petition for Leave to Intervene As A Party filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1995 | Pinellas Response to District's Objection to Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. |
| Dec. 18, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Amended Request for Admissions filed. |
| Dec. 18, 1995 | Pinellas` First Supplemental Motion in Limine, or in the Alternative, for Sanctions filed. |
| Dec. 18, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 18, 1995 | District's Objection to Pinellas County's Petition for Leave to Intervene in Support of WCRWSA's and St. Petersburg's Renewal Applications Concerning Section 21, Cosme-Odessa, and South Pasco Wellfields w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 18, 1995 | district's Objection to Pinellas County's Petition for Leave to Intervene in Support of WCRWSA's and St. Petersburg's Renewal Applications Concerning Section 21, Cosme-Odessa, and South Pasco Wellfields w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Cancellation of Deposition of D. Anderson Smith; West Coast`s Notice of Service of Responses to District`s First Set of Interrogatories w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1995 | Pinellas` First Supplemental Motion in Limine, or in the Alternative, for Sanctions w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1995 | (David M. Caldevilla) Request for Oral Argument on Pinellas' Motion in Limine, or in the Alternative, for Sanctions filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Amended Request for Admissions filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1995 | District's Response to Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, Second Request for Production w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1995 | District's Response to Motions in Limine Filed by Pinelas County, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, and City of St. Petersburg w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1995 | Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | District's Response to Motions in Limine Filed by Pinellas County, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, and City of St. Petersburg; Letter to Ann Cole from James A. Robinson Re: Motions in Limine w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | West Coast's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum and Notice of Taking Rescheduled and Continued Depositions Duces Tecum w/cover letterfiled. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Cancellation of Depositions of Jerry Maxwell and Dr. Sam Upchurch w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | Order Denying Motions In Limine Or for Sanctions sent out. (motion denied) |
| Dec. 12, 1995 | West Coast's Motion for Protective Order And to Quash Subpoena filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1995 | (2) City of St. Petersburg's Amended Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1995 | Joint Motion In Limine; Cover Letter filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Rescheduling Deposition Duces Tecum w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1995 | (Petitioners) Request for Oral Argument filed. |
| Dec. 08, 1995 | Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District's, Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, City of St. Petersburg; Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District's Second Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, C |
| Dec. 08, 1995 | (Martha J. Edenfield) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Dec. 08, 1995 | Pinellas' Motion in Limine, or in the Alternative, for Sanctions filed. |
| Dec. 07, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Response to Southwest Florida Water Management District's Motion to Shorten Time for Response to Interrogatories w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 07, 1995 | Order Denying Motions to Shorten Response Time sent out. (motion denied) |
| Dec. 07, 1995 | West Coast's Motion for Proctective Order And to Quash Subpoena filed. |
| Dec. 07, 1995 | Pinellas' Notice of Filing Transcript; Excerpts from Transcript of Public Hearing Proceedings filed. |
| Dec. 07, 1995 | Pinellas' Response in Opposition to District's Verified Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing, and Amendment to Verified Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing; Pinellas' Petition for Leave to Intervene in Support of WCRWSA's and St. Petersburg's Rew |
| Dec. 06, 1995 | (Respondent) Amendment to District's Verified Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing Oral Argument Requested w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Rescheduled and Continued Depositions filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1995 | Notice of Filing City of St. Petersburg's Initial Request for Admissions w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1995 | Notice of Filing City of St. Petersburg's Initial Request for Admissions w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 05, 1995 | District's Verified Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing (Oral Argument Requested) filed. |
| Dec. 04, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Dec. 04, 1995 | (James A. Robinson) Amended Certificate of Service for Notice of Appearance; Notice of Appearance w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 01, 1995 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor, Thomas W. Reese;Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's, First Set of Interrogatories to I ntervenor, Thomas W. R |
| Dec. 01, 1995 | West Coast's Response in Opposition to District's Motion for Continuance; Pinellas' Response to District's Motion to Shorten Time w/cover letter filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District's, Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, St. Petersburg,Florida; Motion to Shorten Time for Response to Respondent, SouthwestFlorida Water Managem ent District's, First |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District's, Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority; Motion to Shorten Time for Response to Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District's, |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | (James A. Robinson) Notice of Appearance; Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District's, Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Pinellas County, Florida; Motion to ShortenTime for Response to Respondent, Southwest |
| Nov. 27, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg`s Amended Notice of Taking Depositions w/cover letter filed. |
| Nov. 27, 1995 | Notice of Appearance of John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire of John T. Allen, Jr., P.A. as Co-Counsel for Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority w/cover letter filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority`s Second Request for Production of Documents to the Southwest Florida Water Management District; Fax Cover Sheet to Rick Tschantz from Donald Conn w/cover letter filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | (Petitioner) Motion to Shorten Time for Response to West Coast's Second Request for Production of Documents; Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's Notice of Service of Second Request for Production of Documents to the Southwest Florid |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Taking Depositions w/cover letter filed. |
| Nov. 06, 1995 | District's Reply to West Coast's Response to District's Motion for Protective Order w/cover letter filed. |
| Nov. 06, 1995 | West Coast's Response to District's Motion for Protective Order and West Coast's Motion for Emergency Hearing On District's Motion; Cover Letter filed. |
| Nov. 06, 1995 | Order Granting Motion for Protective Order sent out. |
| Nov. 03, 1995 | (Donald D. Conn) Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| Nov. 03, 1995 | District's Motion for Protective Order w/cover letter filed. |
| Oct. 24, 1995 | (Petitioner) Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| Oct. 19, 1995 | Pinellas County's Objection to Notice of Production From Non-Party filed. |
| Oct. 18, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Objection to Production From Non-Party w/cover letter filed. |
| Oct. 13, 1995 | West Coast's Objection to Notice of Production From Non-Party w/coverletter filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1995 | Southwest Florida Water Management District's Notice of Service of Responses to West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's First Set of Interrogatories; Southwest Florida Water Management District's Responseto West Coast Regiona l Water Supply Authori |
| Oct. 10, 1995 | Southwest Florida Water Management District's Notice of Service of Responses to City of St. Petersburg's First Set of Interrogatories w/cover letter filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1995 | (Connie D. Harvey) Notice of Production from Non-Party; Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition w/cover letter filed. |
| Sep. 08, 1995 | Recommended Order of Dismissal of DOAH Case No. 95-1529 sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-1520, 95-1521, 95-1522, 95-1523, 95-1525, 95-1526, 95-1527, 95-1528) |
| Sep. 08, 1995 | Case No/s 95-1520, 95-1521, 95-1522, 95-1523, 95-1525, 95-1526, 95-1527, 95-1528, 95-1529: unconsolidated. |
| Sep. 05, 1995 | Petitioner City of St. Petersburg's Notice of Service of First Set ofInterrogatories to Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District; Petitioner City of St. Petersburg's First Set of Interrogatoriesto Respondent Southwe st Florida Water Manag |
| Sep. 05, 1995 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority`s Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District; Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority`s First Set of Interrogatories |
| Sep. 05, 1995 | Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's Notice of Service of Initial Request for Production of Documents to The Southwest Florida Water Management District; Petitioner West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's Initial Request for Pro |
| Aug. 25, 1995 | Notice of Ex Parte Communication sent out. |
| Aug. 16, 1995 | Letter to HO from Tom F. Brown Re: Notice of Hearing; John R. Thomas from Tom F. Brown (cc: HO) Re: Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Aug. 07, 1995 | Letter to HO from Tom Brown Re: To File a More Definite Statementd w/cover letter filed. |
| Aug. 03, 1995 | Recommended Order of Dismissal of DOAH Case No. 95-1524 sent out. |
| Aug. 03, 1995 | Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure sent out. |
| Aug. 03, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 9-12, 15-19 & 22-26, 1996; 9:00am; Tampa) |
| Aug. 03, 1995 | Second Order Directed to Tom F. and Katherine C. Brown to File More Definite Statement sent out. |
| Jul. 10, 1995 | Letter to WFQ from Tom Brown (RE: request for copy of order directing Tom And Katherine Brown to file a more definite statement) filed. |
| Jul. 07, 1995 | Recommended Order of Dismissal of Brown And Tollover (for HO signature); Cover Letter filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice to All Parties w/cover letter filed. |
| May 26, 1995 | Reese's Response to City's Response In Opposition to Reese's Amended Motion to Intervene filed. |
| May 25, 1995 | Order Directed to Petitioner Tolliver to File Amended Petition sent out. (Katherine Tolliver shall no later than 5:00pm 6/15/95 file an amended petition for hearing which complies w/requirements of rule 40D-1.521, FAC) |
| May 25, 1995 | Order Directed to Tom F. And Katherine C. Brown to File More Definite Statement sent out. (motion granted) |
| May 25, 1995 | Order Granting Reese Motion to Intervene sent out. (motion granted) |
| May 24, 1995 | Reese's Response to Motions to Dismiss Amended Petition filed. |
| May 22, 1995 | West Coast's Motion to Dismiss Reese's Amended Motion w/cover letter filed. |
| May 19, 1995 | Order of Consolidation sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-1520, 95-1521, 95-1522, 95-1523, 95-1524, 95-1525, 95-1526, 95-1527, 95-1528, 95-1529) |
| May 08, 1995 | Thomas W. Reese's First Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene as a Party filed. |
| May 05, 1995 | West Coast's Corrected Motion to Dismiss Reese w/cover letter filed. |
| Apr. 21, 1995 | (Petitioner) Motion to Consolidate and Simplify Case Style (with DOAHCase No/s. 95-1520, 95-1521, 95-1522, 95-1523, 95-1524, 95-1525, 95-1526, 95-1527, 95-1528, 95-1529); West Coast's Response to Initial Order; West Coast's Motion to Dismiss Reese w/cove |
| Apr. 04, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Mar. 30, 1995 | Agency referral letter; Notice Of Referral (95-1520 & 95-1521); Petition for Formal Proceedings Water Use Permit Section 21 Wellfield; Agency Action letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 09, 1997 | Other | |
| Jun. 06, 1997 | Other | |
| Jun. 05, 1997 | Other | |
| May 29, 1997 | Recommended Order | Criteria met for continued water withdrawal at current levels. Baseline for review is existing condition when application is filed. |
