DAVID AND LISA CIMINI, MIRIAM ) RESTO, TIMOTHY L. MCCORMACK, ) JOHN A. MAPP, JR., and JIM ) TAYLOR, )
vs. ) Case No. 06-2005
) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION and LAKE ) ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, LLC, )
Respondents. )
Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on September 18,
2006, in Tavares, Florida.
For Petitioner: Timothy L. McCormack, pro se
For Petitioner: John A. Mapp, Jr., pro se
For Respondent: Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire (LER) Berger Singerman, P.A.
The issue is whether a permit should be issued to Respondent, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC (LER), authorizing the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility in unincorporated Lake County, Florida.
This matter began on May 4, 2006, when Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), gave notice of its intent to issue a permit to LER authorizing it to construct and operate a facility for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling on a 44.33-acre site in unincorporated Lake County, Florida. On May 17, 2006, Petitioners, David and Lisa Cimini, Miriam Resto, Timothy L. McCormack, John A. Mapp, Jr., and Jim Taylor, who each alleged that they resided or operated businesses near the site of the proposed activity, filed their Petition with the Department contesting the proposed issuance of the permit and seeking the imposition of two additional conditions on the applicant.
The matter was forwarded by the Department to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 7, 2006, with a request that an administrative law judge be assigned to conduct a hearing.
By Notice of Hearing dated July 19, 2006, the matter was scheduled for final hearing on September 18 and 19, 2006, in Tavares, Florida.
On September 15, 2006, Petitioners filed two Requests for Continuance (Requests), one on the ground they needed additional time to prepare for hearing, and the second on the ground they desired to hire counsel. Both Requests were later withdrawn.
At the final hearing, Petitioners jointly presented the testimony of Timothy L. McCormack, John A. Mapp, Jr., and Jo Anne Wettstein Griffin, all lay witnesses. Also, they offered Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 2, 9A, 22, 30, 34, 35, and 39-44.1 All have been received except Exhibit 30. Petitioners Resto and Taylor did not appear at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence. The Department presented the testimony of James
LER, whose mailing address is Post Office Box 2872, Windermere, Florida, is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State. LER's principals are Linwood Brannon and Richard Bazinet, both of whom have had at least ten years' experience in the operation and construction of demolition debris disposal facilities.
The Department is an agency of the State that is authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2005)2, to evaluate applications and issue permits for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facilities. The permit in issue here was processed, reviewed, and approved for issuance by the Department's Central District Office in Orlando, Florida.
Petitioners Miriam Resto and Jim Taylor did not appear at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence as to
where they resided or how their substantial interests would be determined by the issuance of a permit.
Petitioner Timothy L. McCormack resides at 11321 Valley View Road, Howey-in-the-Hills, Florida. Mr. McCormack's home is "a little over a mile" north-northwest of the proposed facility. His concern with the proposed facility is generally over contamination from the landfill, and not contamination occurring at the property.
Petitioner John A. Mapp, Jr., resides at 21307 County Road 561, Clermont, Florida, which is approximately one-half mile from the proposed facility. Mr. Mapp's home is upgradient from the facility and consequently he has no "individual concerns" as to how the proposed facility would affect his home. He is concerned, however, with potential groundwater contamination from the facility.
Petitioners David and Lisa Cimini did not testify at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence as to where they resided or how their substantial interests would be determined by this proceeding. According to the Partial Pre- Hearing Stipulation filed by Respondents, however, they reside at 21423 County Road 455, Clermont, Florida, which is near the proposed facility.
Background
On July 26, 2005, LER filed an application with the Department for a permit authorizing it to construct and operate a facility for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling in an unincorporated area of the County. A lengthy definition of construction and demolition debris is found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(27), which reads as follows:
discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from a construction project; effective January 1, 1997, except as provided in Section 403.707(12)(j), F.S., unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from the facilities manufacturing materials used for construction of structures or their components and unpainted, non-treated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste where generated and the generator of such wood scraps or pallets implements reasonable practices of the generating industry to minimize the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and de
minimus amounts of other non-hazardous wastes that are generated at construction and demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the construction and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris.
The facility will be located on a 44.33-acre site one- half mile west of State Road 561, off County Road 455, in an unincorporated part of Lake County. Based on this description, it appears that the facility will be located east of Howey-in- the Hills, west of Tavares, and approximately half-way between Astatula and where State Road 561 crosses the Florida Turnpike to the southwest. The site presently has an active sand mine (borrow pit) that covers an area of approximately twenty-two acres. The facility intends to recycle metal, concrete, asphalt, wood chips, and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and will serve areas in Lake County and nearby communities.
In response to LER's initial application, the Central District Office submitted a Request for Additional Information dated August 22, 2005, asking for additional well and site information, operations plan details, and financial assurance clarification. On October 20, 200, LER submitted its Response to Request for Additional Information.
While the application was being processed, Mr. Cimini advised the Department that two additional wells surrounded the property, including one that had recently been installed on property owned by Mr. Gary Sprauer that lies within five hundred feet of the limits of waste disposal of the facility. On November 18, 2005, the Department submitted an additional Request for Additional Information, in which it brought up the fact that Mr. Cimini had advised the Department of the existence of these wells.
On November 28, 2005, LER submitted its Response to Request for Additional Information, in which it stated that only one well, which belonged to a Mr. Sprauer, had been drilled within five hundred feet of the proposed facility; that there was no electricity to the well; that the nearest residence was approximately seven hundred feet away; and that the well was not approved or being used as a potable water well. Therefore, LER asserted that the Department should not treat the Sprauer well as a potable water well subject to the five-hundred-foot setback from potable water wells for landfills established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(2)(b). LER's submittal provided additional information on the geology and operational aspects of its proposed facility.
On December 6, 2005, LER submitted additional information in response to items discussed at a meeting held
between the Department and LER on December 2, 2005. The submittal contained further information about potential drinking water wells around the proposed facility, and LER reasserted that the Sprauer well should not be treated by the Department as a potable drinking water well. Based upon its own investigation, however, the Department concluded that the Sprauer well "was a bona fide drinking water well for domestic supply."
On January 6, 2006, Mr. Bradner, a Department solid and hazardous waste program manager who was assisting in the processing and review of the application, wrote a memorandum to the file confirming that the Department considered the application complete as of December 6, 2005.
On February 10, 2006, LER provided additional hydrologic and operational information in order to try to convince the Department not to apply the five-hundred-foot setback to the Sprauer well. This information showed that the Sprauer well would be upgradient from the proposed facility. The Department allows waste to be placed within five hundred feet of an existing potable water well based upon site-specific conditions as demonstrated by an applicant. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(b).
On March 27, 2006, in response to the Department's comments on its submittal of this additional information, LER
submitted further hydrologic and modeling information to support its contention that groundwater flowed away from the well belonging to Mr. Sprauer. On April 27, 2006, LER provided the Department with further refinement of its groundwater model to demonstrate that there would be no impact to the Sprauer well.
On May 4, 2006, the Central District Office issued notice of its intent to approve the application and issue a permit to LER. Of significance here is the fact that the Department did not require LER to install a liner and leachate collection system. This was consistent with the terms of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.730(4)(a), which does not require a liner unless the Department demonstrates that the facility is "reasonably expected to result in violations of ground water standards and criteria."
On May 17, 2006, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that there is a substantial risk that the surrounding groundwater will be contaminated by leachates from the facility, and that the Department should accordingly require LER to (a) install a liner and associated leachate recovery system in their facility and (b) post a surety bond necessary to maintain the system in good working order and to fund a toxic cleanup should it become necessary.
The Proposed Project
Among other things, the application included an engineering report, an operations plan, a geotechnical evaluation of the stability of the site, a hydrological investigation, a stormwater management plan, a reclamation and closure plan, and financial assurance documentation. These elements are required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.730, which governs this type of application.
The proposed facility is to be located on a 44.33-acre parcel in a rural area that has been the site of a sand and clay borrow pit. The pit has been mined for the last thirty years, has been permitted by Lake County as a mine since 1986, and before being used as a mine was the site of an orange grove.
As explained by Mr. Golden, the proposed facility's project manager, the site is "high and dry" and "a good site for a landfill." The water table is at least one hundred feet below the ground surface.
There is a confining layer of clays and sandy clays approximately one hundred fifty feet below the ground surface at the site of the proposed facility, and the layer has very low hydrologic conductivity, that is, 1,000 to 10,000 times less permeable than the surface sands. The Floridan Aquifer is approximately two hundred feet below ground surface.
The horizontal velocity of the groundwater at the site is approximately two feet per year, and the vertical velocity about 1.3 inches per year. As a result, the groundwater monitoring system at the proposed facility would detect any contamination that might be emitted. In addition, approximately twenty feet of dry soils underlying the landfill would absorb whatever comes out of the landfill to begin with, just like a septic tank.
The confining layer would be approximately one hundred to one hundred twenty feet below the landfill base and would be anywhere from twenty to forty feet deep. As a result, it is highly unlikely that any potential contaminants that hypothetically might be emitted from the facility would ever reach the Floridan Aquifer.
The Proposed Permit
On May 4, 2006, the Central District Office issued its intent to issue the permit. Attached to that intent to issue was a Draft Permit. The Draft Permit restricts disposal of solid waste exclusively to construction and demolition debris (as defined in the rule cited above) and requires LER to comply with an Operations Plan developed by LER. Among other things, the Operations Plan provides for operators trained in spotting and turning away unacceptable waste and other screening
procedures to ensure nondisposal of unacceptable waste. The Operations Plan exceeds minimum Department rule requirements.
The Operations Plan prohibits disposal of CCA (chromated copper arsenate) pressure treated wood and has a special screening procedure to ensure that these wood products do not come into the facility.
The Draft Permit requires LER to install a system of groundwater monitoring wells that surround the property at both shallow and deep depths to detect any potential contaminants coming off of the site. Thus, LER will be required to monitor the surficial aquifer, the Floridan Aquifer, and adjacent wells to ensure protection of area groundwater. The wells will act as a form of early warning indicator so that corrective action can be undertaken in the event the wells show a potential threat to drinking water beyond the property boundary of the proposed facility.
The Draft Permit requires two wells to be installed immediately to the north of the Sprauer well, even though it is upgradient from the site. To be conservative and prudent, the Department is requiring that the number of wells that LER must install be substantially greater than the minimum required under Department rules.
Based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, Mr. Golden concluded that LER has provided
reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will not discharge pollutants in contravention of Department standards or rules. Mr. Bradner agreed with this conclusion and likewise concluded that LER had provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will comply with all of the required statutes and rules. The weight of the evidence supports these conclusions.
The weight of the evidence also supports Mr. Golden's conclusion that based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, the proposed facility will not be a source of contamination for wells within or greater than five hundred feet of the proposed facility. In the same vein,
Mr. Bradner determined that the Sprauer well was the only existing potable drinking water well within five hundred feet. Both experts concluded that the Sprauer well would not be adversely impacted based upon the Department's review of the groundwater modeling data provided to it by LER.
Finally, the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Golden's conclusion that, based upon the hydrologic
evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, the Department should not require LER to install a landfill liner at the proposed facility. Mr. Bradner agreed with that conclusion.
Petitioners' Objections
In their Petition, Petitioners have raised the following objections to the issuance of a permit:
That because the proposed facility would have no liner, the local environment and drinking water supplies would not be adequately protected from contamination;
That the application significantly underestimates the amount of recharge to local aquifers;
That the application ignores or underestimates the ecological fragility of the area; and
That the location of the Sprauer well should require a reconfiguration of the footprint of the proposed facility.
As relief, the Petition asks that the Department require a liner and associated leachate recovery system and adequate financial assurance to ensure proper operation and cleanup if necessary.
During opening argument, Petitioners raised one more issue not previously raised in their Petition — - the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed facility in conjunction with two other landfills in the area. This allegation was not timely raised, however, and has been disregarded.
The positions taken by Petitioners (other than cumulative impacts) appear to be interrelated, that is, the Department should require a liner because the area is
ecologically fragile and recharge is greater than calculated by LER.
In support of their position, Petitioners first presented the testimony of Mr. McCormack, who is engaged in the commercial nursery and landscaping business. Mr. McCormack identified the presence of CCA treated wood as his main concern from a contamination standpoint. His concern is that a possible spread of leachate will result from mingling the wood with rainwater or groundwater and that the surrounding groundwater (which ultimately flows into Double Run Springs, the Harris Chain of Lakes, and the Floridan Aquifer) would be adversely impacted. Mr. McCormack estimated that the edge of the Double Run Springs system was approximately 2,500 feet, or around one- half mile, from the site. He expressed the opinion that it was physically impossible to remove such wood prior to its being landfilled. Mr. McCormack conceded, however, that he was not an expert on landfill management or hydrology and had no personal experience with the operation of a landfill.
There is specific language in LER's Operations Plan prohibiting the disposal of CCA treated wood and requiring best management practices to enforce the prohibition against the disposal of CCA treated wood. This requirement is mandatory, and not voluntary, and provides reasonable assurance that CCA treated wood would not be a potential source of contamination.
The testimony of expert witnesses Bradner and Golden, who expressed this view, is accepted as being more credible on this issue.
Petitioners also presented the testimony of Mr. Mapp, who critiqued the hydrological investigation performed by LER by asserting that the recharge to the Floridan Aquifer is four or five times the amount stated in the application. He also opined that LER's evapotranspiration rates were understated.3 Mr. Mapp is a systems analyst for Lockheed Martin Missiles and has a master's degree in business and an undergraduate degree in physics. While highly educated, Mr. Mapp has no prior experience in any kind of hydrologic, geologic, chemical, or similar types of analyses, or any analyses of the rate of transport of chemicals in the environment. The knowledge and opinions rendered in this case by Mr. Mapp were obtained through personal research after the permit application was filed.
Mr. Mapp opined that LER's recharge calculations constitute a "significant discrepancy." He acknowledged, however, that his estimate of the true speed of downward flow of water at the site of the proposed facility was "just off the cuff" and did not factor in the effects of applying cover to, and the filling and capping of, the landfill. He did not know how fast particular contaminants may migrate through the groundwater or what volume of waste might be necessary to cause
a violation of groundwater quality standards. He also could not give a specific calculation of where a contaminant might be located after a set period of years. Unlike the other experts in this case, the witness had not calculated Floridan Aquifer recharge rates or otherwise used Darcy's Law.4
Even if the permit application underestimated the recharge rate, the thickness of the confining layer below the base of the proposed facility, which was conservatively estimated, would cause groundwater to flow horizontally, not vertically, once the confining layer is reached. As explained by Mr. Golden, LER did not rely exclusively on the recharge calculations that Mr. Mapp relied upon in determining recharge rates. Separate information regarding the permeability of the confining layer provides additional support for the recharge calculations.
Mr. Mapp also opined that LER's evapotranspiration rate calculations were underestimated, based upon his review of a study of a deforested site elsewhere in the Lake Wales Ridge. He assumed the evapotranspiration rate in that study (for a site located fifteen miles away) would be applicable to the site of the proposed facility, and he then assumed that the evapotranspiration rate identified in the permit application for the proposed facility would be applicable only to the properties adjacent to the proposed facility. There is, however, no
scientific basis for drawing an analogy between the borrow pit that is the location of the proposed facility and the deforested site with different geological characteristics about which
Mr. Mapp read in the study he relied upon for his conclusions. Furthermore, LER undertook site-specific analyses of the permeability of the soils underlying the site of the proposed facility, whereas Mr. Mapp's calculations were based upon assumptions drawn from a study of a site fifteen miles away.
The testimony of Mr. Golden is found to be credible and persuasive on this issue.
Finally, there was no evidence concerning Petitioners' contention that LER should post a surety bond necessary to maintain the system in good working order and to fund a toxic cleanup should it become necessary. Therefore, no modification to the permit in this respect is required.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. Balino v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Therefore, the Department and
LER have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a permit should be issued to LER.
Petitioners Resto and Taylor did not appear at the final hearing; consequently, their requests for a hearing are deemed to have been withdrawn. As to the Ciminis, and unlike Mr. McCormack and Mr. Mapp, except for the addresses noted in the Partial Pre-Hearing Stipulation, there is no evidence as to where they live or how they will be substantially affected by the operation of the facility. Therefore, they lack standing to participate in this proceeding. Notwithstanding this evidentiary deficiency, Mr. Cimini has fully participated throughout this process. Even assuming that all of the Petitioners were able to demonstrate standing, the weight of the evidence on the merits establishes that they would not be entitled to the relief requested, which is to require that the proposed facility include a liner and leachate control system as part of is design.
Section 403.707(6), Florida Statutes, provides in part that the Department "may issue a construction permit pursuant to this part only to a solid waste management facility that provides the conditions necessary to control the safe movement of wastes or waste constituents into surface or ground waters
. . . that will be operated, maintained, and closed by qualified and properly trained personnel."
An applicant seeking a construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facility permit must provide reasonable assurances that its proposed facility will not violate applicable statutory and rule standards of the Department. Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-4.030 and 62-
4.070 contain the general standards for determining how the "reasonable assurance" permitting requirement should be applied by the Department.
In the context of issuing an environmental permit, "reasonable assurance" means a demonstration that there is a substantial likelihood of compliance with standards, or "a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented." Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida, Inc., 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). See also City of
Newberry v. Watson Construction Company, Inc. et al., DOAH Case Nos. 95-0752 and 95-0753 (DOAH Aug. 9, 1996, DER Dec. 19, 1996)
1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 172. However, the reasonable assurance standard does not require an "absolute guarantee" of compliance with environmental standards. See Save our Suwannee, Inc. v.
Piechocki et al., DOAH Case Nos. 95-3899 and 95-3900 (DOAH Dec. 22, 1995, DEP Feb. 5, 1996) 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 37 at *17-18.
The applicant bears the ultimate burden of providing reasonable assurances that it will meet the required standards. Fla. Dep't of Trans. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. et al., 396 So. 2d 778,
786-789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). If the applicant presents the necessary prima facie evidence, the burden shifts to the party objecting to the issuance of a permit, and the objecting party must prove "contrary evidence of equivalent quality." Id. at 789. This burden cannot be satisfied with speculative concerns about potential or possible adverse environmental effects. See, e.g., Rowe v. Oleander Power Project, L.P. et al., DOAH Case No. 99-2581 (DOAH Sept. 27, 1999, DEP Nov. 10, 1999) 1999 Fla. ENV
LEXIS 296 at *31; Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dep't of Envir. Reg. et al., DOAH Case No. 88-3355 (DOAH Nov. 14, 1988, DER Dec. 20, 1988) 1988 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112; J.T. McCormick
et al. v. City of Jacksonville et al., DOAH Case Nos. 88-2283 et al. (DOAH Oct. 16, 1989, DER Jan. 22, 1990) 1989 (sic) Fla. ENV LEXIS 3 at *24.
On the issue of whether or not a construction and demolition recycling or disposal facility requires a liner and leachate control system, however, there is a statutory presumption that neither is required. § 403.707(12)(b), Fla. Stat. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(4)(a). Rather, the burden is on the Department to makes an affirmative determination that such additional protection is necessary because "based upon the types of waste received, the methods for controlling types of waste disposed of, the proximity of groundwater and surface water, and the results of the
hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations, . . . the facility is reasonably expected to result in violations of groundwater standards and criteria otherwise." Id.
Finally, the reasonable assurance standard only requires the applicant to address "reasonably foreseeable contingencies" in establishing entitlement. See, e.g., Fla.
Audubon Society v. South Fla. Water Management District et al., DOAH Case No. 90-2402 (DOAH Aug. 3, 1992, SFWMD Sept. 18, 1992)
1992 Fla. ENV LEXIS 165 at *14; Rudloe et al. v. Dickerson Bayshore, Inc. et al., DOAH Case No. 87-3175 (DOAH April 25, 1988, DER June 8, 1988) 1988 Fla. ENV LEXIS 14 at *24-25. Thus,
as a general proposition, the applicant is not required to disprove all the "worst case scenarios" or "theoretical impacts" raised by the permit challengers in this permit proceeding. See
Lake Brooklyn Civic Association, Inc. v. Fla. Rock Industries, Inc. et al., DOAH Case No. 92-5017 (DOAH June 4, 1993, SJRWMD
July 14, 1993) 1993 Fla. ENV LEXIS 93 at *7-9; Hoffert et al. v. St. Joe Paper Company et al., DOAH Case Nos. 89-5053 and 89-6381 (DOAH Oct. 26, 1990, DER Dec. 6, 1990) 1990 Fla. ENV LEXIS 194
at *43.
Here, by a preponderance of the evidence, LER has shown its entitlement to issuance of the proposed permit by providing reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will not discharge pollutants in contravention of Department
standards or rules, and that the proposed facility will otherwise comply with all of the required statutes and rules.
LER has also provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will not be a source of contamination for wells within or greater than five hundred feet of the proposed facility. Therefore, LER is entitled to an exception to the five-hundred-foot setback requirement for its landfill, as authorized by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(2).
LER has also provided reasonable assurance that the Department should not require LER to install a landfill liner at the proposed facility. Even though the burden is on the Department to demonstrate otherwise, the site-specific hydrological and geotechnical information provided by LER, when considered in the context of the Operations Plan and other components of the proposed permit, is sufficient to establish that a liner is unnecessary.
Finally, there is no evidence to support the contention that additional financial assurance on the part of
LER is required.
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the application of Lake
Environmental Resources, LLC, for a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facility in unincorporated lake County.
DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2006.
1/ Witness Griffin also offered a notebook containing numerous documents, the majority of which are unrelated to the issues in this case. That document is marked for identification purposes as Griffin Exhibit 1, and to the very limited extent the papers are relevant, they have been considered.
2/ All references are to the 2005 version of the Florida Statutes.
3/ Evapotranspiration generally means the process by which water is discharged to the atmosphere as a result of evaporation from the soil and transpiration by plants.
4/ Darcy's Law is a law used by hydrogeologists to describe the rate of flow of water through a porous medium.
Timothy L. McCormack 11321 Valley View Road
John A Mapp, Jr. 21307 County Road 561
Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Berger Singerman, P.A.
Gregory M. Munson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
15 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will render a final order in this matter.
