Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

REDD ORANGE CONCENTRATES, INC., ET AL. vs. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, 75-000548 (1975)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 75-000548 Visitors: 19
Judges: CHRIS H. BENTLEY
Agency: Water Management Districts
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 1992
Summary: Petitioner granted exception to water crop theory for consumptive use permit in public interest, provided it installs flow meters.
75-0548.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


IN RE: REDD ORANGE CONCENTRATES, ) CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT APPLICATION, )

NO. 7500018, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER ) CASE NO. 75-548 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


Pursuant to proper notice, an administrative hearing was held before Chris

H. Bentley, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, on May 19, 1975, at the District Headquarters, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida.


APPEARANCES


Mr. Jay T. Ahern, Esquire, Southwest Florida Water Management District.


E. B. Freyfogle, President, Redd Orange Concentrates, Inc.


Robert W. Sterling, appearing on his own behalf.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. Mr. George Szell was presented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and sworn as a witness. Mr. Szell was qualified and accepted as an expert hydrogeologist employed by the District. Included within Mr. Szell`s reponsibilities to the District ,were evaluation of the subject application. An application for consumptive water use permit has been filed in proper form by Redd Orange Concentrates, Inc., and admitted into evidence as Exhibit A. The water source is two existing wells located on a 44.3 acre tract of land located in Polk County, within the Hillsborough Basin. The applicant is in the food processing business and processes orange fruit into a concentrated drink. The water is to be used primarily to cool refrigeration compressors and evaporators and secondarily to wash fruit. A food processing plant engaged in similar activities has been on-site using the existing wells since 1948. The plant is in operation approximately 120 twenty-four hour days annually. Proper notice has been given to all persons entitled thereto, pursuant to statute and rules, and forty-six (46) written objections have been received and admitted into evidence as Composite Exhibit C. Pursuant to Mr. Szell's testimony, none of the matters set forth in Section 16J-2.11(2) and (4), F.A.C., exist so as to require the denial of this permit; The maximum daily withdrawal sought is four million gallons and the average daily withdrawal sought is two million gallons. The water crop allowed by Subsection 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C., is 44,000 gallons. Thus, the requested withdrawal is 4,334.08 percent of the water crop. Mr. Robert W. Sterling presented oral objection stating that quite a few people didn't understand the gross amount of water for which a consumptive use permit is sought herein. He further stated that he would like to see a lot of this water recycled. He noted that he was aware that some people close to the plant have had wells that dried up, but he speculated that this might have been caused by the general drought. Mr. Szell testified that, in his expert Opinion, the

    withdrawal requested by the application will have no harmful effect on neighboring water availability and that the amount sought to be consumptively used is consonant with the food processing industry and, within that context, in the public interest. For that reason, Mr. Szell recommended that an exception be granted in this application and a consumptive water use permit issued in the amounts requested, even though those amounts exceed the water crop theory. Mr. Szell recommended that in the event a consumptive water use permit is issued in the amounts requested by the application, that the flow of the wells be monitored via the Parschall flume method in accordance with the provisions already made by the applicant for such monitoring.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  2. The procedural requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto have been complied with as they pertain to this application. Subsection 16J-2.11(5) provides that the Board, for good cause shown, may grant exceptions to compliance with the water crop theory as set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(3) when, after consideration of all data presented, including economic information, it finds that it is consistent with the public interest. Further, Section 16J-2.11(6), F.A.C., provides that the Board may condition the granting of a permit upon the installation of flow metering devices.


RECOMMENDATION


It is recommended that, with regard to Application No. 7500018 by Redd Orange Concentrates, Inc., that an exception to Subsection 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C., be granted and that a consumptive water use permit be issued in the amounts sought by the application with the condition that flow metering devices satisfactory to the Board be installed and operated on the subject water sources.


Entered this 27th day of August, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida.


CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Director

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675


COPIES FURNISHED:


Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water

Management District

P. O. Box 457

Brooksville, Florida 33501


Mr. E. B. Freyfogle, President Redd Orange Concentrates, Inc.

P. O. Box 950

Lakeland, Florida 33802


Docket for Case No: 75-000548
Issue Date Proceedings
Jun. 18, 1992 Final Order filed.
Aug. 27, 1975 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 75-000548
Issue Date Document Summary
Sep. 10, 1975 Agency Final Order
Aug. 27, 1975 Recommended Order Petitioner granted exception to water crop theory for consumptive use permit in public interest, provided it installs flow meters.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer