STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: )

) APPLICATION NO. 21424 BY DR. )

PHILLIPS, INC. FOR A WATER USE ) CASE NO. 76-237 PERMIT )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, at 9:00

1. on February 17, 1976, in the Conference Room of the Sheraton Orlando Jetport Inn, 3835 Beeline Expressway, Orlando, Florida.

   
   

   APPEARANCES

   
   

   For Applicant: Thomas C. Garwood, Jr.

   Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson and Wharton 17th Floor CNA Building

   Orlando, Florida

   
   

   For Central and Stephen A. Walker Southern Florida Post Office Box V

   Flood Control West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 District:

   
   

   Witnesses: James A. Hinson

   For Dr. Phillips, Corporate Secretary Inc.

   
   

   For Central and Nagendra Khanal Southern Florida Hydrology Division Flood Control

   District:

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. The subject application requests a water use permit from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) for the supplemental irrigation of 145 acres of citrus lands located in Orange County. Received into evidence at the hearing were the public notice of hearing appearing in the Sentinel Star, permit application number 21424 with an attached report and the Staff Report of the FCD, prepared by Nagendra Khanal.

      
      

   2. The applicant requested an annual allocation of water in the amount of

      120.15 acre-feet or 9.94 inches per year, for a period of twenty (20) years.

      The Staff Report recommends the issuance of a permit for said amount, with maximum monthly pumpages not to exceed 49.8 acre-feet or 4.13 inches, the permit to expire on January 15, 1978. Several further special provisions were recommended on pages 4 & 5 of the Staff Report, which report is attached hereto. There is no dispute between the applicant and the FCD over the technical aspects

      of the Staff Report. The protests of the applicant center around the length of the permit and some of the special provisions recommended in the Staff Report, which the applicant feels are vague and ambiguous.

      
      

   3. Mr. James A. Hinson, the applicant's corporate secretary, felt that the FCD had sufficient data and statistics as to the water resources and agricultural usage within the area to sustain the granting of a twenty year permit. It was further felt that the issuance of a two-year permit for the purpose of gathering information as to the quantity of use would tend to prompt higher usage and even lead to falsification of pumpage records on the part of agricultural users so as to assure the issuance of future permits. The applicant was also concerned with the costs of applying for another permit in two years.

      
      

   4. Mr. Nagendra Khanal, a hydrologist with the FCD, explained that the purpose of the two-year permit was to obtain information from agricultural users in the area as to the amount of water used and the effect of such usage on the Florida aquifer system. Since the outset of regulatory provisions, the FCD has set the same termination date for each permit for agricultural use within each of the basins. At that expiration time, the pumpage records for all users in the area will be established and present experimental estimates can then be compared with actual usage. Little is known by the FCD about how the Florida aquifer system operates and the data presently in use are experimental. Since all permits within each basin will expire on the same date, the entire basin can then be evaluated at one point in time. It was felt that if falsification of pumpage records were to occur, it could probably be detected by data currently available to the FCD. It was further opined by Mr. Khanal that at, the expiration date of all permits issued in each basin, an automatic conversion into new permits would occur at little or no cost to the applicant.

      
      

   5. With regard to the special provisions recommended in the Staff Report, Mr. Hinson expressed concern over the manner of compliance. Specifically, he desired more information on the type of equipment or devises required by the FCD when it calls for "minimum head pressures", and "a measuring device on each of the three wells." He also desired information as to the times of year the water quality analyses were to be performed.

      
      

   6. Mr. Khanal explained that no regulatory criteria had been established by the FCD with regard to pumpage and that the minimum type of measuring device, such as a time clock, on each of the wells would suffice. Further specifications will be supplied to the applicant upon request. It was explained by Khanal that the water quality analyses should be performed once before the rainy season (at the end of May) and once after the rainy season (at the end of October). There was some confusion over the inclusion of the parameter of "specific conductivity" within the definition of a standard complete water quality analysis.

      
      

   7. Finally, Mr. Khanal listed two amendments to be made in the Staff Report. On page 2, under "B. Existing Facilities", "3,500 gpm" should read "3,600 gpm." The last item on the chart on page 3 of the Staff Report should read "2 in 10 Year Drought" in lieu of "1 in 10 Year Drought."

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

   8. The application under review herein has been fully reviewed and evaluated by the technical staff of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District.

   9. The limitation of a permit to a period of two years to expire at the same time as other permits issued in the basin for the purpose of obtaining crucial data is authorized and is reasonable. The FCD has authority to regulate, manage and protect the water resources of the District. Among the declared legislative policies of Chapter 373, F.S. is the conservation, development and proper utilization of surface and ground water. F.S. s373.016 (2)(b). The procedural requirements of Chapter 373, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, have been complied with as they pertain to this application.

      
      

   10. The reports of the applicant and of the FCD reflect a use which is reasonable and beneficial, will not interfere with any legal use of water and is consistent with the public interest, all in accordance with Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 16K of the Florida Administrative Code.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that Application No. 21424 be granted and that a permit be issued in accordance with the recommendations and provisions set forth in the Staff Report, as amended. Due to the apparent confusion over the inclusion of "specific conductivity" as a parameter to be included within the definition of a standard complete analysis, it is further recommended that the Staff make further inquiry into its necessity. If the Staff then concludes that "specific conductivity" is necessary to obtain a complete water quality analysis, it is recommended that it remain on the list of parameters.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DIANE D. TREMOR

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1976

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson and Wharton 17th Floor CNA Building

Orlando, Florida

Stephen A. Walker, Esquire Post Office Box V

West Palm Beach, Florida 33402

Docket for Case No: 76-000237

Orders for Case No: 76-000237