STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STRAZULLA BROTHERS COMPANY, INC., ) and LEONARD J. TOLLEY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 78-1287
) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated hearing officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled case on 13 February 1979 at West Palm Beach, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Madison F. Pacetti, Esquire
324 Royal Palm Way
Palm Beach, Florida 33480
For Respondent: William P. White, Jr., Esquire and
Randall E. Denker, Legal Trainee Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
By Petition filed 7 July 1978, Strazulla Brothers Company, Inc. and Leonard
Tolley, Petitioners, contest Department of Environmental Regulation's, Respondent, Proposed Order of Denial dated June 13, 1978 of Respondent's application to dredge 390,000 cubic yards of muck and sand to facilitate development of some 1400 acres of land owned by Petitioners. As grounds for the denial, the Proposed Order of Denial states that Petitioners have failed to furnish Respondent with reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not contribute to the violation of water quality standards of waters of the State.
As a preliminary matter, Respondent's Motion for Judicial Notice that in Florida (and covering the property here considered) there exists a body of water commonly known as "The River of Grass," flowing southward from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, bounded on the east by the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and on the west by the Big Cypress Swamp, the pine barrens of Collier County and the Caloosahatchee River, was denied.
During the hearing, extracts from the book Soil Survey Special Report, Maps and Interpretations, Palm Beach County, Florida, were offered into evidence by Petitioner as Exhibit 11, and Respondent was granted permission to file, as a late-filed exhibit, other extracts from this publication deemed pertinent to
these proceedings. In compliance therewith, Respondent has submitted as late- filed Exhibits 21A, 21B, 21C, 21D, 21E and 21F. A review of those exhibits discloses that all were included in Exhibit 11 except the description of how the survey was made contained in proposed late-filed Exhibit 21A. This is admitted as late-filed Exhibit 21.
Three witnesses were called by Petitioner, six witnesses were called by Respondent and 20 exhibits were offered into evidence. Ruling on the admissibility of Exhibit 20 was reserved at the hearing. This exhibit is now admitted into evidence, making a total of 21 exhibits admitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The land here involved is located at the southern end of the Acme Improvement District. The northeastern portion of the tract is owned by Petitioner Leonard H. Tolley, and comprises some 15 percent of the total acreage of the tract. The remainder of the tract is owned by Petitioner Strazulla Brothers. The entire tract includes Sections 3 and 4, Township 455 Range 41E and a parcel of land in The Township 44 1/2 S Range 41E adjacent to Sections 3 and 4 and comprises some 1400 acres.
The Strazulla property was acquired by Warranty Deed from the Trustees, Internal Improvement Trust Fund, by Philip Strazulla and subsequently conveyed to Petitioner.
In 1978 real property taxes on the Strazulla property here involved was
$17,453.42.
The tract is bounded on the west by the L-40 levee and canal, on the north by Acme Improvement District Dike and C-27 Canal; on the east by property owned by Miller American Industries and on the south by property owned by the South Florida Water Management District.
By this application Petitioner proposes to place levees with their borrow canals on the east and south sides of the tract and to construct a 240 acre reservoir adjacent to the L-40 levee by erecting a reservoir retention levee some 1400 feet eastward of the L-40 levee. By installing a 100,000 gallon per minute pump station at the southeast corner of the proposed reservoir, the water presently standing on the property could be drained allowing the eastern portion of the tract to be converted to agricultural use and the remainder converted into 2.5 acre residential sites.
The 1972 Palm Beach County land use plan recommended the area here involved be zoned Preservation/Conservation, which effectively precluded development of the property. At that time, Strazulla attempted to sell the property or trade it to a governmental agency for property that could be developed, but without success.
In 1978, the Palm Beach County Land Use Advisory Board changed the 1972 land use recommendation to Residential Estate to allow a reasonable use of the property. (Exhibit 7).
The property abutting Petitioners' property to the north has been drained and thereon is located an orange grove and, west of the orange grove, 5- acre residential homesites. The property to the east is being developed as residential homesites. The property west of the C-40 canal comprises the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge consisting of some 221 square miles of
traditional Everglades wetlands. The property to the south is owned by the South Florida Water Management District and is of a character similar to Petitioners' property. Some two to three miles south of Petitioners' property is an east-west canal.
In 1900 the property here involved was located in the eastern part of the Florida Everglades and received the sheet flow that characterized the natural Everglades. This historic hydroperiod has been disrupted by levees at Lake Okeechobee and by various drainage and irrigation canals constructed to render the large tracts of land thereby drained suitable for agriculture. In the immediate vicinity of the property, the L-40 levee and canal, which enclose the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter referred to as the conservation area) form a barrier to any sheet flow from this property onto the conservation area. This levee and canal bars practically all interchange of waters between Petitioners' property and the conservation area and is in the process of destroying part of the historical eastern boundary of the Everglades.
Erection of the proposed levee on the east and south boundaries of the property would effectively stop the drainage now coming to this property from the east and the drainage from this property to the southeast.
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) owns a right-of- way to the east of the L-40 levee which is located in the area proposed by Petitioner for its reservoir. Petitioners' application to encroach on this right-of-way with the proposed reservoir was denied by SFWMD. This denial was based on the environmental impact, county zoning regulations (since changed) and the as yet undetermined effect of back pumping into the conservation areas. (Exhibit 17). Specifically, SFWMD Staff Report (Exhibit 17) found the environmental impact of the project will be:
This proposed truck farming operation and residential development will destroy approximately 1100 acres of valuable wetland habitat by drainage.
The impact on the 240 acres (60 acres of SFWMD right-of-way) of emergent marsh within the proposed reservoir will be determined by the water level management of the impoundment. A drastic change in water depth or inundation period could result in severe alterations of the present wetlands.
An additional 50 acres of marsh will be lost due to dredge and fill operations for levee construction.
The entire tract is poorly drained and is under water for considerable portions of the year, with the westernmost portion containing the longest periods and greatest depths of standing water.
The soil in the eastern portion of the property is predominantly sandy, with a gray sandy loam layer at depths of 20 to 40 inches. The soil in the central portion of the tract is predominantly sandy, with a gray sandy loam layer at depths greater than 40 inches. The soil in the western portion of the tract is sandy, with a black organic surface layer (muck) 8 to 15 inches thick, underlain by gray sandy layers.
Vegetation in the property goes from some pine and cypress in the eastern portion to sawgrass marshes in the western portion, with numerous varieties of plants associated with wet soil and marshy areas.
During the proposed construction adequate safeguards can be imposed to prevent excess turbidity from entering State waters.
This property comprises a large tract of pristine Everglades habitat for both plants and animals, and is of great value to the ecology of the state. In its undeveloped state it provides a buffer zone of up to two miles eastward for the conservation area.
Water presently on the property is predominantly rainwater and of better quality than the water in the C-40 or C-27 canals adjacent to the property.
Use of the land for agricultural purposes would increase the risk of water quality degradation caused by water runoff carrying fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides into the proposed reservoir and/or perimeter canals. If excess water on the property is pumped into the C-40 or C-27 canals, degradation of those waters could occur.
The proposed development was opposed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, not only because it would remove these fresh water marshes from the ecosystem and take away an essential habitat for birds and aquatic life, but also would remove a surface water retention basin and vegetation filtration of runoff from adjacent uplands. (Exhibit 16).
The Permit Application Appraisal Report (Exhibit 15) which recommended denial of the application found the property acts as a buffer between the agricultural lands to the east and the conservation area and development as proposed would remove this buffer; and that water quality standards may be degraded due to agriculture runoff from the developed property being pumped into C-40 canal. Specifics of how runoff from property would be controlled were not obtained by the Environmental Specialist who prepared Exhibit 15.
Pumping the surface waters on the property into a reservoir would reduce the diurnal variation in dissolved oxygen levels in the water and thereby improve water quality from that aspect. Water in the reservoir would be of greater depth than presently exists, thereby reducing photosynthesis and its concomitant benefits to the water quality. On the other hand, the greater depths could result in fewer grasses and more open surface water, thereby allowing more aeration of the water by wind action.
Herbicides degrade fairly rapidly, and holding them in a reservoir would allow time to degrade. Many pesticides are water insoluble and would settle to the bottom of the reservoir.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of these proceedings.
The application for permit in this case is controlled by the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, provisions of which provide in pertinent part:
403.031(3) "Waters" shall include, but not be limited to rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments, and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline,
tidal, surface or underground. Waters owned entirely by one person other than the state are included only in regard to possible dis- charge on other property or water. [Emphasis added].
The department shall have the power and the duty to control and prohibit pollution
of air and water in accordance with the law and rules and regulations adopted and promulgated by it, and for this purpose to:
Approve and promulgate current and long- range plans developed to provide for air and water quality control and pollution abatement.
(7) Adopt, modify, and repeal rules and regu- lations to carry out the intent and purposes of this act.
(12) Develop a comprehensive program for the prevention, abatement, and control of the pol- lution of the waters of the state. In order to effect this purpose, a grouping of the waters into classes may be made in accordance with the present and future most beneficial uses.
(16) Establish a permit system whereby a per- mit may be required for the operation, con- struction, or expansion of any installation that may be a source of air or water pollution....
(29) Perform any other act necessary to con- trol and prohibit air and water pollution, and
to delegate any of its responsibilities, authority, and powers, other than rulemaking powers, to any state agency now or hereinafter established.
In carrying out this statutory mandate, Respondent has enacted rules which are contained in Chapter 17-4 Florida Administrative Code which provide in pertinent part:
17-4.02(17) "Submerged lands" are those lands covered by the categories of waters listed in Section 17-4.28(2), Florida Administrative Code, including those lands contigous [sic] to said waters where any of the following vegetational species,
or any combination of such species, constitute the dominant plant community: [Species listed are found dominant on Petitioners' property].
17-4.28(2) Those dredging and/or filling activities which are to be conducted in or connected directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies to the following categories of waters of the State (including the submerged lands of such waters and transitional zone of a submerged land) shall obtain a permit from the department prior to being undertaken:
rivers and natural tributaries thereto;
streams and natural tributaries thereto;
bays, bayous, sounds, estuaries, and natural tributaries thereto;
natural lakes, except those owned entirely by one person; and except for lakes that become dry each year and are without standing water together with lakes of no more than ten (10) acres of water area at a maximum average depth
of two (2) feet existing throughout the year;
Atlantic Ocean out to . . .;
Gulf of Mexico out to . . .;
natural tributaries do not include inter- mittant natural water courses which act as tributaries only following the occurence [sic] of rainfall and which normally do not contain contigous [sic] areas of standing water.
It is the intent of this rule to include in the boundaries areas which are customarily submerged and exchange waters with a recognizable water body as described in Section 17-4.28(2)(i.e. submerged lands and transitional zones of sub- merged lands).
(3) The applicant for a degree [sic] and/or fill permit or a federal certification for a dredging and/or filling activity shall affirma- tively provide reasonable assurance to the department that the short-term and long-term effects of the activity will not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code.
The department shall, upon denying any appli- cation, furnish the applicant an official statement specifying with particularity the reasons for denial, including a precise statement of those violations of water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions it
expects to be caused by such activity and the manner in which such effects are expected to be caused.
With respect to the motion of Respondent that Judicial Notice be taken that the area here involved is included in the "River of Grass" or Everglades River, it is to be noted that Petitioner objected to the motion, arguing that this is not a recognized geographical fact. It is well settled that judicial notice may be taken when the following exist: (1) the fact to be noticed is one of common or general knowledge; (2) the fact notice must be authoritatively settled and free from doubt or uncertainty; and (3) the matter noticed must be within the court's jurisdiction. 13 Fla Jur 14 Evidence. Similarly, judicial notice may be taken of facts capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Among those facts which may be judicially noticed are natural phenomena, such as time of sunrise and sunset, which can be ascertained from an accepted source such as an Almanac.
The appellation "River of Grass" comes from the title of a novel written about the Everglades in the 1920's by Marjorie Douglas. Not only have there been significant changes in the Everglades hydroperiod since her book was published which have materially and significantly altered the hydrology of the area, but also the title was coined by a novelist to represent her impression of the area. Accordingly it cannot be said that the existence and dimensions of the "River of Grass" is authoritatively settled and free from doubt or uncertainty. The mere fact that Petitioner strongly objected to the existence of a defined "River of Grass" is some indication that it is not a subject of which judicial notice may be taken.
Although the jurisdiction of Respondent to require a permit was not raised at the hearing, a careful reading of the department's rules above quoted does not clearly place this property in one of the categories there listed for which a permit is required.
First, the wetlands here involved do not constitute a river or stream or the natural tributary of either. Second, it is not a bay, bayou, sound, tributary or estuary thereof. Third, if it is a natural lake it is owned by one person or will be if the southern levee is erected, thereby establishing the southern boundary of the standing water. Fourth, while the areas here are customarily submerged, the evidence respecting exchange of waters with a recognizable water body was not established.
In construing the provisions of the regulations the exclusio rule, that when some are named others are excluded, dictates that only when those bodies of water listed in Section 17-4.28(2) Florida Administrative Code are involved, is a permit needed.
The clear inference, if not testimony, was that from time to time water would be pumped from the proposed reservoir into the C-40 canal which surrounds the conservation area. There was no testimony that this C-40 canal is directly connected to any of the state waters described in Rule 17-4.28(2) Florida Administrative Code above quoted. If in fact the C-40 is directly so connected, then pumping water into this canal from the proposed reservoir would constitute an exchange of waters with a body of water connected to state waters.
From Exhibit 19, the Proposed Order of Denial, it is noted that Respondent appears to base its jurisdiction on the proposition that the project is part of the Everglades and the Everglades is a wide, shallow river. This position is not supported by the evidence or the topography of the area.
"River" is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1977 as "a natural stream of water of considerable volume." Stream connotes flow and there is no flow and no stream except during and immediately following rainfall when water will flow towards a lower elevation. On occasion wind driven currents could be created, but the grasses and other vegetation in this submerged land would greatly impede the development of such currents.
The only source of the water is rainfall in the immediate vicinity. It is not the drainage path for a watershed as much as it is an actual watershed. It has no fixed or definite boundaries or banks which are normally associated with a river and, more importantly, it is interrupted by levees and canals which prevent the flow of water over them. In short, it is not a river and is not capable of becoming a river.
In this connection the legal concepts that have been used in determining the navigability of a body of water are not particularly helpful. Not only was no evidence submitted that commerce or trade was ever carried on by the "Everglades River", but the fact that a portion thereof could be made navigable in fact by dredging does not give Respondent jurisdiction any more than they had jurisdiction over the right of way of the Cross Florida barge canal, which, if ever completed, will presumably be a navigable water of the United States.
It is further noted that the intent of the rule [establishing bodies of water subject to permit requirements] is to include in such boundaries "areas which are customarily submerged and exchange waters with a recognizable water body as described in Section 17-4.28(2)(i.e. submerged lands and transitional zones of submerged lands).
The parenthetical explanation obviously is intended to include those transitional zones adjacent to coastal or riverine lands which are submerged part of the time and from which water flows to the recognizable body of water.
In construing this rule it is to be noted that two factors must exist. The lands must be submerged and exchange waters with a recognizable water body as described in Section 17-4.28(2) Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners' property meets the first qualification but there is no exchange of waters with a water body as described in Section 17-4.28(2). Nor was the C-40 canal shown to be the type water body described in this rule, and the only discharge from the proposed project will be that water pumped into the C-40 canal from the proposed reservoir.
Although the soil reports show the soil proposed for construction of the levees is sandy, Exhibit 11 shows it fair-to-good for roadfill and presumably the same for the construction of levees. Although there was evidence that slight percolation through the proposed levees could occur, there was no evidence that such percolation would adversely affect water quality.
As noted in the Findings of Fact, this property makes a valuable contribution to the environment and it would be beneficial to the area and to the State if the property remained in its present state of undeveloped wetlands. On the other hand, Petitioners have owned this property and paid taxes thereon for nearly 20 years without apparent economic benefit. Absent evidence that the construction of levees and drainage of this property will degrade the water quality of waters of this state or of excavated bodies of water connected directly to those waters enumerated in Section 17-4.28(2), there is no basis for a refusal to issue the permit requested. This of course assumes that Respondent has jurisdiction whenever the possibility exists that dredging operations may adversely affect the water quality of those waters described in Section 17- 4.28(2) Florida Administrative Code.
From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioners' property is not located in or directly connected to a body of water constituting the Everglades River or "River of Grass" or that the proposal to dredge some 390,000 cubic yards of muck and, sand will adversely affect the water quality of the state so long as adequate precautions are taken to contain the turbidity resulting from the dredging. It is further concluded that the development here proposed will remove more than 1,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land from the Florida ecosystem and cease to serve as a valuable buffer to the adjacent conservation area. It is therefore
RECOMMENDED that the permit requested to dredge some 390,000 cubic yards on Petitioners' property be granted in accordance with the application, with the Department applying the necessary restrictions to control the turbidity during the dredging process.
Entered this 16th day of 1979.
N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
Madison F. Pacetti, Esquire
324 Royal Palin Way
Palm Beach, Florida 33480
William P. White, Jr., Esquire and Randall E. Denker, Legal Trainee State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
STRAZZULLA BROTHERS COMPANY, INC., and LEONARD J. TOLLEY,
Petitioners,
v. DOAH CASE NO. 78-1287
DER FILE NO. DF-50-79
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
BY THE DEPARTMENT:
INTRODUCTION
On April 16, 1979, the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") Hearing Officer assingned to conduct a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing in the above-styled cause submitted his Recommended Order to the Department of Environmental Regulation ("Department"). A copy of the Recommended Order is attached hereto as Exhibit I. Subsequent to submittal of the Recommended Order the Department submitted exceptions, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., Florida Statutes.
After due notice, oral arguments, in support of and in opposition to the exceptions, were presented to the Secretary of the Department by attorneys for the parties on May 8, 1979.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Jurisdiction to Require and Issue Dredge and Fill Permit
The Departments jurisdiction over waters of the state is premised upon a combination of the authorities contained in Sections 403.031(3) and 403.062, Florida Statutes. The latter sets forth the Department's jurisdiction over waters and the former defines the term "waters". Section 17-4.28, Florida administrative Code, describes those waters for which a Department permit is required prior to conducting dredging or filling activities. This section does not, however, limit the exercise of the Departments jurisdiction with respect to to others than dredging and filling activities; nor does it restrict the application of the states water quality standards as contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, and as administered through the provisions of Chapters 17-4 and 17-6, Florida Administrative Code.
The activity for which a permit was applied for below involved both dredging and filling activities as well as the construction and operation of stationary installations which are reasonably expected to discharge agriculture related water pollution.
In his Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer apparently concluded that the evidence of record did not establish that the Department has jurisdiction to require a dredge and fill permit under Section 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. He recommends, however, that the Department grant the requested dredging permit56. The granting of such a permit is inconsistent with his prior conclusion that the Department lacks jurisdiction to issue such a permit in this case.
On page 11 of the Recommended Order, the Hearing Officer appears to conclude that the Department may be divested of dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over a proposed dredge or fill activity in a natural lake owned by more than one person if the applicant proposes to merely dike off and separate his portion of the water body from the remainder. An applicant cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the Department over a proposed activity by asserting that the Department will lack jurisdiction over the waterbody after the activity is completed.
Compliance with Water Quality Standards
The application (Respondent's Exhibit 18) proposes a series of dikes and borrow areas (in excess of 10 feet deep) and a 250 acre reservoir. Various water quality impacts of the project are discussed on pages 6-8 of the Recommended Order. The Hearing Officer found that:
"... use of the land for agricultural purposes would increase the risk of water quality degradation caused by water runoff carrying fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides into the proposed reservoir and/or perimeter canals. If excess water on the property is pumped into the C-40 or
C-27 canals, degradation of those waters could occur.
* * *
Pumping the surface waters on the property into a reservoir would reduce the diurnal variation in dissolved oxygen levels in the water and thereby improve water quality from that aspect. Water in the reservoir would be of greater depth than presently exists, thereby reducing photosynthesis and its con-
commitment benefits to the water quality. On the other hand, the greater depths could result in fewer grasses and more open surface water, thereby allowing
more aeration of the waters by wind action.
Herbicides degrade fairly rapidly and holding in a reservoir would allow time to degrade. Many pesticides are water insoluble and would settle to the bottom of the reservoir."
Despite this discussion of water pollutants, the Hearing Officer failed to make findings, and enter a conclusion of law, which determine whether the Department's water quality standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, would be violated by the proposed water pollution discharges into waters of the State.
Section 17-4.07(1), Florida administrative Code, specifically requires permit applicants to affirmatively provide the Department with:
"reasonable assurance based on plans, test results and other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation or activity
of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Departments standards, rules or regulations."
Subsection (3) of the same section prohibits the Department from issuing permits to construct or operate stationary installations unless it determines that the installation is adequately equipped with pollution control facilities sufficient to comply with Department standards.
Section 120.57(1) formal proceedings are intended "to formulate agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily". McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla.1st DCA 1977). In accordance with Department rules, the applicant is required to demonstrate that it is entitled to the requested permit. The Hearing Officer must determine, with adequate specificity, that the applicant has made the required demonstration. Until the Hearing Officer makes such findings, the requested permit cannot be issued.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, upon consideration of the Recommended Order, dated April 16, 1979, by the assigned Hearing Officer in this cause, the pleadings and oral arguments of counsel for the parties,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The Findings of Fact contained in the Recommended Order are approved and adopted;
To the extent the Hearing Officer's Officer's Conclusions of Law are inconsistent with this Final Order, they are expressly rejected, and so modified;
The Hearing Officers Recommendation that a dredging permit be granted is rejected, as inconsistent with his Conclusions of Law which determined that the Department had not established jurisdiction, in the record, to require or issue a dredge and fill permit in this cause;
To the extent Petitioners (applicants) have applied for or now seek a Department permit to authorize the construction for operation of a stationary installation (e.g., pumping installation or other method of conveying and discharging pollutants into waters of the State), such application must be DENIED.
In furtherance of Paragraph (4) above, this cause is REMANDED to the DOAH Hearing Officer who conducted the hearing below for the purpose of:
Taking evidence and entering findings of fact and conclusions of law which are specifically directed to resolving the remaining issue in this cause:
Whether Petitioners have provided the Department with reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the proposed stationary installation (e.g., pumping and other waste discharge systems) will not discharge pollutants in violation of Department standards, including water quality standards con- tained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Adminis- trative Code. See Setion 17-4.07,
Florida Administrative Code; Sections 403.087, 403.088, Florida Statutes.
DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
JACOB D. VARN
Secretary
2600 Baiar Stone Road
Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Final Order" had been furnished by first class mail to MADISON F. PACETTI, ESQUIRE,
324 Royal Palm Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480, and by Hand Delivery to RANDALL E. DENKER, Assistant General Counsel, and WILLIAM P. WHITE, JR., Deputy General Counsel, State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and to K.N. AYERS, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Heaerings, Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, this 18th day of May, 1979.
R.L. CALLEEN, JR. General Counsel
State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 488-9730
================================================================= DOAH RECOMMENDED ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
STRAZZULLA BROTHERS COMPANY, INC.,) and LEONARD J. TOLLEY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 78-1287
) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public rehearing in the above styled case on 11 January 1980 at West Palm Beach, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Madison F. Pacetti, Esquire
Royal Park Building
324 Royal Plaza Way
West Palm Beach, Florida 33480
For Respondent: Randall E. Denker, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel
Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Following the original hearing on Petitioners' application for a permit to dredge 390,000 cubic yards of muck and sand to construct a holding pond in conjunction with the development of some 1400 acres of land owned by Petitioners, the Respondent in its Final Order adopted the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order, issued legal conclusions at variance with some of the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and remanded the case to the Hearing Officer for the purpose of:
Taking evidence and entering findings of fact and conclusions of law which are specifically directed to resolving the remaining issue in this cause:
Whether Petitioners have provided the Department with reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the proposed stationary installation (e.g., pumping and other waste discharge systems) will not discharge pollutants in violation of Department standards,
including water quality standards con- tained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Adminis- trative Code. See Section 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code; Sections 403.087, 403.088, Florida Statutes.
The findings and conclusions in the Recommended Order as amended by the Department's Final Order have now become the law of the case. Hodges v. State Road Department, 171 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1965); Wurwarg v. Lighthouse Restaurant, 131 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1961)
At a Prehearing Conference on 10 July 1979 the parties agreed that evidence would be presented at the hearing on the following issues:
Whether the C-40 canal is state waters.
Whether proposed retention pond will be state waters by reason of multiple ownership of the land it occupies.
Whether ditches leading to retention pond become state waters by virtue of multiple ownership of lands over which the ditches cross.
Whether water pumped from the proposed reservoir will reasonably be expected to pollute the C-40 canal and ultimately state waters.
During the course of the proceedings Respondent's counsel strenuously objected to the testimony of Benjamin Martin, a water quality expert called by Petitioner, on the grounds that his name had not been provided on the list of witnesses submitted by Petitioner and therefore counsel was unable to depose him prior to the hearing.
Petitioner's attorney stated that he had advised Respondent that a water quality expert would be called and, after hearing arguments of counsel, the testimony of this witness was allowed. Subsequent to the hearing a review of the file discloses a copy of a letter addressed to counsel for Respondent dated December 17, 1979 in which counsel for Petitioner advised Respondent that Benjamin Martin would be called as a water quality expert.
At the hearing four witnesses were called by Petitioner, one witness was called by Respondent and 10 exhibits were offered into evidence. Exhibits 1 through 6 were admitted and ruling on the admissibility of exhibits 7 through 10 was reserved at the hearing. Those exhibits are now admitted.
Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner and not included below were either not supported by competent and substantial evidence, were irrelevant to the issues for the resolution of which this hearing was reconvened, or were immaterial to the results reached. After considering all the evidence presented the following is submitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Those issues which the parties determined at the prehearing conference on 10 July 1979 to be those considered at this hearing were barely addressed. As a result little, if any, evidence was presented regarding the classification of the waters here involved. However, in view of the limited purpose for which
this case was remanded, those other issues cast at the Prehearing Conference are not essential.
The area in which Petitioner proposes to construct the reservoir is owned by Strazzulla Brothers, with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) having a right-of-way easement over part of this area. This does not constitute multiple ownership of this land, although it may preclude Petitioner's constructing the reservoir in the location proposed. If so, the reservoir will be relocated eastward beyond the SFWMD's easement.
When excess water is pumped from the proposed project it will be pumped into the C-26 canal and the borrow pit along the L-40 levee. Although this borrow pit has the depth and width of a canal and performs many of the functions of a canal, it is not and has never been designated a canal.
The purpose of the L-40 levee when planned was to impound the waters in the conservation area to prevent their flowing eastward and flooding the developed areas along the coastal ridge. Maintenance of water in the conservation area was intended to provide water for use on the east-coast agricultural lands when needed, raise the groundwater table and improve water supply for the east-coast communities, ameliorate saltwater intrusion in the east-coast water supply well fields and streams, and benefit fish and wildlife in the Everglades. (Exhibit 1). The conservation areas were established for this principal purpose, namely the conservation of water. (Transcript, p. 11)
Water enters the conservation area from rainfall on the property comprising the conservation area, it is pumped from Station 5-5A at 20-Mile Bend, it flows by gravity from the upper end of the area, it is pumped in on the Hillsboro Canal by pump station S-6 and from the Acme Improvement District's pump station on the east side of the conservation area (Transcript, p. 19)
Petitioner's property is located in the Acme Improvement District. Acme Improvement District currently holds a permit from Respondent authorizing it to pump water from its pump station on the C-26 canal which is adjacent to and immediately north of Petitioner's proposed reservoir (Exhibit 4)
Strazzulla Brothers proposes to use the property it owns for agricultural purposes and grow Chinese vegetables and gladiolus. The northeastern portion of the property owned by Tolley may be used for residential purposes in accordance with the zoning regulations of Palm Beach County.
Petitioner proposes to collect the water presently standing on large areas of the property into the proposed reservoir by means of a series of ditches. These ditches will also serve the purpose of irrigation ditches during periods of low rainfall when it becomes necessary to remove water from the reservoir.
Rainfall data collected for a 20-year period shows that in only five percent of the time will it be necessary to pump water from the reservoir into the C-26 canal and into the conservation area (Exhibit 3).
The water quality on the area proposed for development by Petitioner is currently comparable to the water quality on an area slightly to the northeast of Petitioner's property, which is being used at present for the growing of vegetables (Transcript, p. 85).
Use of the reservoir for storage of the water before being pumped into the conservation area will improve the water quality by increasing the dissolved
oxygen and because some solids will settle to the bottom of the reservoir. (Transcript, p. 86-88).
As noted above, little evidence was presented regarding the criteria to be applied in determining acceptable water quality. Respondent appears to have assumed that the criteria for Class III waters applies. No evidence was presented that any recreational activities occur on any of the surface waters, borrow pits or canals related to the property. The only evidence of use presented was the proposed use of the waters for agricultural purposes.
The water quality of samples taken on the property show some of these samples to be below the standard for Class III waters but generally to conform to Class IV criteria. Similarly, some of the samples taken in the canal alongside the L-40 levee are also below the standard for Class III waters.
Petitioner's expert witness opined that processing agricultural runoff waters through the reservoirs before pumping into the conservation area would result in no degradation of the water in the canal along the L-40 levee and may improve the quality over that of the water now entering from the property.
Respondent's expert witness opined that if the project goes forward as proposed, and excess water from the reservoir is pumped into the L-40 canal, the water quality in the L-40 canal would be degraded or at best would remain the same. (Transcript p. 139). On cross-examination this witness explained his testimony to be "that the reservoir might or might not work in terms of maintaining standards" (Transcript p. 146)
This witness further expressed the opinion that Petitioner has not given Respondent reasonable assurances that the water quality would not be degraded if the application is approved.
No changes which would make the development proposal eligible to receive a permit were indicated by Respondent when the application was denied.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.
During the proceedings the exhibits 7 through 10 were offered into evidence and Respondent objected to the admissibility of exhibit 7 on grounds it was hearsay. Objections to exhibits 8 through 10 were predicated upon the fact that the results reflected in these exhibits were based upon the findings contained in exhibit 7. Ruling on the admissibility of these exhibits was reserved at the hearing.
Exhibit 7 is an agricultural reservoir study commissioned by the Central and Southwest Florida Flood Control District. It is Technical Publication No. 75-3 dated 1975. Although the document is hearsay it is an official agency publication and as such admissible in an administrative hearing. Since this publication formed the basis for exhibits Nos. 8 through 10, prepared by a witness who was available to testify, all of these exhibits are admitted. At best, these exhibits supplement the testimony of the witness, Martin.
Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
No stationary installation which will reasonably be expected to be a source of air
or water pollution shall be operated, maintained, constructed, expanded, or modified without an appropriate and currently valid permit issued by the department . . .
(4) The department shall issue permits to con- struct, operate, maintain, expand, or modify an installation which may reasonably be expected to
be a source of pollution only when it determines that the installation is provided or equipped with pollution control facilities that will abate or prevent pollution to the degree that will com- ply with the standards or rules promulgated by the department . . .
Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (3)(b) If the department finds that the pro-
posed discharge will not reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the appli- cation and refuse to issue a permit. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will not reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it may issue an operation permit if it finds that such degradation is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest.
Rule 17-3.09, Florida Administrative Code, in establishing the criteria for Class III waters provides in pertinent part:
The following criteria are for classification of waters to be used for recreational purposes, including such body contact activities as
swimming and water skiing; and for the maintenance of a well-balanced fish and wildlife population.
All surface waters within and coastal waters contiguous to these basins, including offshore waters, not otherwise classified shall be classi- fied as Class III [waters] . . .
Rule 17-3.10, Florida Administrative Code, in establishing criteria for Class IV waters, provides in pertinent part:
The following criteria are for classification of waters to be used for agricultural or stock water- ing, or industrial water supply, [sic] Additionally, all secondary and tertiary canals wholly within agricultural areas are Class IV waters.
Rule 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, in establishing the standards for issuing or denying a permit provides in pertinent part:
A permit may be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results and other informa- tion, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards, rules or regulations. After receipt of all required information, the Department
must either issue or deny the permit within sixty (60) days.
When the application is found deficient in any respect, or required information has not been submitted to the Department, the applica- tion shall not be accepted. The Department shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies or lacking information and allow a reasonable time for corrections or submission of the necessary information.
The Department shall issue permits to construct, operate, maintain, expand, or modify an installation which may reasonably be expected to be a source of pollution only when it deter- mines that the installation is provided or equipped with pollution control facilities that will abate or prevent pollution to the degree that will comply with the standards or rules promulgated by the Department except as pro- vided in Chapter 403.088, F. S.
If, after review of the application and all the information, the Department determines that the construction, modification, expansion, or operation of the installation will not be in accord with applicable laws, rules, or regula- tions, including rules and regulations of approved local programs, the Department shall deny the permit.
The Department may issue any permit upon specified conditions reasonably necessary for
the prevention of pollution.
From the evidence presented the classification of the receiving waters here involved is not readily apparent. Official notice is taken that water pumped into the L-40 canal at the Acme Improvement District station immediately north of the proposed reservoir would travel some 40 miles before reaching the Atlantic Ocean.
The evidence presented by Petitioner that the proposed installation would not degrade the waters was more credible than was the evidence presented by Respondent that the proposed installation would degrade the waters of the State. This is based upon the testimony that the reservoir if properly operated can improve the quality of the water entering the reservoir, and by the fact
that on only five percent of the days of the year (on a 20-year average) will the rainfall be sufficient to require the pumping of water from the development. No evidence was presented regarding the purifying effect heavy rainfall would have on the water entering and leaving the reservoir.
Although the only issue under consideration here is the effect this proposed project would have in degrading state waters, the original objection of Respondent that the completion of this project would adversely affect the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge by removing the buffer zone provided by Petitioner's property, is still evident.
The position of Respondent is that a private landowner has no private right to use his property unless he can prove such use will not degrade the waters of this state. However, this degradation of waters appears ancillary to the retention of a public benefit provided by Petitioner's property, viz, the buffer zone protection afforded to the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. This concept appears to be the dominant motive in stopping the proposed project in the original hearing and was given a significant role in this hearing. This concept in effect would deny the Petitioner the right to use its property because that use would deny the public certain free benefits. cf,. Estuaries Properties, Inc. v. Askew, et al., Case 11-419, Fla. 1st DCA Op filed December 17, 1979.
The Florida Supreme Court has indicated that placing the burden of proof on an applicant for a dredge and fill permit under similar circumstances would be unconstitutional. In Zabel v. Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority, 171 So.2d 376, 378 (Fla. 1965) the Court stated:
Appellants assert they were erroneously required by the Authority and the trial court to carry the burden of proof in showing no adverse effect upon the public interest.
It is not clear the statutes do in fact place the burden of proof upon the property owner but, if they do, such requirement would render the statute unconstitutional
as to the facts of this case.
Throughout these proceedings Respondent has taken the position that Petitioner has failed to give reasonable assurances that the proposed use of Petitioner's land would not degrade the quality of state waters. Although Respondent's witness acknowledged that use of the proposed reservoir could result in no degradation of the water, he did not believe it would happen because no proof was presented that such a system would succeed in an agrarian setting.
No conditions were suggested by Respondent which, if pursued by petitioner, would provide the assurance that degradation of the water would not result from the proposed installation. It would appear that conditions respecting the operation of the reservoir could have been proposed by Respondent which would have satisfied this assurance requirement. Since no evidence was presented respecting the operation of the proposed reservoir or suggested operating procedures to be followed, further comment here would be inappropriate.
From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioner presented a prima facie case to show that the proposed use of Petitioner's land would not degrade
the waters of this State and this prima facie case was not rebutted by Respondent. It is therefore
RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be issued a permit authorizing the discharge of water from Petitioner's proposed reservoir into the C-26 and L-40 canals.
Absent any evidence from which to establish appropriate conditions of this permit, no recommendation is made in this regard.
Entered this 21st day of February, 1980.
K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
Madison F. Pacetti, Esquire Royal Park Building
324 Royal Plaza Way
West Palm Beach, Florida 33480
Randall E. Denker, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental
Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
STRAZZULLA BROTHERS COMPANY, INC., and LEONARD J. TOLLEY,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 78-1287
DER CASE NO. DF-50-79
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
On February 21, 1980, the Division of Administrative Hearings' (DOAH) hearing officer assigned to conduct a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing in the above case submitted to the Department his Recommended Order. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached as Exhibit 1. Subsequent to submittal of the Recommended Order, the staff of the Department submitted exceptions, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., Florida Statutes. Oral arguments were held on April 22, 1980, before me as head of the Department.
As stated by the hearing officer in the Recommended Order, this case was previously before me. In that Final Order I adopted the findings of fact, rejected certain conclusions of law and remanded the case back to the hearing officer for the purpose of determining:
Whether Petitioners have provided the Department with reasonable assurances that the construction
and operation of the proposed stationary installation (e.g., pumping and other waste discharge systems) will not discharge pollutants in violation of
Department standards, including water quality standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. See Section 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code; Sections 403.087, 403.088, Florida Statutes.
A review of the Recommended Order reveals that most of the findings do not address this issue. This proceeding is also complicated by the fact that the hearing officer has confused issues of fact and law. To the extent that the findings of fact of the hearing officer are actually findings of fact and not conclusions of law, the findings of fact of the hearing officer are adopted. The conclusions of law, whether or not contained in the section labeled Conclusions of Law are rejected.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Waters of the State
The hearing officer made no specific findings of fact regarding whether the proposed discharge would be to waters of the state. The hearing officer in the findings of fact discussed whether the receiving waters were canals. This is a legal issue and the hearing officer should have looked to the Florida Statutes for a definition. Section 403.803(9)", Florida Statutes, defines "canal" as a man-made trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by water with the upper edges of its sides normally above water. The hearing officer made no finding of fact regarding whether the bottom of the canals are normally covered by water.
A review of the transcript on pages 25 and 26 reveals evidence that the canals do have water in them year-round, therefore, it is concluded as a matter of law that the water bodies in question are canals.
Petitioners argue the inconsistent positions that the discharge would not be to waters of the state and that the waters are Class IV, not Class III. However, only waters of the state are classified. If the canals receiving this discharge were not waters of the state, they would be neither Class III nor Class IV. It is concluded that the canals in question which would receive the
discharge are waters of the state under the definition in Section 403.031(3), Florida Statutes.
The next question, once it is resolved that the canals are waters of the state, is the classification given these canals. The hearing officer failed to make a specific findings regarding the classification of waters, although that was a central issue in the case. The classification of waters of the state is a matter of law and not of fact. Rule 17-3.21, Florida Administrative Code, classifies all waters in the state as Class III unless otherwise specifically excepted. The waters in question have not been specifically excepted. Rule 17- 3.10, Florida Administrative Code, classifies secondary and tertiary canals wholly within agricultural areas as Class IV waters. The rules of the South Florida Water Management District, Rule 16K-5.01(3), Florida Administrative Code, incorporates by reference its Permit Information Manual, which classifies the canal in question as primary. Neither are the canals wholly in an agricultural area. Therefore, as a matter of law, it is found that the waters into which Petitioner proposes to discharge, are Class III waters.
Requirement to Provide Reasonable Assurance that the Discharge Will Not Discharge Pollution in Contravention of Department Rules
The hearing officer correctly cited the statute and rules governing the information required of the applicant in order to obtain a permit. Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, requires the Department to deny a permit if the discharge will cause a water quality violation. The Department may issue a permit if it finds that the discharge will not cause a water quality violation, although it will cause certain degradation of the quality of the receiving waters. Rule 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, allows the Department to issue a permit only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance that the operation will not discharge pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. Unfortunately, the hearing officer did not apply this rule. To the contrary, he entered into a discussion of cases involving different statutes and a substantially different burden of proof. The hearing officer also failed to consider several recent decisions by other hearing officers which were adopted as final orders by the Department.
See Freeport Sulphur Company, et. al v. Agrico Chemical Company and Department of Environmental Regulation, Case No. 78-315 and Department of Transportation v.
J.W.C. Company, Inc. and Department of Environmental Regulation, Case No. 76- 832. The conclusions of the hearing officer in regard to burden of proof are specifically rejected and the previous decisions of the Division of Administrative Hearing and this Department in the cases cited above are specifically adopted. The applicant for a Department permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, has the burden of providing reasonable assurance that the installation will not discharge pollution in contravention of Department rules.
Private Property Rights vs. Degradation of Waters of the State
The hearing officer found the position of the Department in this case was that a private landowner has no right to use his property unless he can prove such use will not degrade the waters of the state. This statement of the hearing officer is rejected, as well as the conclusions of law relating to "taking". The position of the Department is that a private landowner has no right to discharge pollutants to waters of the state, which are otherwise regulated under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, without first obtaining a permit from the Department. It is considered unlikely that the denial of a permit to
discharge, which would be done in the course of disapproving an obnoxious use of waters of the state, would ever be considered a taking. However, it is not necessary in deciding this case, either in the Recommended Order or the Final Order, to enter into a discussion of the law regarding inverse condemnation of property.
ORDER
The hearing officer on page eleven of the Recommended Order in the conclusions of law found that "Petitioner presented a prima facie case to show that the proposed use of Petitioners' land would not degrade the waters of the state and this prima facie case was not rebutted by Respondent." A hearing officer is entitled to deference in the weighing of testimony presented at the hearing, particularly when as in this case there is conflicting testimony.
Although the hearing officer used the wrong test regarding the proof required by an applicant, a reasonable inference of the conclusion of the hearing officer that might be drawn is that in view of the conflicting evidence, the evidence of Petitioners was more credible than that of the Department and a permit should be issued. I am uncomfortable with that recommendation for the reasons discussed above. However, this case has been remanded once, and in view of the delays experienced by Petitioner, I am reluctant to remand the case again. I, therefore,
ORDER that a construction permit for the purpose of constructing the necessary facilities for discharge be issued. The permit shall be issued with all of the standard conditions applicable for such a permit. In addition, the permit shall authorize Petitioners to operate their pumps and discharge at one specified point until one year from the date of this order. During the period of operation Petitioners shall conduct a monitoring program regarding the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters. Ninety days prior to the expiration of the permit, Petitioners shall submit to the Department's district office an application for an operation permit for the discharge if Petitioners desire to continue discharging. The application shall contain the water quality data gathered pursuant to the construction permit and this order. The monitoring program shall be of sufficient scope to insure that the ambient water quality in the receiving waters is not being unreasonably degraded or water quality standards violated as a result of the discharge. The permit shall also be conditioned upon first obtaining the legal right to use the property which is presently subject to an easement held by the South Florida Water Management District. The permit shall not be effective until approval is obtained from the South Florida Water Management District. The district manager is directed to issue the construction permit for a discharge within twenty days of the date of this order subject to the conditions specified above.
A number of the Department's exceptions have been substantially adopted in this order. The remainder are rejected as not being in accord with the evidence of law. The Department's exceptions relating to the conduct of the hearing are also rejected. Although the Department's exceptions are not totally without merit, I cannot find the fairness of the hearing was sufficiently impaired to reverse the Recommended Order on that ground.
DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
JACOB D. VARN
Secretary
2600 Blair Stone Road
Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-4807
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Final Order" has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Madison F. Pacetti, Esquire, Royal Park Building, 324 Royal Plaza Way, West Palm Beach, Florida 33480, and Randall
E. Denker, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Environmental Regulation, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, this 16th day of May, 1980.
TERRY COLE
General Counsel
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9730
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 19, 1979 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1979 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 18, 1979 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 16, 1979 | Recommended Order | Petitioner authorized to discharge water from reservoir into canals. Resonable assurances were given that no pollution would result. |
