STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
LLOYD F. BELL, JR., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-7788
) DESTIN WATER USERS, INC., and ) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) LOWELL B. KELLY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-7789
) DESTIN WATER USERS, INC., and ) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a Final Hearing in this matter was conducted in Destin, Florida on April 28 and April 29, 1992, before Diane Cleavinger, a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Lowell B. Kelly, pro se
P.O. Box 187
Destin, Florida 32540
Lloyd F. Bell, pro se c/o Ann Bell
435 Cardinal Avenue
Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548
For Respondents: Candi E. Culbreath, Esquire
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Lawrence Keefe, Esquire Anchors, Foster, McInnis
and Keefe, P.A.
909 Mar Walt Drive, Suite 1014 Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32547
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether a permit to convert previously permitted percolation ponds to a land application, reclaimed water, spray and drip irrigation system should be granted to Respondent, Destin Water Users, Inc.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Respondent, Destin Water Users, Inc. (DWU) applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a permit to convert an approximately thirty-acre percolation pond system to a golf course and to dispose of a lesser quantity of treated wastewater through spray and drip irrigation. The Department issued a notice of intent to grant the permit requested by DWU for the proposed project.
The Department received from Petitioners Lowell B. Kelly (Kelly) and Lloyd
Bell (Bell) separate petitions challenging the proposed permit. Specifically, Petitioners Kelly and Bell objected to DWU's application and the Department's intent to issue the permit on the grounds that the property owned by Kelly and Bell which lies to the north of the percolation ponds has been adversely affected by DWU's use of the percolation ponds, most particularly by flooding and infiltration of nutrients from DWU's effluent. The Petitioners have no objection to conversion of the use from percolation ponds to a golf course with a land application, reclaimed water, spray and drip irrigation system. Kelly and Bell object only to the quantity of water which would be
allowed to be applied to the property under the proposed permit. Both petitions were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The petitions were consolidated for all purposes.
At the Final Hearing, Petitioners, Bell and Kelly testified in behalf of each other and presented the testimony of three additional witnesses.
Petitioners also offered twenty-one exhibits into evidence. Respondent DWU, presented the testimony of four witnesses and offered seventeen exhibits into evidence. Respondent DER presented the testimony of one witness and offered two exhibits into evidence.
Petitioners filed a joint Proposed Recommended Order on June 17, 1992.
Respondent, DWU, filed its Proposed Recommended Order on July 15, 1992. Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation filed its Proposed Recommended Order on June 17, 1992. The parties' Proposed Findings of Fact have been considered and utilized in the preparation of this Recommended Order except where such proposals were not supported by the weight of the evidence or were immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate. Specific rulings on the parties' Proposed Findings of Fact are contained in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City of Destin, Florida is located on a sandy strip of land which lies between the Gulf of Mexico to the south and the Choctawhatchee Bay to the north. This strip of land generally consists of rapidly percolating soil.
Importantly, the strip of land has a breakline running through it which functions similar to the Continental Divide of North America in determining the direction of flow of any water located on either side of the divide. In this case, the breakline causes water to flow either north or south depending on which side of the breakline the water is located.
DWU provides water and sewer treatment to residents and businesses located in the City of Destin, Florida. In order to provide its sewer service, DWU operates a waste water treatment plant along with several wastewater percolation ponds and wastewater spray and drip irrigation systems.
Sometime in 1991, DWU entered into a lease agreement with a third party in which DWU would permit the third party to construct a golf course on a thirty acre site which currently contains four of DWU's percolation ponds.
The four percolation ponds, which are the subject of this proceeding are located off U.S. Highway 98 in Destin, Florida. The northern boundary of the subject site is the southern boundary of the property in which Petitioners' have an interest.
After construction of the golf course, DWU plans to continue to dispose of treated wastewater at the site by using a dual irrigation system consisting of a sprinkler system for spray irrigation and a series of underground plastic pipes for slow drip irrigation. DWU desired to create a dual use for the 30 acre site in order to generate more income from the property and still be able to dispose of wastewater on the property.
In order to accomplish its goal, DWU was required to obtain a permit for the planned conversion of the percolation ponds to a land application, reclaimed water, spray and drip irrigation system. Because a spray and drip irrigation system would be put into place, DWU would be required to provide additional nutrient and BOD removal before water is put on the property. DWU clearly has the capability and experience required to provide additional nutrient and BOD removal. Also because a spray and drip irrigation system would be substituted for the percolation ponds the maximum quantity of effluent to be applied to the property would be reduced to 1.58 gallons per day under the proposed permit.
The location of the percolation ponds and consequently the proposed spray and drip irrigation system is a superior site for effluent disposal because of the sandy soil, high elevation relative to the property surrounding the site, and the high permeability rate of the soil.
The ponds have been in existence for approximately ten years, and have operated under a permit which allows a maximum average of 1.65 million gallons of wastewater a day to be applied to the ponds' 30 acre site. Indeed, when the ponds were originally permitted approximately ten years ago all of the various factors affecting flow rates were reduced to calculations to determine the amount of effluent which could safely be placed on the percolation ponds' site to insure complete and continual compliance with Department requirements. To date, all of the effluent currently being applied to the percolation ponds meets the Department's standards when it leaves the percolation pond property and there have not been any violations of the operating permit or any other statutes, or rules for the subject percolation ponds during the history of their operation. Similarly, the design calculations for the proposed conversion to the spray and drip irrigation system on the proposed golf course show that the water
quality will continue to meet the Department's standards when it leaves the property.
The pond site is surrounded by eight monitoring wells. These wells measure the level of any contaminants which may seep into the groundwater and also measure any changes in groundwater levels. The monitoring wells are a requirement of the percolation ponds' permit to insure compliance, with state water quality standards and to insure that the percolation ponds are not adversely affecting any off-site property. DWU has submitted quarterly reports of the readings from these monitoring wells, as required by law, to the Department. The wells will remain in place should the property be converted to a golf course with a spray and drip irrigation wastewater disposal system.
A portion of the monitoring wells which encircle the percolation ponds lie along the northern boundary of the percolation ponds, which is the southern boundary of Petitioners' property.
Petitioners submitted the testimony of two lay witnesses in an attempt to establish a causal relationship between the percolation ponds and flooding in and around the percolation pond area.
Petitioners' witness, Bud Sharon, testified that he saw water on property located immediately to the south of DWU's percolation ponds which he had previously owned. The water Mr. Sharon saw was a continuous stream of water running down the side of his property. The stream of water developed after the ponds had been built. However, this witness was not qualified to render any expert opinions correlating the presence of any water on his property to any activities on DWU's percolation ponds. Most importantly, the evidence showed that the ponds were not in continuous use by DWU and at times were dry while Mr. Sharon's stream was continuous. This fact alone leads to the conclusion that the stream of water Mr. Sharon testified about was caused by factors not attributable to the percolation ponds. Additionally, analysis of the water found upon this witness' property was determined to be free from any contaminants and did not pose any health risks. Finally, the evidence demonstrated that with improved storm water control throughout the general area the stream has abated.
Dale Whitney was also proffered by petitioners and presented lay testimony regarding his observations of water in the vicinity of the percolation ponds. This witness testified that he saw water emanating from the berm which forms the southern boundary of the DWU percolation ponds. However, it was established during cross-examination that this witness did not know whether the DWU percolation ponds were in use at the time or when they had previously been in use. This witness also admitted under cross-examination that he was not qualified through experience, training or otherwise to opine about the source of water which he observed or whether it was in any way attributable to the percolation ponds. Additionally, the evidence showed that Mr. Whitney's observations occurred shortly after a heavy rain and during a particularly wet time of the year. In short, the water seen by Mr. Whitney more than likely was the result of storm water control in the area with rainwater percolating out of the berm. The evidence was insufficient to show that effluent from the percolation ponds was leaking through the berm.
On the other hand, the empirical data from the monitoring wells surrounding the percolation ponds demonstrates that the breakline for the area is north of the percolation ponds' site and is on Petitioners' property. The groundwater at the subject site flows in a southerly direction to the Gulf of
Mexico. The data from the monitoring wells also indicates that the wastewater stays in the groundwater and does not emanate to the surface and cause flooding. Similarly, there was no competent substantial evidence that the subject site caused any flooding at any time to the Petitioners' property. Indeed the historical data gathered from the percolation ponds' site demonstrates that water on that site runs away from Petitioners' property. In short, Petitioners failed to offer any plausible basis for inferring that water on the percolation ponds' site could flow uphill over the breakline and cause either flooding or raised nutrient levels on Petitioners' property. 1/ Moreover, for the past ten years during which the percolation ponds have been in existence, all effluent contaminant levels have been well within compliance with all Department rules.
Moreover, Petitioners presented no substantial credible evidence, either testimonial or documentary, concerning any water sample analyses in support of their allegations regarding water borne contaminants emanating from the percolation ponds onto their property; and no substantial credible evidence in any way materially controverting the engineering information submitted by DWU in its application or the determinations made by the Department in its analyses and approval of DWU's application.
Clearly, the actual performance of the percolation ponds over the past ten years establishes that the site will perform in accordance with the Department's rules should the proposed conversion be allowed. Additionally, given DWU's full compliance with all of the Department's rules relative to the performance and function of the percolation ponds over the past ten years, as well as compliance on DWU's use of its currently existing reclaimed water reuse systems and the fact that the conversion proposal meets the Department's water quality and design criteria requirements for reclaimed water use, reasonable assurances that DWU will continue to comply with all the Department's rules should the proposed conversion be allowed have been given and the permit should be granted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1) (1991), Florida Statutes.
In a permit proceeding, the applicant for a permit bears the burden of proof to demonstrate entitlement to the subject permit. Rule 17-103.130(1), Florida Administrative Code. Florida Department of Transportation v. JWC Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, once the applicants has made such a prima facia case, the Petitioners have the burden of going forward
...with evidence to prove the truth of the facts asserted in [their] petition[s]. If petitioner[s] fail[s] to present evidence, of fail[s] to carry the burden of proof as to controverted facts asserted ... the permit must be approved.
Id. at 789.
The Department has permitting authority over the waste water reuse system proposed in the subject permit application under Chapter 403, Florida
Statutes. Specific requirements for issuance of a waste water reuse construction permit are set forth in Rule Chapters 17-4, 17-302, 17-600, and 17- 610, Florida Administrative Code.
Rule 17-4.070, F.A.C. titled "Standards for Issuing or Denying Permits: Issuance; Denial" states in subparagraph (1) that:
a permit shall 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, installation of pollution control equipment or other information, that the construction,
expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, omit
or cause pollution and contravention of the Department's standards or rules.
Subsection (2) of Rule 17-4.070 states:
if after review of the application and all of the information, the Department determines that the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the construction, modification, expansion, or operation of the installation will be in accord with the applicable laws or rules, including rules of approved local pro- grams, the Department shall deny the permit.
Subsection (3) of Rule 17-4.070 states:
the Department may issue any permit with spe- cific conditions necessary to provide reasonable assurance that the Department rules can be met.
Subsection (5) of Rule 17-4.070 states:
The Department shall take into consideration a permit applicant's violation of any Depart-
ment rules at any installation when determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the Department's standards will be met.
Rule 17-302.500, F.A.C., "Minimum Criteria for Surface Waters," sets forth the Department's requirement that all surface waters of the state shall at all places and at all times be free from the components and discharges specifically identified in the Rules.
Rule 17-600.400, Fla.A.C., "Design requirements," states in subsection(1) that:
new waste water treatment plants and modi- fications of existing plants shall be designed in accordance with sound engineering practices.
for new facilities and modifications of existing facilities, it shall be the design objective to select treatment processes and equipment that will efficiently and reliably meet required effluent limitations and (in per-
tinent part) facilitate reliability shall be addressed in the preliminary design report, and the Department shall approve other methods of providing reliability if the permittee pro- vides reasonable assurances in the preliminary design report that the level of reliability is
equivalent to the class of reliability required.
Rule 17-600.410, F.A.C., "Operation and Maintenance Requirements," states, in pertinent part, that all domestic waste water treatment plants shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter so as to obtain, at a minimum, the reclaimed water or effluent quality required by the operational criteria specified in this chapter and to meet the appropriate domestic waste water residual management criteria specified therein. All reuse and land applications systems shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter and the provisions contained therein. All facilities and equipment necessary for the treatment, reuse and disposal of domestic waste water and domestic waste water residual shall be maintained, at a minimum, so as to function as intended. All treatment plant permittees shall be responsible for making all facilities safe in terms of public health and safety at all times, including periods of inactivation or abandonment.
Rule 17-600.420, F.A.C., "Minimum Treatment Standards - Technology Based Effluent Limitations," states, in pertinent part, that when surface water disposal is employed, all domestic waste water facilities are required, at a minimum to provide secondary treatment of waste water.
Rule 17-600.530, F.A.C., "Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Application," states, in pertinent part, that slow-rate, rapid-rate and overland flow, absorption field and other land application systems potentially discharging to class GII ground waters as described in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., require determination as to the appropriate potential discharges by the Department on a case-by-case basis with the permittee. Waste treatment at a minimum, shall consist of secondary treatment and, to the extent necessary, basic disinfection and pH control.
Rule 17-600.700 F.A.C., "Permitting - General," states, in pertinent part, that construction or modification of waste water treatment plants requires an appropriate permit from the Department. The permittee shall comply with the applicable design and performance criteria pursuant to the Department's rules.
Rule 17-600.715, F.A.C., "Preliminary Design Report," sets forth, in pertinent part, all of the informational elements which must be set forth in the permittee's preliminary design report which is submitted to the Department.
Chapter 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application," sets forth, in pertinent part, the requirements for domestic waste water treatment facilities concerning re-use and land application systems. Rule 17-610.310, F.A.C. states that an engineering report shall be submitted in support of an application for re-use or land application projects setting forth the geological aspects of the system. Rule 17-610.400, F.A.C. concerns the "Re- use; Slow-Rate Land Application Systems requirements for waste treatment and disinfection.
Chapter 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application," sets forth, in pertinent part, the Slow-Rate Land Application
Systems Public Access Areas and Re-use; Rapid-Rate Land Applications Systems. Specifically, Rules 17-610.450-.491 address Re-use; Slow-Rate Land Application Systems; Public Access Areas, And Rules 17-610.500-.525 address Re-use; Rapid- Rate Land Application Systems and their requirements.
In this case, DWU established that its permit application met all the requirements of the statutes and rules. On the other hand Petitioners, Bell and Kelly, offered no competent substantial evidence to establish that DWU's operation of the percolation ponds has resulted, at any time, in the violation of any of the Department's rules. Likewise, Petitioners Kelly and Bell presented no competent substantial evidence to contradict the testimony of DWU's and the Department's experts that there exists reasonable assurances of continued compliance under the proposed permit for the contemplated golf course and the spray and drip irrigation system.
Beyond that, Petitioners, Kelly and Bell, did not present any competent substantial evidence that any contaminants or nutrients emanating from DWU's percolation ponds have migrated or have in any way been transferred to Petitioners' property. Likewise, Petitioners, Kelly and Bell, failed to introduce substantial competent evidence that DWU's activities on the percolation ponds have caused any change or variation of the ground water level of the Petitioners' property or property to the south of the percolation ponds.
Finally, Petitioners Kelly and Bell failed to establish any causal relationship between the percolation ponds and flooding or raised nutrient levels on their property or that the proposed conversion would have such an effect.
Therefore, since the evidence established that DWU has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed conversion contemplated in DWU's permit application meets the Department's requirements and that DWU will continue to comply with all the Department's requirements, DWU is entitled to a permit for conversion of the percolation ponds to a golf course with a spray and drip land application reuse system as set forth in the Department's notice of Intent to Issue.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order issuing permit application number DC46-199969 to Destin Water Users, Inc.
RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 3rd day of August, 1992.
ENDNOTES
1/ Expert testimony by Respondents' witnesses offered several plausible and likely explanations for the excess buildup, if any, of water or nutrients on the Petitioners' property such as development, road construction, and changes in land uses related to population density.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7788
The facts contained in paragraph 1 of Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material.
The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 16B, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41, 54, 56, RIB Section paragraghs 1, 7, 16 and 17 of Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate.
The facts contained in paragraphs 2, 10, 11, 15, 16A, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 23, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 59, The
Plant Section paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, RIB Section
paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 8 and 13 of Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence.
The statements contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 49, 50, 52, 53, 57, The Plant
Section paragraph 13, RIB Section paragraphs 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact are not statements of fact.
The facts contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 27, 28, 51, 58 and RIB Section paragragh 15 of Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant or immaterial.
The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Respondent DWU's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material.
The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of Respondent DWU's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate.
The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of the Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material.
The facts contained in paragraphs 9, 10 and 13 of Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Lawrence Keefe, Esquire ANCHORS, FOSTER, MCINNIS,
and KEEFE
909 Mar Walt Drive Suite 1014
Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32547
Candi Culbreath, Esquire Department of Environmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Lowell B. Kelly
8 North Indian Bayou Drive Destin, Florida 32540
Lloyd F. Bell, Jr., c/o Ann Bell
435 Cardinal Avenue
Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548
Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel
Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
LLOYD F. BELL, JR., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) DOAH CASE NO. 91-7788
) OGC CASE NO. 91-2182 DESTIN WATER USERS, INC., and )
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
)
LOWELL B. KELLY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) DOAH CASE NO. 91-7789
) OGC CASE NO. 91-2170 DESTIN WATER USERS, INC., and )
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
On July 31, 1992, a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings submitted to me and all parties her Recommended Order in the above- captioned matter. A copy is attached as Exhibit "A." On August 17 the Department of Environmental Regulation ("Department") timely filed an exception to the Recommended Order. The matter thereafter came before me as Secretary of the Department for final agency action.
RULING ON EXCEPTION
The Department takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact No.
6, in which she found that the proposed permit, for a land application system for a sewage treatment plant, would reduce the maximum quantity of effluent to be applied to the property, a golf course, "to 1.58 gallons per day under the proposed permit." It is clear from a review of the record that the quoted statement is, as the Department suggests, - a clerical error. The record shows that the application in this case is for a permit with a maximum capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day. Therefore, I accept the Department's exception and conclude the Recommended Order must be amended accordingly.
Therefore, it is ORDERED:
The Recommended Order is approved and adopted in its entirety, except that Finding of Fact No. 6 is corrected to read "1.58 million gallons per day."
The Department is directed to issue Permit No. DC46-19969 to Destin Water Users, Inc., in accordance with the provisions of the Department's notice of intent to issue.
Any party to this Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is filed with the clerk of the Department.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
CAROL M. BROWNER
Secretary
Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Telephone: (904)488-4805
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been furnished by hand-delivery to Diane Cleavinger, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550; Ann Cole, Clerk, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550; and Candi Culbreath, Assistant General Counsel, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400; and by U.S. Mail to Lawrence Keefe, Anchors, Foster, McInnis, and Keefe, 909 Mar Walt Drive, Suite 1014, Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32547; Lowell B. Kelly, 8 North Indian Bayou Drive, Destin, Florida 32540; and Lloyd F. Bell, Jr., c/o Ann Bell, 435 Cardinal Avenue, Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 on this 10th day of September, 1992.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
DANIEL H. THOMPSON
General Counsel
Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Telephone: (904)488-9730
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 22, 1993 | Letter to C. Culbreath from D. Cleavinger (RE: letter enclosing exhibit which was left out of package containing recommended order) sent out. |
| Sep. 11, 1992 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 06, 1992 | Case No/s 91-7788 and 91-7789: unconsolidated. |
| Aug. 05, 1992 | Order sent out. (Re: Attorney's fees) |
| Aug. 03, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held April 28 and April 29, 1992. |
| Jul. 07, 1992 | Letter to SDC from Lowell B. Kelly (re: Mr. Keefe's Ltr dated June 24, 1992) filed. |
| Jun. 29, 1992 | Sheriff's Return Forms filed. (From Karen Lawrence) |
| Jun. 26, 1992 | Letter to SDC from Lawrence Keefe (re: Motion for Fees and Costs); Respondent Destin Water Users' Affidavit of Costs filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1992 | (Petitioner's) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1992 | Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation's Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jun. 15, 1992 | respondent Department of Environmental Regulation's Request for Additional Two Days for Filing of the Department's Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jun. 15, 1992 | Petitioner Destin Water Users` Proposed Recommended Order w/(unsigned)Order on Respondent DWU and DER`S Motions to Impose Sanctions Against Petitioners & cover Letter filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1992 | Letter to SDC from L. Keefe (re: hearing transcript) filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1992 | Transcript (4 vols); Amended Notice of Filing Transcript of Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1992 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Apr. 22, 1992 | Supb Duces Tecum (2); Subp ad Testificandum; Respondent Destin Water Users., Inc`s Motion to Compel Discovery and Impose Sanctions Against Petitioners Kelly and Bell (1st page only) filed. |
| Apr. 10, 1992 | Response to the DER Request for Interrogatories; Answer to Destin Water Users w/Letter form Kelly Trust & attachments filed. (From Lloyd F. Bell) |
| Apr. 03, 1992 | Respondent Destin Water Users, Inc`s Motion to Compel Discovery and Impose Sanction Against Petitioners Kelly and Bell filed. |
| Mar. 17, 1992 | (unsigned) Order on Respondent DWU And DER'S Motions to Impose Sanctions Against Petitioners filed. |
| Mar. 13, 1992 | (DER) Notice and Certificate of Service of Interrogatories (2); Department of Environmental Regulation's First Interrogatories to Petitioner, Lowell B. Kelly; Department of Environmental Regulation's First Interrogatories to Petitioner, Lloyd F. Bell, J |
| Mar. 11, 1992 | Affidavit as to Service of Process filed. (From Karen Lawrence) |
| Mar. 10, 1992 | Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation`s Amended Motion to Impose Sanctions on Petitioner Kelly w/Exhibits 1-3 filed. |
| Mar. 06, 1992 | Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation's Motion to Impose Sanctions on Petitioner Kelly w/attached Subpoenas filed. |
| Mar. 02, 1992 | Respondent Destin Water Users, Inc`s Motion to Compel Discovery and Impose Sanctions Against Petitioners Kelly and Bell; Notice of Hearing on DWU`S Motion to Compel Discovery From and to Impose Sanctions Against Kelly and Bell rec `d. |
| Feb. 27, 1992 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Exhibit-A & cover Letter filed. (From Karen Lawrence) |
| Feb. 20, 1992 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service filed. (From Karen Lawrence |
| Jan. 16, 1992 | Amended Order of Consolidation and Notice of Hearing sent out. (91-7788 & 91-7789 consolidated; Hearing set for April 28, 1992; 1:00pm C.S.T; Destin). |
| Jan. 10, 1992 | Order of Consolidation and Notice of Hearing sent out. 91-7788 & 91-7789 consolidated; Hearing set for April 28, 1992; 1:00pm CST; Destin). |
| Dec. 26, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Serving Petitioner First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Dec. 20, 1991 | Anchors, Foster, McInnis & Keefe, P.A.`s Notice of Appearance on Behalf of Destin Water Users, Inc.; Respondent Destin Water Users, Inc`s First Request to Produce to Petitioner filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1991 | Respondents' Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1991 | Initial Order issued. |
| Dec. 03, 1991 | Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record; Agency Intent to Issue; Request for Formal Administrative Hearing, letter form filed. |
| Dec. 03, 1991 | Notice of Related Case and Motion to Consolidate by Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (with DOAH Case No/s. 91-7788 & 91-7789) filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 10, 1992 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 03, 1992 | Recommended Order | Wastewater land application permit-conversion from permitted percolation ponds to spray and drip irrigation system-permit granted |
