STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARIE COOK MATIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 95-6005

)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION, )

)

Respondent. )

) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 95-6006

)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

MARIE COOK MATIS, )

)

Intervenor. )

) PASCO COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 95-6007

)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

MARIE COOK MATIS, )

)

Intervenor. )

)

ORDER AMENDING RECOMMENDED ORDER

By Order of Remand, dated January 20, 2000, this case was returned to the Administrative Law Judge for clarification of certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law inconsistent with the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties.

Specifically, the Order of Remand indicates that paragraphs

21 and 43 of the Recommended Order are contrary to the parties’ stipulation.

The Finding of Fact set forth in paragraph 21 of the Recommended Order states as follows:

21. The evidence admitted into the instant hearing fails to establish that the County should be issued a general permit for the use of spray irrigation on the Denton Avenue property at the Embassy Hills wastewater plant.

The Conclusion of Law set forth in paragraph 43 of the Recommended Order states as follows:

43. Nonetheless, while spray irrigation may not be specifically prohibited by the earlier settlement agreement, the evidence presented during this hearing does not establish that the County's application for general permit to construct the spray irrigation system should be granted.

The Order of Remand requests that the Administrative Law Judge "clarify whether or not he considered the portions of the parties’ Pretrial Stipulation . . .in connection with the assertions set forth in paragraphs 21 and 43 of the Recommended Order."

Although the Prehearing Stipulation indicates that "whether the Department should approve the County’s application for the general permit for the spray irrigation system" is a disputed issue in this proceeding, Section D, Paragraph 13 of the parties’ Prehearing Stipulation states as follows:

13. The County applied for a general permit to operate a spray irrigation area on appropriate Department forms and the request otherwise complies with the Department’s rules and regulations.

The Prehearing Stipulation was not considered in connection with paragraphs 21 and 43.

The Order of Remand also notes that in the Prehearing Stipulation, Pasco County has again agreed to install a single media filtration device at the Denton Avenue percolation ponds at the Embassy Hills wastewater treatment plant.

Although the Order of Remand notes that the issue of the filtration device is raised in Ms. Matis’ challenge to the Embassy Hills operating permit and not in her challenge to the general spray irrigation permit, it does not specifically request any clarification from the Administrative Law Judge. According to the list of disputed issues identified in the Prehearing Stipulation, approval of the Embassy Hills operating permit is at issue in this proceeding.

The necessity of the filtration device is not at issue in this proceeding. The Recommended Order reflects that the installation of this filtration device was a part of a 1987

settlement agreement and has been a specific condition of the County’s permits. The County has not installed the filtration device, and, therefore, is not in compliance with the permit conditions.

Paragraphs numbered 22-30 and 44 of the Recommended Order address the filtration device issue. The Recommended Order recommends that utilization of the Embassy Hills discharge ponds cease until the 1987 permitting condition is met. The Department may reject any and all recommendations in the Recommended Order.

Based on the Order of Remand, it is hereby ORDERED that:

The Finding of Fact set forth in paragraph 21 of the Recommended Order is amended to read as follows:

21. According to the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the County applied for a general permit to operate a spray irrigation area on appropriate Department forms and the request otherwise complies with the Department’s rules and regulations.

The Conclusion of Law set forth in paragraph 43 of the Recommended Order is amended to read as follows:

43. According to the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the County applied for a general permit to operate a spray irrigation area on appropriate Department forms and the request otherwise complies with the Department’s rules and regulations.

The unnumbered fourth paragraph on page 12 of the Recommended Order, wherein the Administrative Law Judge

recommended that the spray irrigation permit be denied, is withdrawn.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2000.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles D. Hinton, Esquire William Deane, Esquire Deane and Hinton, P. A. Post Office Box 7473

St. Petersburg, Florida 33739-7473

Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

James Benjamin Harrill, Esquire Figurski and Harrill

Suite 350

2435 U.S. Highway 19

Holiday, Florida 34691

Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order must be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 95-006005

Orders for Case No: 95-006005