STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MARIE COOK MATIS,

Petitioner,

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 95-6005

OGC CASE NOS. 95-2029

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 95-2888

Respondent.

/ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Petitioner,

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 95-6006

OGC CASE NO. 95-2501

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,

Respondent,

and

MARIE COOK MATIS,

Intervenor.

/ PASCO COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT,

Petitioner,

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 95-6007

OGC CASE NOS. 95-2256

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 95-2257

Respondent,

and

MARIE COOK MATIS,

Intervenor.

/

FINAL ORDER

On January 20, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") submitted his Recommended Order to the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") in these consolidated proceedings. A copy of the Recommended Order ("RO") is attached hereto as "Exhibit A". The RO indicated that copies were served upon counsel for Petitioner and Intervenor, Marie Cook Matis ("Matis"), and upon counsel for Petitioners, Board of County Commissioners of Pasco County, Florida, and Pasco County Utilities Department ("Pasco County").

Exceptions to the RO were subsequently filed on behalf of Matis, Pasco County, and the Department. On February 28, 2000, the Department entered an Order of Remand to DOAH requesting clarification by Administrative Law Judge William Quattlebaum (the "ALJ") on a crucial factual finding and related legal conclusion in the RO. On March 29, 2000, the ALJ entered an Order Amending Recommended Order ("ARO"), a copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit B". Exceptions to the RO, as amended by the ARO, were filed on behalf of each of the parties, and Responses to Matis' Exceptions were filed on behalf of Pasco County and the Department. The matter is now before the Secretary of the Department for final agency action.

BACKGROUND

1. The Initial Proceeding

   
   

   The consolidated administrative cases now on administrative review emanated from applications filed by Pasco County in the 1980's requesting the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") to issue construction permits for two wastewater treatment plants ("WWTPs"). The two proposed WWTPs were identified as the "Embassy Hills" facility and the "Hudson" facility. The Embassy Hills WWTP site is adjacent to residential real property owned by Matis.

   
   

   Matis filed a petition challenging these WWTP construction permit applications and the matter was referred to NOAH. This DOAH proceeding was subsequently resolved pursuant to a 1987 Settlement Agreement between the parties (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement contained a stipulation by Pasco County to eliminate from its Embassy Hills WWTP construction permit application the five most easterly percolation ponds nearest to the Matis property. The Settlement Agreement was incorporated into a Final Order issuing the two WWTP construction permits entered by DER in Matis v. Pasco

   County, DOAH Case No. 87-4781 (OGC Case No. 87-0386, January 21, 1988).

   
   

2. The Second Proceeding

   
   

   In 1991, Pasco County executed certificates of completion of construction of the Embassy Hills and Hudson WWTPs, and applied to DER for the issuance of operating permits for these two facilities. In 1992, DER executed Notices of Intent to Issue the operating permits for the two WWTP's. These 1992 Notices of Intent to Issue were challenged by Matis in another consolidated administrative hearing, wherein Matis also contested DER's 1992 Notice of Intent to Issue a permit to construct eight Rapid Rate Infiltration Basins at the Embassy Hills WWTP site.

   
   

   These 1992 formal administrative proceedings culminated in a Final Order entered by the Department1 on December 3,1993, in Matis v. Pasco County, OGC Case No. 93-0092 (the "1993 FO").

   The 1993 FO directed that the operating permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson WWTPs be issued, subject to the terms of the 1987 Settlement Agreement between the parties. However, the Department's 1993 FO denied issuance of the requested construction permit for five of the proposed RRIBs at the Embassy Hills facility as being in violation of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.2 This 1993 FO was affirmed in its entirety in Pasco County v. Matis, Case No. 93-04185 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 25,1995).

   
   

3. The Proceeding Now on Administrative Review

   
   

   After the appellate review of the 1993 FO was finalized in 1995, the Department issued operating permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson WWTPs as directed in the 1993 FO. However, Pasco County filed a challenge to the Embassy Hills operating permit contending that the installation of a single media filtration device was not required in the 1993 FO directing issuance of this operating permit. Matis also filed a petition for administrative hearing contesting issuance of the operating permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson WWTPs. Matis contended that these two operating permits did not comply with all the requirements of the Department's 1993 FO.

   
   

   In August of 1995, Pasco County also applied to the Department for a general permit to operate a spray irrigation system on a portion of the Embassy Hills WWTP adjacent to the real property owned by Matis. The Department subsequently

   executed a Notice of Intent Not to Issue the general permit to Pasco County asserting that the permit "may be inconsistent" with the terms of the 1987 Settlement Agreement between the parties.

   
   

   Pasco County filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging the Department's proposed denial of its spray irrigation general permit. The matter was then referred to DOAH, and the ALJ entered a subsequent order allowing Matis to intervene in this spray irrigation permit proceeding. The ALJ also entered an order consolidating the spray irrigation proceeding with the pending cases wherein Matis was challenging the operating permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson facilities.

   
   

   Matis contended that Pasco County's proposal to install a spray irrigation system at the Embassy Hills WWTP is prohibited by the terms of the 1987 Settlement Agreement. In addition, Matis contended that the discharge of treated wastewater into the ponds at the Embassy Hills site should be discontinued pending installation of a "single media Nitration system" as required in the Settlement Agreement.

   
   

   The ALJ conducted a DOAH final hearing in these consolidated cases at New Port Richey on July 7, 1999. At the commencement of the DOAH final hearing, the parties stipulated to the issuance of the Embassy Hills and Hudson WWTP operating permits, with certain modifications set forth in a June 25, 1999, letter from Matis' counsel. This letter was attached to and made a part of the Prehearing Stipulation filed in the DOAH proceedings. (Department's Exhibit A) After the conclusion of the final hearing, the Department filed a Proposed Recommended Order with DOAH withdrawing its objection to Pasco County's spray irrigation project at the Embassy Hills WWTP site.

   
   

   In the initial RO, the ALJ recommended that the Department grant the operating permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson WWTPs "in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by the parties at the hearing of July 7, 1999". However, the ALJ found that Pasco County has not installed the single media filtration device at the Embassy Hills WWTP as required by the 1987 Settlement Agreement and the Department's 1993 FO. The ALJ thus recommended that the Department enter a Final Order directing that the discharge of effluent into the Embassy Hills percolation ponds located on Denton Avenue be ceased until Pasco County has installed the required single media filtration system.

   
   

   The ALJ also concluded in the initial RO that Pasco County's proposed spray irrigation project at the Embassy Hills WWTP is not prohibited by the 1987 Settlement Agreement and is not precluded by the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata. Nevertheless, the ALJ did conclude that the evidence failed to establish that a permit should be issued for the proposed spray irrigation fields adjacent to the Matis property.

   
   

   The initial Exceptions of Pasco County and the Department asserted that the ALJ failed to consider a pertinent portion of their Prehearing Stipulation in finding that the evidence did not establish that the County's application to install a spray irrigation system at the Embassy Hills facility adjacent to Matis' property should be issued. On February 28, 2000, the Department entered an Order of Remand to DOAH requesting the ALJ to clarify whether he considered designated portions of the parties' Prehearing Stipulation in the course of preparing his RO.

   
   

   In his subsequent ARO, the ALJ acknowledged that the Prehearing Stipulation "was not considered in connection with paragraphs 21 and 43 [of the original Recommended Order]." The ARO amended the ALJ's Finding of Fact 21 and related Conclusion of Law 43 in the original RO to reflect the parties' stipulation that the proposed general permit to operate the spray irrigation system "complies with the Department's rules and regulations." In his ARO, the ALJ also withdrew his prior recommendation that Pasco County's application for a general permit for the spray irrigation system be denied.

   
   

   RULINGS ON THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND PASCO COUNTY

   
   

   Exceptions to Paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and 44 of the RO

   
   

   The Department and Pasco County both take exception to paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and 44 of the RO, which were not amended by the ALJ's subsequent ARO. These factual findings and related legal conclusion of the ALJ all deal with the issue of the installation of a single media filtration device ("SMF device") at the Denton Avenue percolation ponds at the Embassy Hills WWTP site. The ALJ finds and concludes that the undisputed fact that Pasco County has not yet installed this SMF device constitutes a violation of both the 1988 construction permit and the proposed operating permit for the Embassy Hills WWTP. The ALJ also recommends that this Final Order should enjoin Pasco County from further "utilization of the Denton Avenue discharge ponds at the

   Embassy Hills facility . . . until such time as the County has installed the required single media filtration system."

   
   

   The Department and Pasco County contend in their Exceptions that the challenged findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the ALJ dealing with the installation of the SMF device at the Embassy Hills WWTP should be rejected on several grounds. I find that these Exceptions of the Department and Pasco County have merit for the following reasons:

   
   

   1. The Department and Pasco County contend in their respective Exceptions that a purported violation of the conditions of the 1988 construction permit for the Embassy Hills WWTP was not raised by Matis in these permit proceedings. I agree with this contention. The record reflects that the construction of the Embassy Hills WWTP pursuant to the construction permit was completed in 1992. The administrative cases now on review did not arise out of an action for injunctive relief brought by Matis under § 403.412, Florida Statutes, alleging violations of environmental laws as a result of actions taken by Pasco County pursuant to the 1988 Embassy Hills construction permit. The cases now on review also did not arise out of enforcement proceedings brought by the Department alleging violations of the Embassy Hills construction permit and seeking injunctive relief against Pasco County under § 403.121, Florida Statutes.

      
      

   2. A review of the entire DOAH record reflects that these consolidated cases arose out of de novo administrative proceedings brought by Matis and Pasco County under §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statues, challenging the Department's proposed issuance of operating permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson facilities and the issuance of a general permit for a spray irrigation system at the Embassy Hills site. I thus find that the ALJ's sua sponte Finding of Fact 29 asserting that the Embassy Hills construction permit issued over ten years ago has been violated by Pasco County because the SMF device has not been installed is not based on competent substantial evidence of record. I also conclude that the ALJ's recommended legal conclusions in paragraph 44 of the RO are in error because these legal conclusions raise, sua sponte, a legal matter not properly before this agency for resolution in these cases.

      
      

   3. It is undisputed that the proposed operating permit for the Embassy Hills WWTP proposed to be issued by the Department in 1995 contains a requirement that the SMF device be installed at this facility. It is also undisputed that the parties'

      Prehearing Stipulation filed in the DOAH proceedings on review contains an agreement by Pasco County to withdraw its prior objection and to comply with the condition of the Embassy Hills operating permit that a SMF device be installed at the Denton Avenue percolation ponds. (Department's Exhibit A, paragraph B). A pretrial stipulation prescribing issues on which a case is to be tried is binding upon the parties and the courts and must be strictly enforced. See, e.g., Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v.

      Dania Bank, 252 So.2d 1,4 (Fla. 1971); Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So.2d 1163, 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In view of this binding stipulation of Pasco County, l conclude that the factual and legal issues previously raised in these cases relating to Pasco County's initial objection to installing the SMF device at the Embassy Hills facility have been rendered moot.

      
      

   4. The Department and Pasco County also correctly note in their Exceptions that a DOAH formal hearing is not primarily a review of prior agency action, but is a de novo proceeding intended to formulate final agency action. See, e.g., Hamilton County Commissioners v. State Dept. of Environmental Regulation,

587 So. 2d 1378,1387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In these cases, the Department's proposed issuance of the Embassy Hills WWTP operating permit in 1995 was contested by Matis and Pasco County by the timely filing of petitions for administrative hearings. Consequently, the proposed issuance of the Embassy Hills operating permit does not become final agency action of the Department until there is a final disposition of the subject administrative proceedings, including any appellate review. I thus conclude that the ALJ's findings and conclusions in paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 44 of the RO that Pasco County has already violated portions of the 1987 Settlement Agreement incorporated as conditions of the proposed Embassy Hills operating permit by not having installed the SMF device prior to the de nova hearing in these cases are premature.

Based on my review of the entire record, l find that the ALJ's factual findings in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the RO are not based on competent substantial evidence. I also conclude that the governing law discussed above compels a determination that the ALJ's related legal conclusions in paragraph 44 of the RO are not as reasonable as the legal conclusions set forth in this Final Order. Accordingly, the Exceptions of the Department and Pasco County to paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and 44 of the RO are granted.

Pasco County's Exception to Paragraph 33 of the RO

Pasco County also takes exception to the last sentence of paragraph 33 of the RO wherein the ALJ concludes that the "evidence fails to establish that a general permit should be issued to Pasco County for the utilization of spray irrigation fields on Denton Avenue property located adjacent to Matis' property." This legal conclusion of the ALJ was also not amended in his subsequent ARO. Pasco County correctly notes that this conclusion of the ALJ in paragraph 33 of the RO is virtually identical to the ALJ's legal conclusion in paragraph

43 of the RO, which was revised in the ARO to read as follows:

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.

I agree with Pasco County's contention that the legal conclusion in the last sentence of paragraph 33 of the RO was overlooked in the prior Order of Remand and in the ALJ's ARO entered in response thereto in these proceedings. For the reasons expounded in the Order of Remand, I conclude that the last sentence of paragraph 33 of the RO should also be amended to read the same as the ALJ's amended paragraph 43 set forth in the ARO entered on March 29, 2000. Accordingly, Pasco County's Exception to the last sentence of the ALJ's Conclusion of Law 33 in the RO is granted.

RULINGS ON MATIS' EXCEPTIONS

Matis' Exceptions to the ALJ's Findings of Fact Nos. 7, 20, and 21

These three Exceptions of Matis take issue with the ALJ's Findings of Fact Nos. 7, 20, and 21, which were not revised in the ARO. Matis does not find fault with any the ALJ's existing factual findings in paragraphs 7, 20, and 21 of the RO. Instead, Matis contends that the ALJ erred by not including additional factual findings pertaining to matters purportedly occurring in the negotiations with Pasco County leading up to the final language incorporated into the 1987 Settlement Agreement signed by the parties. Matis also contends that the ALJ erred by not supplementing these existing factual findings

with some of the testimony presented at the 1993 DOAH hearing in

the "Second Proceedings" summarized in the Background section above. However, these contentions of Matis are rejected as being inconsistent with Florida law.

State agencies reviewing exceptions to recommended orders of DOAH administrative law judges have no authority to make independent and supplementary findings of fact in their final orders. Florida Power & Light Co. v. State of Florida Siting Board, 693 So.2d 1025, 1026-27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); North Port

v. Consolidated Minerals, 645 So.2d 485, 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The scope of agency review of findings of fact in DOAH recommended orders is limited to ascertaining whether the existing findings of facts are supported by competent substantial evidence of record. North Port, supra, at 487. I thus have no authority to modify the ALJ's Findings of Fact Nos. 7, 20, and 21 by including the additional factual findings suggested by Matis. Accordingly, Matis' first, second, and third Exceptions are denied. Matis' Exceptions to the ALJ's Conclusions of Law Nos. 41 and 42.

In his Conclusions of Law 41 and 42, the ALJ concluded that Pasco County's application to install a spray irrigation system at the Embassy Hills WWTP adjacent to Matis' property is not barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.3 Matis, however, contends that this application for a spray irrigation system should be denied based on the res judicata and collateral estoppel effects of the First and Second Proceedings discussed in the Background section of this Final Order.

The ALJ's rulings that neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel apply to these proceedings was based on his conclusion that the First and Second Proceedings "did not address the issue of discharge by spray irrigation." I agree with this conclusion of the ALJ. The First Proceeding dealt with the location of percolation ponds adjacent to Matis' property in connection with the Embassy Hills WWTP construction permit. The Second Proceeding dealt with the operating permit for the Embassy Hills WWTP and a construction permit application for five rapid rate infiltration basins at the Embassy Hills facility site. A sprayfield or spray irrigation system at the Embassy Hills facility was not mentioned in the 1987 Settlement Agreement, the 1988 Final Order in the First Proceeding, or the 1993 Final Order in the Second Proceeding.

In Thomson v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 511 So.2d 989,991 (Fla. 1987), the Florida Supreme Court observed that "the doctrine of res judicata is applied with 'great caution' in

administrative cases." The Florida Supreme Court also acknowledged its approval of the general principle that "res judicata will apply only if the second application is not supported by new facts, changed conditions, or additional submissions by the applicant." Id. at 991. I concur with the ALJ that Pasco County's proposed spray irrigation system constitutes a proposed new activity not addressed in the First and Second Proceedings.

In view of the caution expressed by the highest court of this state concerning the application of res judicata to administrative cases, I adopt the ALJ's legal conclusions that neither the doctrine of res judicata nor collateral estoppel apply to bar the issuance to Pasco County of a general permit for the spray irrigation system at the Embassy Hills facility. Accordingly, Matis' Exceptions to the ALJ's Conclusions of Law

41 and 42 are denied.

Exception to the ALJ's Conclusion of Law 43 as Amended by the ARO

As noted above, the ALJ's legal conclusion in paragraph 43 of the initial RO was revised in the ARO to properly reflect a portion of the Prehearing Stipulation between the parties filed in these proceedings. Revised paragraph 43 of the ARO reads as follows:

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.

Matis does not directly challenge this conclusion of the ALJ that the proposed spray irrigation system "otherwise complies with the Department's rules and regulations". Instead, Matis contends that this conclusion "is inappropriate in that it fails to recognize the fundamental connection between the spray fields and the necessity of the single media filtration device" at the Embassy Hills Denton Avenue ponds. However, I have previously rejected the ALJ's legal conclusion that Pasco County's "failure" to install the single media filtration device prior to the DOAH hearing constituted a present violation of the Embassy Hills construction and operating permits. In any event, Matis has not cited to any statutory or rule provisions mandating that Pasco County install the single media filtration

device. This requirement arose out of a contractual obligation of Pasco County in the parties' 1987 Settlement Agreement.

Therefore, even if issuance of the spray irrigation permit would arguably violate the terms of the Settlement Agreement incorporated into the conditions of the construction and operating permits for the Embassy Hills facility, this would not invalidate the parties' stipulation and the ALJ's legal conclusion that the spray irrigation system "otherwise complies with the Department's rules and regulations."

In view of the above rulings, Matis' Exception to the ALJ's Conclusion of Law 43 as revised in the ARO is denied.

CONCLUSION

In his Conclusion of Law 44, the ALJ concludes that the Department has failed to enforce the Embassy Hills operating permit condition that the single media filtration device should be installed. The ALJ suggests that this failure "should be remedied by the agency." The ALJ also recommends that the Department should enter a final order directing that "[u]tilization of the Denton Avenue discharge ponds at the Embassy Hills facility should cease until such time as the County has installed the required single media filtration system."

Nevertheless, I have previously rejected the ALJ's conclusion that the conditions of the 1988 Embassy Hills construction permit were at issue in these de novo proceedings challenging the issuance of the Embassy Hills operating permit and a general permit for the spray irrigation system at the Embassy Hills site. I also rejected, as premature, the ALJ's conclusion that Pasco County has already violated the conditions of the proposed Embassy Hills operating permit by not installing the single media filtration prior to the DOAH formal hearing.

Therefore, the only proper legal issues before the Department on agency review are whether the proposed operating permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson facilities and the requested general permit to install a spray irrigation system at the Embassy Hills facility should be issued.

I am not aware of any legal authority for the Department to enter injunctive relief requested by a permit opponent against a permit applicant in a de nova administrative proceeding under §§

120.569 and 120.57(1) based on a claim of a violation of the conditions of a proposed permit not yet effective due to the filing of permit challenges. The extended time period that has

elapsed without issuance of the Embassy Hills operating permit is due to the continuous administrative or judicial actions challenging issuance of the permit, which have been ongoing since 1992. Neither Pasco County nor the Department should be faulted for the County's alleged violation of the conditions of a proposed operating permit that has never been issued due to protracted litigation.

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and 44 of the RO are rejected.

   
   

2. The last sentence of paragraph 33 of the RO is amended to read the same as amended paragraph 43 set forth on page four of the ARO.

   
   

3. The ALJ's recommendation on page 12 of the RO that this Final Order direct that "[u]tilization of the Denton Avenue discharge ponds at the Embassy Hills facility should cease until such time as the County has installed the required single media filtration system" is rejected.

   
   

4. As modified in paragraphs A, B, and C above, the RO, as amended by the ARO, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein.

   
   

5. The Department's Southwest District Office is directed to ISSUE to Pasco County the permit to operate the Embassy Hills Subregional Reuse Facility, Permit No. FLA012735-001-DW1P (formerly numbers DO51-203667); and the permit to operate the Hudson Subregional Reuse Facility, Permit No. FLA012738-001-DW1P (formerly DO51-203666).

   
   

6. The operating permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson facilities are subject to the conditions set forth in the respective draft operating permits for the two facilities admitted into evidence in the DOAH proceedings, as supplemented by the terms of the parties' Prehearing Stipulation also admitted into evidence. The conditions of these two draft operating permits, as supplemented by the terms of the Prehearing Stipulation, are incorporated by reference into this Final Order. Pasco County is directed to comply with these conditions and terms, including the prompt installation of the single media filtration device at the Embassy Hills facility.

   
   

7. The Department's prior Notice of Objection of Pasco County's Use of General Permit (File Nos. 51-231568 and 51-

275344) for a sprayfield at the Embassy Hills Denton Avenue location is withdrawn.

Any party to this proceeding has the right to seek judicial review of the Final 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, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 3000; 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 Final Order is filed with the clerk of the Department.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12 day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida.

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DAVID B. STRUHS

Secretary

Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

ENDNOTES

1/ Effective July 1, 1993, all the functions of the former Department of Environmental Regulation and the former Department of Natural Resources were consolidated and transferred to a newly created Department of Environmental Protection." See Ch.

93-213, § 3, Laws of Florida (1993).

2/ This 1993 FO of the Department contained a determination that five of the Rapid rate infiltration basins" proposed by Pasco County in its 1992 construction permit application were substantially the same as the five percolation ponds the County had agreed to eliminate in the 1987 Settlement Agreement.

FILED ON THIS DATE PURSUANT TO § 120.52, FLORIDA STATUTES, WITH THE DESIGNATED DEPARTMENT CLERK, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS F EREBY ACKNOWLEDGED.

3/ Res judicata and collateral estoppel are applicable to administrative proceedings. See, e.g., Thomson v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 511 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 1987); Brown v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 602 So.2d 1337, 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order has been sent by United States Postal Service to:

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

St. Petersburg, FL 33739-7473

James Benjamin Harrill, Esquire Figurski and Harrill

Suite 350

2435 U.S. Highway 19

Holiday, FL 34691

Ann Cole, Clerk and

William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge Division of Admiinistrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

and by hand delivery to: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

this 15th day of May, 2000.

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

J. TERRELL WILLIAMS Assistant General Counsel

3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Telephone 850/488-9314

Docket for Case No: 95-006007

Orders for Case No: 95-006007