The Issue The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Roger Harloff, should be issued a consumptive use permit to withdraw and use ground water from the wells on his property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roger Harloff, owns several farms in southeastern Manatee County, Florida which, taken together, make up an irregular 8,500 acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the City of Sarasota's Verna Wellfield. Mr. Harloff grows vegetables on much of this tract, of which approximately 1,500 acres is devoted to tomatoes. This tomato crop is the prime crop produced by Mr. Harloff, and provides the raw material for the Harloff packing plant which is dependent upon the tomato crop in order to stay in business. Mr. Harloff also operates a plant nursery at which he produces many if not most of the seedling plants utilized in his vegetable growing operations. In order to be economically feasible and remain operative, Mr. Harloff must farm approximately 3,800 acres during the Spring growing season and approximately 3,000 acres during the Fall. These acres are made up of tomatoes and other vegetables. The packing plant and the plant nursery are dependent upon the farm operation and without adequate water, the farm operation cannot be successfully carried on. In September 1988, Mr. Harloff applied to the District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from twelve wells located on his property, requesting an annual average rate of 12,995,606 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 47,520,000 gpd. The consumptive use permit application filed by Mr. Harloff was assigned District Number 204467.04. After evaluation of the application in conjunction with its needs and policies, the District issued a staff report and proposed agency action on the application which recommended issuance of the permit authorizing water to be drawn from the 12 wells at a rate approximating that requested in the application. Thereafter, the City of Sarasota, which operates the nearby Verna Wellfield, considering that the proposed withdrawal would have a substantial adverse impact on its wellfield operations, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing objecting to the issuance of the permit to Mr. Harloff. Though Mr. Harloff has owned much of the property which make up the 8,500 acre tract in question here, at the time of his application, he did not own, but had under contract, a substantial portion. He closed on the purchase of that remainder after he received notice of the District's intention to issue the permit in question but prior to the City's filing its Petition For Formal Hearing. The purchase price of the property in question was $9,000,000.00 which carries an interest payment on the financed portion of $52,000.00 per month. The wells pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are as follows: # Cons. Depth Cas. Lin. Diam. Cap. Loc. 1 1978 1185' 200' 220-490' 12" 2000 gpm SE 2. 1988 1320' 210' 210-480' 16" 3000 gpm SE 9. 1974 1130' 390' 16" 3000 gpm C 10. 1976 1232' 231' 283-400' 16" 3000 gpm NW 11. 1979 1120' 210' 260-480' 12" 2000 gpm NW 12. 1976 1180' 480' 12" 2000 gpm SW 3. 1989 1434' 460' 16" 3000 gpm SE 5. 1989 1374' 610' 16" 3000 gpm W 8. 1989 1292' 548' 16" 3000 gpm NW 13. 1989 1310' 635' 16" 2000 gpm NE Well No. 8 was used as the pump test well for the constant rate discharge test and Well No. 13 was the deep observation well for that test. Wells 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have all been previously permitted by the District and No's 1, 2, 9 and 10 are currently permitted under two other permits, while 11 and 12 were permitted under a different permit. Wells No. 3, 5, 8 and 13 have been authorized for construction but not, as yet, to produce water. Wells 4, 6 and 7 have not yet been constructed. The intention is to drill them to a depth of 1,300 feet and case them to 600 feet. Each will have a pump capacity of 3,000 gpm. Number 4 will be in the southeast portion of the tract, number 6 in the central portion, and number 7 will be located just north of number 6. Wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 currently have a combined permitted maximum daily rate of 13,680,000 gallons under permits number 204467.03 for 1 and 2, and 204630 for 9 and 10. The former was issued on December 29, 1987 and will expire on December 29, 1993, and the latter, issued on October 7, 1981, will expire on that same day in 1991. The permit previously issued for wells 11 and 12 authorized withdrawal at a maximum daily rate of 2,160,000 gallons. That permit, number 204374, expired on September 9, 1986 and was not renewed. After the City filed its Petition challenging Mr. Harloff's proposed permit, Mr. Harloff, on June 26, 1989, filed an amended application to withdraw water at an average annual rate of 10.99 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 48.96 million gallons. This amended application refers to an additional proposed well, Number 13. The District, however, had previously approved wells 3 - 8 and 13, and pursuant to this authorization, wells 3, 5, 8, and 13 were built. Mr. Harloff submitted additional amendments to his application on August 7 and 9, 1989. The former requests a seasonal average daily rate of 25.34 mgd and a seasonal maximum daily rate of 32.79 mgd. The latter requests a seasonal average rate of 26.18 mgd, an annual average rate of 15.18 mgd, and a seasonal maximum rate of 31.56 mgd. In that regard, a seasonal rate is the same as an annual rate, (average or maximum) when applied to a growing season as opposed to a year. The additional amendments to the application were evaluated by District staff who, on August 18, 1989, issued a revised staff report and a proposal to issue to Mr. Harloff a consumptive use permit authorizing an average annual withdrawal of 11.1. mgd, an average seasonal withdrawal of 15.6 mgd, and a seasonal maximum withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. The proposed permit also contains terms and conditions which, the District contends, will, inter alia, permit Mr. Harloff to withdraw more water than he is currently authorized without additional adverse impact on the City's Verna Wellfield. It is to some of these terms and conditions that Mr. Harloff objects. Since the issuance of the revised staff report and intent to issue, the parties have negotiated on the various terms and conditions in question and have agreed to some and the amendment of others. Mr. Harloff has no objection to conditions number 1, 2, 3, 7 - 14, 23, 24, 26, 28 - 30, 32, and 34 & 35. The parties agree that other conditions, as indicated herein, should be amended as follows: Condition 19, on the third line, should be changed to read, " up to 20 inches tapering to 12 inches." Condition 22, on the second line, should be changed from "30 days" to "10 days". Condition 25, on the first line, should be changed from "within 60 days" to within 120 days". Condition 31, on the third line, starting with "following month" should be changed to "following months: January, April, July and October". Also, under Sampling Frequency, "Monthly" should be changed to "Quarterly". Condition 33, on the ninth line, insert the work "economically" before the word "feasible" in the phrase "specific operation and irrigation improvements are feasible". Mr. Harloff objects to conditions 4, 5, 15 - 17, 20 & 27. He does not object to the proposed new standards for new wells. Taken together, the parties then disagree only on the requirement for abandonment or refurbishment of existing wells and the quantities of water Mr. Harloff will be allowed to draw. The City supports the District's position on both issues. The City of Sarasota owns and operates a public water system to serve between 50 to 75 thousand people located in Sarasota County. The primary source of water for this system is the Verna Well field which is also owned by the City and which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the City's water needs. The City also operates a reverse osmosis, (R.O.) water desalinization facility, and has back-up wells at St. Armond Key and at the Bobby Jones Wellfield. The Verna Wellfield is located about 17 miles east of the Sarasota city limits on approximately 2,000 acres of land in northeastern Sarasota County. It consists of two tracts of land: Part "A", which is approximately 1/2 mile wide by 4 miles long; and Part "B", which is approximately 1 mile square located about 500 feet southeast of Part "A". The Verna Wellfield's permitted allocation is based on whether the R.O. facility is producing at capacity. If it is, the Verna daily allocation is 7 mgd, and if not, 9.5 mgd. The R.O. facility's capacity is 4.5 mgd and the backup wells have a capacity of 1.7 mgd. The wellfield contains 39 permitted production wells, 30 of which are in Part "A" and 9 of which are in Part "B." One of them, well 30, is currently inactive. The wellfield has been in operation as a part of the City's public water system since September 1966. When the Verna Wellfield was constructed in 1965-1966, its original design specified casing on most wells down to 140 feet with pump bowl settings at 125 feet. Each pump was to have a total dynamic head, (TDH) of 200 feet. Over the years, the City has decreased the TDH of the pumps at Verna from 200 feet to 175 feet. This has resulted in a reduction of the pumps' ability to produce water with sufficient pressure to carry it to the discharge point. This decline has been caused by an increase in withdrawal of water regionally, and not solely because of withdrawals from the Verna Well field. Verna is impacted by the use of water outside the boundaries of the wellfield. The City has an ongoing program calling for the refurbishment of 2 to 3 wells per year at the Verna Wellfield. It is the City's intent to convert the pumps to 200 feet TDH on all well refurbishments in the future. In August 1977, a program requiring permits for the consumptive use of water was implemented in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties. At that time, the Verna Wellfield had a production rate of 6.9 mgd annual average daily rate. On January 6, 1978, the City applied for a permit for Verna and on April 3, 1979, the District issued permit number 27804318 to allow the City to draw water from the Verna Wellfield. The City applied for a renewal of that permit in October 1983 and thereafter, in January 1985, the District authorized the continued withdrawal of water from Verna by the issuance of permit 204318 which, at Condition 18, placed limitations on the City's use of water from the wellfield. Specifically, the permit limited withdrawals from Verna to: ...6,000,000 gallons per day average and 7,000,000 gallons per day maximum, except during those times when ... [the R.O. process is reduced or to facilitate maintenance or repairs]. At such times, ... [withdrawals) may be increased to provide additional supplies not to exceed 8,000,000 gallons per day average annual and 9,500,000 gallons per day maximum. This condition clearly provides for additional supplies to be drawn to increase the Verna Well field production to a total of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 mgd, respectively, not in addition to the regular permitted amount, by those quantities. The City's permit has been neither suspended nor revoked nor is any violation enforcement action currently under way. The current permit expires January 9, 1991. The water pumped from the Verna wells is held in a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at the wellfield. This reservoir, which is topped at approximately 22 to 23 feet, electronically controls the pumping activity at the well field by turning on and shutting off pumps, in series, as the water level in the reservoir rises and falls. The water, when needed, is transmitted to another reservoir near the City's treatment plant in downtown Sarasota by gravity flow through a 30" diameter, 92,000 foot long pipe. The flow rate is approximately 5,000 gpm normally. When the treatment plant needs more water, a pump at the well field forces the flow at a rate of between 7,200 to 8,200 gpm, depending upon the level of water in the receiving reservoir. A flow of 8,200 gpm would draw 11.8 mgd from the wellfield. The operating capacity of the Verna Wellfield, in August 1988, was 17.9 mgd. Harloff's experts assert, and there is no concrete evidence to rebut it, that if all wells at Verna were pumping during a 24 hour period in May 1989, the reservoir could have been maintained at full level. However, though there is a manual override of the automatic reservoir/pump control system, it is unrealistic and unwise to expect full production on a 24 hour basis for any lengthy time period. Water under both Mr. Harloff's property and the Verna Well field is found at various levels known by different names. These include, in order of descent, the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer extends from the surface down to between 20 and 60 feet below the surface. A 20 foot thick bed of clay separates the water in this aquifer from that in the aquifer immediately below it, the Intermediate Aquifer, which extends from approximately 80 feet down to approximately 420 feet below the surface. In the lower part of the Intermediate Aquifer, permeability decreases until a confining unit separating the bottom of the Intermediate Aquifer from the top of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is formed. There is such a confining unit between 420 and 500 feet. There is no well-defined confining unit between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. There is, however, a substantial difference in the transmissivity in each zone. "Transmissivity" is defined as the amount of water that will exist through a section of the aquifer that is the same width from the top to the bottom. The lower the transmissivity rate, the deeper the cone and the narrower the radius of effect. The higher the rate, the shallower the cone and the broader the radius. The Lower Floridan Aquifer has an extremely high transmissivity. Its top is found at a range of from 1,050 to 1,200 feet below the surface on Mr. Harloff's property. The water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is of higher quality than that in the Lower. It is more readily usable for drinking than that in the Lower, but the Lower water is quite acceptable for agricultural purposes. What confining layer exists between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers is made up of relatively impermeable anhydrides and gypsum. Because of this, there is little likelihood of the highly mineralized water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer rising into the better quality water in the Upper. If, therefore, water for agricultural purposes is drawn from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, with its high transmissivity and narrower cone radius, and if the wells utilized to procure this water are cased down to within the Lower aquifer, there is little chance of a negative impact on the better quality water, used for drinking by the City, within the Upper Floridan and Intermediate Aquifers. Mr. Hardin, an expert geologist and hydrogeologist testifying for Mr. Harloff, concluded, utilizing certain commonly accepted computer models, that Mr. Harloff's requested additional withdrawals would not have a significant effect on the Verna Wellfield's ability to produce water sufficient for the City's needs. This conclusion was based on 1989 seasonal use figures including an average rate of 21.95 mgd, a maximum rate of 27.04 mgd, and a maximum rate of 29 mgd under a "run time" calculation and the fact that during that period, the City was able to pump at least its permitted quantity from its wells at Verna. The City and the District do not accept this conclusion as reasonable, however, because, they claim, the withdrawal figures cited are not meter readouts but estimates based on the number of acres farmed and the number of pump operating hours during the period in question. The City's experts contend the data used by Hardin and Prochaska in their opinions is not that which other experts in the field would reasonably rely upon. They do not appear to be unrealistic, however, and, therefore, Mr. Hardin's opinion is accepted as but one factor to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson, also a Harloff expert hydrogeologist, claims the requested withdrawals would result in only an additional 1.7 foot drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying the Northeast corner of the Verna Well field. To be sure, this is only one small portion of the wellfield in issue. There has, however, been a continuing history of declining groundwater levels in this area over the past several years. After the 1975 drought, the City started to experience declining water levels at Verna which, because of the reduction in ability to produce water, required a lowering of the pump elements in some wells, and also caused the City to develop an R.O. facility in an effort to reduce dependence on well water. This drop in capability occurred again during the 1985 drought and this time the City modified the pump motors to shut off prior to cavitation and initiated a schedule of operating times for wells, so that water is drawn from different and geographically separated areas in a sequence designed to allow periodic regeneration of an area's supply. Nevertheless, water supply remains a concern at Verna, and the problems previously experienced continue to occur during periods of drought. In May 1989, the Verna Wellfield was periodically "unable" to meet it's short term peak demands at times even though all operating wells were pumping. This means that at the times in question, more water was being drawn from the Verna reservoir than could be replaced by pumping activities. It does not mean that the reservoir ran dry and water could not be furnished to the treatment plant. However, this condition is serious and indicative of a more serious shortage in the future unless appropriate safeguards are instituted. Mr. Balleau, the City's expert in hydrology and hydrogeology, and the District's experts all believe the Verna Wellfield is in trouble. It is operating well beyond its design range and the imposition of additional demands on it would seriously and adversely affect its ability to produce water. This position is supported by the facts and found to be accurate. There appear to be several options open to the City to contend with the Verna problem potential. These include: drill deeper wells at Verna to tap the Lower Floridan Aquifer. (This will produce the lower quality water found there and require additional treatment facilities. construct a linear wellfield along the pipeline from Verna to the treatment facility. (This will require additional permitting to draw the water, high construction and operating costs, and still result in low quality water requiring treatment. redevelop the downtown wells currently supplying the R.O. facility. (This will require satisfaction of regulatory issues, adversely impact on the users of the upper aquifers, possibly result in poor water quality and in contamination from nearby landfills.) develop a new well field southeast of Verna. (This will experience regulatory issues and high construction costs, with an unknown water quality result.) buy water from Manatee County. (This is expensive, may result in transmission and compatibility problems, and would be only a short term solution. lower pump assemblies; replace existing pumps and modify the pump circuits. (These are all unreliable, short term solutions of minimal benefit.) Mr. Harloff and the City/District disagree on the appropriate amount of water needed for the successful growing of the crops produced by his operations. Both agree, however, that the heaviest demands for water come in the spring growing season including April and May. Tomatoes require the most water. Peppers require nearly as much. This is because the short root systems require a higher water table in the soil to supply needed moisture. In its analysis of Mr. Harloff's application, the District, referring to tables developed for the purpose of allocation and relating to Harloff's watering history during the period from August 15, 1988 to June 7, 1989, subtracted the fall season recorded application of 20.7 acre-inches from the total 10 month figure of 50.92 acre-inches and concluded he would need 30.22 acre-inches for peppers during the spring, 1989 season. Unless shown to be totally unreasonable, however, (not the case here), the applicant's water need figures should be accepted. Mr. Harloff's operation constitutes an important part of Manatee County's agricultural economy, and agriculture utilizes 68.9 percent of the land in the county. Agricultural products sold in Manatee County in 1987 were valued at $145,655,000.00, which ranked Manatee County third among all Florida counties in vegetable production. Agriculture is the fourth largest employer in Manatee County, employing an average of 4,692 people per month. Through his farm operation alone, Harloff employes as many as 1,050 people, with 200 employed on a full-time basis. Experts estimate that the loss of the Harloff operation would cause a reduction of between 16 and 18 million dollars in agricultural sales in the county with an additional loss in jobs and income to his suppliers. This estimate is not at all unreasonable. Florida produces approximately 95 percent of all tomatoes grown in this country for the fresh tomato market during the winter growing season. Tomatoes are the single largest vegetable crop grown in the state and accounted for 39.7 percent of the total value of vegetables produced in Florida during the 1987-1988 growing season. Mr. Harloff produced 4.8 percent of the total shipment of tomatoes from this state during that period. Water, primarily through irrigation, is an indispensable portion of the farming operation for this crop. Mr. Harloff currently irrigates the majority of his non-citrus crops by use of a "semi-closed ditch irrigation system", as opposed to a "drip system." The drip system is considerably more efficient than the semi-closed system having an efficiency rating, (amount of water actually used by the plants) of between 80 to 90 percent, as opposed to 40 to 60 percent for the other. While Mr. Harloff could reduce his water needs considerably and achieve substantial savings on pump fuel by conversion to a drip system for all or a part of his crops, such an undertaking would be quite costly. One of the conditions proposed by the District for the approval of Harloff's permit, as amended, is the refurbishment of several of the existing wells utilized by Mr. Harloff to make them more efficient and to promote the withdrawal of water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, in which there appears to be adequate water and from which the Verna Well field does not draw. Currently, Mr. Harloff has seven wells which do not meet the standards of this proposed condition. They are not drilled to 1,300 feet below mean sea level and are not cased to 600 feet. To bring these wells into compliance, they would have to be drilled to the 1,300 foot level, or to a level which has a specific capacity of 400 gpm, and the casings in each would have to be extended to 600 feet. Extending the casings would be a complicated procedure and Harloff's experts in the area cannot guarantee the procedure would successfully achieve the desired end. Assuming the retrofit was successful, the cost of the entire process would be approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 per well. In addition, the process would, perforce, require reducing the diameter of the well from 10 to 8 inches, thereby necessitating increasing the pump capacity to produce sufficient water. The cost of this is substantial with an appropriate new pump costing somewhere between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each. Consequently, the anticipated cost of bringing the existing wells up to condition standards would be between $25,000.00 to $31,000.00 per well, while the cost of constructing a new well is between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 per well. Mr. Harloff feels it would be more prudent for him to replace the existing wells rather than to retrofit them. This may be correct. Harloff experts also claim that extending the casings on the existing wells down to 600 feet would not provide a significant benefit to the aquifer nor cause any significant reduction in drawdown impact at Verna. The District and City experts disagree and, taken on balance, caution and the interests of the public indicate that a conservative approach is more appropriate. While Mr. Harloff proposes to convert the areas served by wells 1, 9, 11, and 12 to the growing of citrus which requires much less water than tomatoes, this would not be sufficient mitigation to offset the need for some modification if large amounts of water will still be drawn. The entire area under the District's jurisdiction has been experiencing a water shortage due to a lack of rainfall. As a result, in June 1989, the District adopted a resolution identifying an area, including the area in question here, as a "water use caution area." This was done because the Floridan Aquifer has been subjected to large seasonable drawdowns of the potientiometric surface, the level to which water in a confined aquifer can rise in a well which penetrates that acquifer. This drawdown is directly related to increased water use in the area, much of which is for agricultural purposes. As a result of the District's action, special conditions on well construction for consumptive use applicants have been imposed on a permit by permit basis to insure, as much as possible, that the applicant uses the lowest quality water appropriate for his intended purpose. These conditions are not unreasonable. While accepting the District's and City's conclusion that his wells, if permitted, would have some impact on the Verna Wellfield, Mr. Harloff does not concede that the impact is significant. Specifically, the difference in impact resulting from an increase from his currently permitted use of 13.68 mgd seasonal maximum and his requested use of 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum for wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 would be a maximum increased drawdown of 1.1 feet at the Intermediate aquifer and 1.8 feet at the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Both figures relate to that portion of the wellfield found in the northeast corner of Part A. If the anticipated usage for crops predicted by Mr. Harloff's experts for the spring of 1989 is accurate, the drawdown would be 0.2 feet for the intermediate aquifer and 0.4 feet for the Upper Floridan Aquifer measured at the northeast corner of Part B of the Verna We1lfield. Harloff's experts contend that additional impacts for the spring of 1989 included, the increased usage will not have a significant effect on Verna's ability to produce its permitted daily maximum withdrawal of 9.5 mgd. While this is an educated speculation, it should be noted that during May 1989, the Verna field was able to produce up to 8.3 mgd without using all wells during any 24 hour period. This does not consider, however, the problems encountered by the City as indicated by the wellfield personnel, and the fact that some of the City wells are not pumping water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Roger Harloff be issued a consumptive use permit, No. 204467.04, as modified, to reflect authorization to draw 15.18 mgd annual average, not to exceed 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum, conditioned upon compliance with the conditions found in the conditions portion of the permit, as modified to conform to the quantities as stated herein, and to include those requirements as to acre-inch and crop-acre limitations, well usage and abandonment schedules, well modification standards, and record keeping, as are contained therein. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-0574 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: City of Sarasota, joined by the District 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29-33. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. & 36. Accepted. 37. & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on opponent's satisfaction of its burden of proof. 42-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misstatement of fact. Water service was never interrupted. The deficiency was in the City's inability to keep its wellfield reservoir filled. 47-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 57-62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 64-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. Rejected. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Rejected. Accepted. Irrelevant. 81-84. Rejected. 85. & 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87 & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90 & 91. Accepted and incorporated herein. 92. & 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Roger Harloff 1-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14 & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 & 30. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not proven. 35 & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39-41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 & 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted. 45 & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Accepted. 50 & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. & 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58-60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61 & 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 67-68. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but an interpretation of party po Accepted. Rejected. 72 & 73. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert and Gramovot, P.A. 705 East Kennedy- Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondents, United States Sugar Corporation (“USSC”), Sugar Farms Co-op (“SFC”), and Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (“SCGC”) (collectively “the Applicants”) are entitled to the Everglades Works of the District permits (“WOD Permits”), issued to them by the South Florida Water Management District (“District”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Audubon is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to restoring and conserving natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and their habitats. Audubon has a substantial interest in the protection of the Everglades and other ecosystems in the area. Audubon’s interest is affected by the proposed agency action because the WOD Permits authorize agricultural discharges that affect these ecosystems. The District is a Florida public corporation with the authority and duty to administer regulatory programs in chapter 373, and Florida Administrative Code Title 40E, including a program for regulating discharges from the Everglades Agricultural Area (“EAA”) into works of the District. The EAA is located south of Lake Okeechobee and comprises about 570,000 acres. The majority of EAA agriculture is sugarcane, with some row crops, such as radishes, leafy vegetables, and corn, and turf sod. During fallow periods, rice is also grown. The Applicants are owners and lessees of agricultural lands in the EAA. Background Some essential background for this case is set forth in rule 40E-63.011: The Everglades is a unique national resource. It has a high diversity of species, and provides habitat for large populations of wading birds and several threatened and endangered species, including wood storks, snail kites, bald eagles, Florida panthers, and American crocodiles. Large portions of the northern and eastern Everglades have been drained and converted to agricultural or urban land uses. Only 50% of the original Everglades ecosystem remains today. The remainder is the largest and most important freshwater sub-tropical peatland in North America. The remaining components of the historic Everglades are located in the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) and Everglades National Park (ENP). ENP and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (WCA 1) are Outstanding Florida Waters, a designation which requires special protection for the resource. Large portions of the Everglades ecosystem have evolved in response to low ambient concentrations of nutrients and seasonal fluctuations of water levels. Prior to creation of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), nitrogen and phosphorus were mainly supplied to large areas only in rainfall. Phosphorus is the primary limiting nutrient throughout the remaining Everglades. Sawgrass has lower phosphorus requirements than other species of Everglades vegetation. A substantial portion of EAA nutrients is transported to the remaining Everglades either in dissolved or in particulate form in surface waters. The introduction of phosphorus from EAA drainage water has resulted in ecological changes in substantial areas of Everglades marsh. These changes are cultural eutrophication, which is an increase in the supply of nutrients available in the marsh. The increased supply of phosphorus in Everglades marshes has resulted in documented impacts in several trophic levels, including microbial, periphyton, and macrophyte. The areal extent of these impacts is increasing. In 1988, the United States sued the District and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, now the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in federal court, alleging that the agencies failed to enforce Florida’s water quality standard for nutrients in waters of Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park. The principal pollutant of concern was phosphorus. Audubon, USSC, and certain members of SCGC and SFC intervened in the federal case. In February 1992, the parties resolved their dispute through a settlement agreement approved by the federal court (“the Consent Decree”). The Consent Decree required the District and DEP to take action to meet water quality standards by December 31, 2002. At that time, the nutrient water quality standard was a narrative standard, prohibiting the discharge of nutrients so as to cause “an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna.” The Consent Decree directed the District to construct 34,700 acres of stormwater treatment areas (“STAs”) so that nutrient-laden surface water discharged from the EAA could be treated before discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (“EvPA”), which includes Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge, Everglades National Park, and the Water Conservation Areas. STAs are large freshwater wetlands which remove phosphorus from the water column through physical, chemical, and biological processes such as sedimentation, precipitation, plant growth, and microbial activity. The first STAs were constructed and in operation in 1993. The Applicants operate in the S-5A Basin within the EAA. Their surface water is conveyed to STA-1W for treatment before being discharged to the EvPA. The Consent Decree required the District to initiate a regulatory program by 1992 to require permits for discharges from internal drainage systems (farms) in the EAA. The regulatory program was to be based on agricultural best management practices (“BMPs”). The goal of the program, as stated in the Consent Decree, was to reduce phosphorus loads from the EAA by 25 percent over the base period (1979-1988). In 1992, the District promulgated rule chapter 40E-63, which required EAA farmers to obtain WOD permits and to implement agricultural BMP plans. The BMP plans address fertilizer use and water management. Permittees must also implement a water quality monitoring plan. The rules require reduction of the total phosphorus loads discharged from the EAA Basin, as a whole, by 25 percent from historic levels. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-63.101. If the EAA, as a whole, is in compliance, individual permittees are not required to make changes to their operations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-63.145(3)(d). If the 25 percent reduction requirement is not met, the rule contemplates that individual permittees in the EAA would have to reduce nutrient loads in their discharges. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-63.145(3)(e).1/ The Consent Decree also required the District to obtain permits from the Department for discharges from the STAs to the EvPA and to conduct research and adopt rules to “numerically interpret” the narrative standard. In 1994, the Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Forever Act (“the Act”), chapter 94-115, Laws of Florida, which is codified in section 373.4592. The Legislature authorized the district to proceed expeditiously with implementation of the Everglades Program. See § 373.4592(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The “Everglades Program” means the program of projects, regulations, and research described in the Act, including the Everglades Construction Project. The Everglades Construction Project involved the construction of 40,452 acres of STAs, which is 5,350 acres more than was required by the federal Consent Decree. The Act acknowledged the BMP regulatory program for the EAA that the District had established in rule chapter 40E-63, and stated: Prior to the expiration of existing permits, and during each 5-year term of subsequent permits as provided for in this section, those rules shall be amended to implement a comprehensive program of research, testing, and implementation of BMPs that will address all water quality standards within the EAA and Everglades protection Area. See § 373.4592(4)(f)2., Fla. Stat. The Act required DEP to issue permits to the District to construct, operate, and maintain the STAs. See § 373.4592(9)(e), Fla. Stat. The Act required development of a numeric water quality phosphorus standard for the EvPA by 2003. See § 373.4592(4)(e), Fla. Stat. The Act set the goal of achieving the phosphorus standard in all parts of the EvPA by December 31, 2006. In June 1995, modifications were made to the Consent Decree. The deadline for achieving water quality standards in the EvPA was changed from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2006. The STAs were increased from 34,700 acres to 40,452 acres. The chronological developments outlined above indicate the intent of the Legislature and the parties to the Consent Decree to conform state law and the Consent Decree to each other. In 2001, DEP initiated rulemaking that lead to its adoption of the Phosphorus Rule, rule 62-302.540, in 2003. The rule set a numeric phosphorus criterion for the EvPA of 10 parts per billion (“ppb”), applied through a four-part test in which attainment is determined separately for “unimpacted” and “impacted areas” of the EvPA. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62- 302.540(4). In conjunction with this rulemaking, the DEP and District developed the Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins Long Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals (“Long- Term Plan”) in March 2003. The Long-Term Plan provided remedial measures and strategies divided into pre-2006 projects and post- 2006 projects. The pre-2006 projects included structural and operational modifications to the existing STAs, implementation of agricultural and urban BMPs in areas outside the EAA or C-139 basins, and construction of several restoration projects congressionally mandated by the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Modeling of treatment capabilities of the STAs after implementation of the pre-2006 projects predicted that the 10 ppb standard for phosphorus could be achieved, but not consistently. Therefore, the Long-Term Plan required the District to identify and evaluate methods to improve phosphorus reductions, and if the phosphorus criterion was not achieved by December 31, 2006, to implement post-2006 modifications and improvements. The post- 2006 strategies include projects to expand and improve the STAs. They do not include changes to the BMP program. In 2003, the Legislature substantially amended the Act. It incorporated the Long-Term Plan into the Act, finding that it “provides the best available phosphorus reduction technology based on a combination of the BMPs and STAs.” § 373.4592(3)(b), Fla. Stat. The Long-Term Plan contemplates maintenance of the BMP program in the EAA, with refinements derived from BMP research. Recent Conditions and Events As previously stated, chapter 40E-63 requires the total phosphorus load from the EAA to be reduced by not less than 25 percent from historic levels. Since full implementation of the BMP regulatory program, annual phosphorus loads have been reduced by approximately 50 percent. Despite the efforts and projects undertaken, the phosphorus standard was not being achieved as of December 31, 2006, in all parts of the EvPA. In 2007, the DEP issued a permit to the District for discharges from the STAs to the EvPA (referred to as the “Everglades Forever Act” or “EFA permit”). The permit required the District to design and construct several regional water management projects, including structural enhancements to STA-1W, and the construction of 6,800 acres of additional STAs. The permit and its compliance schedules provided interim relief through 2016 from the water quality based effluent limitation (WQBEL) necessary to achieve the 10 ppb phosphorus standard. The 2007 EFA permit was not challenged by Audubon or any other entity. The District, DEP, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency began working together in 2010 to develop new strategies for achieving compliance with the phosphorus standard in the EvPA. The agencies determined that compliance could be achieved by expanding the STAs by 7,300 acres (6,500 acres would be added to STA-1W) and constructing flow equalization basins to store up to 110,000 acre feet of stormwater runoff. These basins are designed to attenuate peak flows into the STAs in order to improve the processes that remove phosphorus. In September 2012, DEP issued the District a new EFA permit, which authorized continued operation of the District’s S-5A pump station, STA-1W, and the related conveyance systems by which stormwater runoff from the S-5A Basin is ultimately discharged to the EvPA. The permit was issued with a Consent Order, requiring the District to expand STA-1W by 6,500 acres of effective treatment area in accordance with a timeline and the District’s Restoration Strategies. The 2012 EFA Permit and Consent Order were not challenged by Audubon or any other entity. In 2013, the Legislature amended the Act again. The Act’s reference to the Long-Term Plan was revised to include the District’s Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan, which called for expanding the STAs and constructing flow equalization basins. See § 373.4592(2)(j), Fla. Stat. The Legislature added a finding that “implementation of BMPs, funded by the owners and users of land in the EAA, effectively reduces nutrients in waters flowing into the Everglades Protection Area.” See § 373.4592(1)(g), Fla. Stat. The 2013 amendments indicated the Legislature’s intent to codify into law the strategies developed by the District and other regulatory agencies to achieve water quality standards in the EvPA. Those strategies do not materially change the BMP program in the EAA. The Act and the rules of the District create programs for achieving restoration of the EvPA that rely heavily on the STAs. Over the years, the STAs have repeatedly been enlarged and enhanced. In contrast, the requirement for farmers in the EAA to reduce their phosphorus loading by 25 percent has not changed in 21 years. It is beyond the scope of this proceeding to question the wisdom of the programs that have been established by statute and rule. Whether Additional Water Quality Measures Are Required A principal dispute in this case is whether the WOD Permits must include additional water quality measures to be implemented by the Applicants. Section 373.4592(4)(f)4. provides that, as of December 31, 2006, all EAA permits shall include “additional water quality measures, taking into account the water quality treatment actually provided by the STAs and the effectiveness of the BMPs.” Audubon asserts that the requirement for additional water quality measures has been triggered. The District does not interpret the statute as requiring additional water quality measures under current circumstances. The interpretation of the statute is primarily a disputed issue of law and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. There, it is concluded that additional water quality measures are not required. Whether the BMP Plans are Adequate Audubon contends that the WOD Permits should be denied because the Applicant’s existing BMP plans are not “tailored” to particular soils, crops, and other conditions. This contention is based on section 373.4592(4)(f)2.c., which states in relevant part: BMPs as required for varying crops and soil types shall be included in permit conditions in the 5-year permits issued pursuant to this section. Audubon showed that the Applicants have similar BMP plans for the thousands of acres covered in the three WOD Permits, and contends that this similarity proves that BMPs are not being tailored to specific farm conditions. However, soils and crops are similar throughout the EAA. The soils of the EAA are almost entirely muck soils and the primary crop is sugarcane with some corn or other vegetable rotated in. The Applicants use many of the same BMPs because they have similar soils and grow similar crops. There are three main categories of BMPs implemented in the EAA: nutrient and sediment control BMPs, particulate matter and sediment control BMPs, and water management BMPs. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-63.136, Appendix A2. The BMPs proposed by the Applicants are based on research in the EAA and recommendations specifically for EAA soils and the crops grown there. The Applications do not identify the specific BMPs that will be implemented, but only the number of BMPs that will be selected from each of the BMP categories (i.e., sediment control). The Applicants must use BMPs on the District’s list of approved BMPs unless an alternative BMP is requested and approved. The lack of greater detail was explained as necessitated by the need for flexibility during the life of the permit to adapt BMPs to varied crops and conditions. Audubon does not believe the BMP plans are tailored enough, but there is no rule criterion for determining how tailored BMP plans must be, except they must achieve the overall goal of reducing phosphorus loading in discharges from the EAA by at least 25 percent. This goal is being achieved.2/ Audubon did not show that any particular BMP being used by an Applicant was the wrong BMP for a particular soil and crop, or identify the BMP that Audubon believes should be used. Audubon failed to prove that the Applicants’ BMP plans do not meet applicable requirements. Whether the Applications Are Complete Audubon contends that the WOD Permits must be denied because the Applications are incomplete. Many of Audubon’s completeness issues deal with minor discrepancies of a type that are more appropriately resolved between the District and applicants, not violations of criteria that are likely to affect a third party’s interest in environmental protection. Rule 40E-63.130 lists the requirements for a permit application for activities in the EAA Basin. An Application Guidebook is incorporated into chapter 40E-63, which contains instructions for completing the application. For applications to renew a permit, the practice of the District is to not require the resubmittal of information that was previously submitted to the District and which has not changed. The Application Guidebook explains this practice. The Applicants supplemented their applications at the final hearing to provide information that Audubon claimed was omitted from the Applications.3/ Audubon contends that the Applications are incomplete because some application forms are not dated and other forms are not signed by appropriate entities. The District explained its rule interpretation and practices associated with the forms. Additional signatures and dates were submitted at the final hearing. Audubon failed to demonstrate that the Applications are incomplete based on the identity of the persons who signed application forms or the lack of dates. Audubon contends the Applications are incomplete because copies of contracts or agreements are not included as required by rule 40E-63.132(3). Audubon failed to prove that contracts and agreements exist that were not included. Audubon contends the Applications are incomplete because they do not contain a completed Form 0779, entitled “Application For A Works Of The District Permit,” as required by rule 40E-63.132(5). In some cases, the information for Form 0779 had been previously submitted and was unchanged, so the District did not require it to be resubmitted for the permit renewal. Additional information was provided at the final hearing. Audubon failed to prove that the Applications are incomplete based on missing information on Form 0779. Audubon contends that the Applications are incomplete because documentation regarding leased parcels was missing. Pursuant to rule 40E-63.130(1)(a), individual permit applications must be submitted by the owner of the land on which a structure is located and any entity responsible for operating the structure, and the permit application must include the owners of all parcels which discharge water tributary to the structure. Applications may be submitted by a lessee if the lessee has the legal and financial capability of implementing the BMP Plan and other permit conditions. The District explained that when applications are submitted by a lessee who will be the permittee or co-permittee, the District requires the lessee to be a responsible party for the entire term of the permit, which is five years. If the lessee is a not a co-permittee, the District does not require information about the lease and does not require the lessee’s signature. If the lessee is a co-permittee, but the lease expires during the term of the permit, the District requires the applicant to modify the permit when the lease expires. Audubon failed to prove that the Applications are incomplete based on lease information Audubon contends that the Applications are incomplete because they fail to show that the Applicants participated in an education and training program as required by rule 40E- 63.136(1)(g). The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Applicants participated in education and training programs. Audubon failed to prove that the Applications are incomplete for any of the reasons raised in its petition for hearing or advanced at the final hearing. Water Quality Standards in the EAA Audubon presented some evidence of algal accumulations in ditches and canals, but the evidence was insufficient to prove the Applicants are violating water quality standards applicable in the EAA. Summary Audubon failed to carry its burden to prove that the Applicants are not entitled to the WOD Permits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that South Florida Water Management District issue Permit Nos. 50-00031-E, 50-00018-E, and 50-00047-E. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00254 seeks a consumptive use water permit for 1.08 million gallons per day average daily withdrawal and 2.16 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal from one well. This is a new use. The purpose of the consumptive use is a semi-enclosed irrigation system for the irrigation of tomatoes in south Hillsborough County. The water is to be taken from the Floridan Aquifer with some discharge off site. According to Barbara Boatwright, hydrologist for the district, there is some possibility that salt water intrusion may occur, but the district has never documented it in the subject area. The consumptive use will exceed the water crop as defined by the district because 25 percent of the water used will run off site and thus be lost. Except as otherwise stated above, none of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2),(3) or (4), F.A.C., will be violated. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: By January 1, 1978, applicant shall reduce runoff to 8.6 percent of the amount pumped, which reduction will bring the amount pumped within the water crop as defined by the district. That the applicant analyze the quality of the water at the beginning and end of each production season and that these analyses be submitted to the district. That the district be allowed to install flowmeters on any discharge canal and on the pump with proper notification of applicant and to enter on property to read the meters.
Recommendation Noting that, with the conditions requested by the Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff, issuance of the sought for permit appears consistent with the public interest, it is RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit be issued pursuant to Application No. 75-00254 with the conditions set forth in paragraph 4. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Terry Elsberry Staff Attorney Elsberry Brothers, Inc. Southwest Florida Water Route 2, Box 70 Management District Ruskin, Florida 33570 Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's water use permit should be revoked for nonuse of the permit for a period of two years or more.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The District is a state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing water use permits under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40B- 2 for the geographic area under its statutory jurisdiction. Alachua County is within that geographic jurisdiction. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices at 700 Northwest Cheeota Avenue, High Springs, in northern Alachua County. It owns approximately 700 acres in High Springs (west of Interstate Highway 75) on which it operates a church retreat and summer camping and recreational facility known as Camp Kulaqua. The property surrounds, and is contiguous to, Hornsby Spring, a first-order magnitude spring (having a flow rate of 100 CFS or greater) which, under normal conditions, discharges into the nearby Santa Fe River. Hornsby Spring is one of 296 documented springs within the District's jurisdiction. After receiving an overture from a representative of a private water bottling company, on September 28, 1999, Respondent filed an application for a General Water Use Permit in Township 7 South, Range 17 East, Section 26, in High Springs. In its application, Respondent represented that it desired a daily allocation of 2,000,000 gallons; that it intended to install two 12-inch wells, each having a capacity of 1,400 gallons per minute, just east of, and upgradient from, Hornsby Spring; and that all water withdrawals would be used in conjunction with a privately-owned commercial spring water bottling facility to be located on its property. The application also represented that the facility would employ 36 persons and operate 168 hours per week. The application was reviewed by a former District hydrogeologist, William H. Kirk. During the review process, and in response to Mr. Kirk's request for more information, Respondent provided a comparison of the requested allocation with the overall flow of Hornsby Spring. This was because Mr. Kirk was concerned that the requested allocation was "a bit high," and he wanted to ensure that the issuance of the permit would not cause harm to, or adversely affect, the water resources. Under a professional guideline that Mr. Kirk used, if the applicant could show that the cumulative amount being withdrawn was to be less than ten percent of what the available data showed to be the mean spring flow, the District would consider it to be "an acceptable impact." Notwithstanding Mr. Kirk's use of this guideline, the District points out that there is no District rule or policy sanctioning the ten percent rule, and at hearing it denied that this standard is used by the District in assessing water use applications. Further, the Permit itself does not refer to a relationship between spring flow and the size of the allocation. Even so, this analysis was considered by Mr. Kirk in determining whether Respondent had given reasonable assurance that the spring would not be impacted. In its response to the request for additional information, Respondent reduced its requested allocation to 750,000 gallons per day and indicated that if a bottling plant were to be constructed on its property, approximately 700,000 gallons of the total allocation would be consumed in "bulk transfer and bottling," with the remainder for camp use. More specifically, Respondent indicated that it would allocate 490,000 gallons per day for bulk transport, 210,000 gallons per day for spring bottling water, and 50,000 gallons per day for incidental uses at its property. By reducing the allocation from 2,000,000 gallons per day to 750,000 gallons per day, Respondent's requested average daily allocation represented only 0.4 percent of the average daily spring flow as measured over the last 28 years. The reduced allocation satisfied Mr. Kirk's concern that Respondent demonstrate a reasonable demand and a reasonable need for that allocation, and he recommended approval of the application.2 On February 25, 2000, the District approved the application and issued Water Use Permit No. 2-99-00130 (Permit).3 The Permit authorizes an average daily withdrawal of 0.7500 million gallons per day (750,000 gallons per day) or a maximum daily withdrawal and use of 0.7500 million gallons per day with an annual allocation not to exceed 273.750 million gallons (273,750,000 gallons) per calendar year in conjunction with the operation of a privately-owned water bottling plant. The Permit expires on February 25, 2020. After the Permit was issued, under the regulatory process in place, Respondent was required first to obtain a permit for a temporary test well which would be used to collect information concerning the site of the proposed activity, and to then file an application for permits authorizing the construction and operation of the two 12-inch production wells. The Permit contains a number of conditions, two of which require a brief comment. First, Condition No. 2 provides that "[t]his permit is classified as unconfined [F]loridan aquifer for privately owned bottled water plant." This means that all water withdrawals must be made from the unconfined Floridan aquifer, as opposed to the spring head of Hornsby Spring. (Respondent's proposed siting of its two production wells 660 yards east of the spring is consistent with this provision.) Second, Condition No. 4 provides that "[t]he permittee shall submit daily pumpage records on a monthly basis to the [District]." Pumpage reports are filed by permittees so that the District can determine whether the permit is actually being used, and if so, to ensure that the amount of water being withdrawn under the permit does not exceed the authorized allocation. As it turned out, pumpage reports were never filed by Respondent. (However, the record shows that the District has never strictly enforced this requirement for any permittee.) In late 2002, the District staff undertook a review of the nine water bottling permit holders within its jurisdiction, including Respondent. That category of permit holders was selected for review because of the small number of permits and the limited resources of the District staff. (In all, the District has probably issued several thousand permits to other types of users.) On February 4, 2003, the District served its Complaint under the authority of Sections 120.60 and 373.243, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-2.341. As grounds for revoking the permit, the District alleged that there was "non-use of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of two (2) years or more." Although Respondent contends that it should have been given an opportunity to correct the nonuse allegation before the Complaint was issued, nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act or District rules requires that this be done. Until the issuance of the Complaint against Respondent in early 2003, and similar Complaints against eight other permit holders at the same time, the District had never invoked this statutory provision.4 There is no evidence to support Respondent's contention that the Complaints were issued for "purely political reasons." On March 4, 2003, Respondent requested a formal hearing challenging the District's proposed action. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the issues have been broadly described as follows: whether Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes, is to be strictly or liberally construed; whether Respondent's nonuse is based upon extreme hardship for reasons beyond its control; and whether the District is equitably estopped from permit revocation. (According to the District, even if the Permit is revoked, such revocation is without prejudice to Respondent reapplying for, and receiving, another permit so long as it meets all applicable requirements.) Equitable Estoppel Respondent first contends that the District is estopped from revoking its Permit on the theory that, under the circumstances here, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. For that doctrine to apply, however, Respondent must show that the District made a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later asserted position; that Respondent relied upon that representation; and that the District then changed its position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent. See, e.g., Salz v. Dep't of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 432 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The District issued Respondent's Permit on the condition that Respondent operate in conformity with all pertinent statutes and regulations. This finding is consistent with language on the face of the Permit, which states that the Permit "may be permanently or temporarily revoked, in whole or in part, for the violation of the conditions of the permit or for the violation of any provision of the Water Resources Act and regulations thereunder." Respondent relied on the District's representation that it could use the Permit so long as it complied with all statutes and regulations. In reliance on that representation, in addition to staff time, after its Permit was issued, Respondent expended "somewhere around" $70,000.00 to $74,000.00 for conducting water quality testing; sending cave divers underground to ascertain the correct location of the portion of the aquifer on which to place its production wells; drilling a 6-inch test well in August 2000; obtaining the City of High Springs' approval in March 2000 for industrial zoning on a 10-acre tract of land on which to site a "water plant"; and engaging the services of a professional who assisted Respondent in "seeking out businesses and getting the right qualifications of the spring water to make sure that it was a marketable water." The District has never asserted anything different from its original position: that if Petitioner complied with all statutes and rules, it could continue to lawfully make water withdrawals under its Permit. The issuance of the Complaint did not represent a change in the District's position. Because a change in position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent did not occur, the necessary elements to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel are not present. Was the Permit Used? A preliminary review by District staff indicated that Respondent had never filed the daily pumpage reports on a monthly basis and had never requested permits authorizing the construction of the two 12-inch production wells. These preliminary observations were confirmed at final hearing, along with the fact that Respondent has never entered into an agreement with a water bottling company (although draft agreements were once prepared); that Respondent has never constructed a water bottling facility; and that no operations were ever conducted under the Permit. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that Respondent did not use its Permit for the two-year period after it was issued, as alleged in the Complaint. Respondent's contention that the evidence fails to support this finding belies the evidence of record. In an effort to show that it actually used the Permit, Respondent points out that in August 2000 it applied for, and received a permit to construct, an unmetered 6-inch test well in association with its General Water Use Permit. (Respondent sometimes erroneously refers to the test well as a test production well. This is incorrect as the well is a test well, and not a production well.) After the test well was installed, at some point Respondent says it began withdrawing approximately 50,000 gallons per day of water from that well for incidental uses associated with the operation of Camp Kulaqua.5 These withdrawals were made on the assumption that the test well permit fell under the broad umbrella of the General Water Use Permit. (Respondent also has a permitted 6- inch diameter well and an unregulated 4-inch well on its premises, both of which are used for water supply needs at Camp Kulaqua.) It is true, as Respondent asserts, that its Permit authorized incidental withdrawals of up to 50,000 gallons per day for unspecified uses at Camp Kulaqua. However, these withdrawals are authorized under the General Water Use Permit and not the test well permit. The two permits are separate and distinct. On the one hand, a test well is intended to be temporary in nature and used only for the purpose of test well development and collecting information regarding the height of the aquifer and water quality at the site of the proposed activity. Conversely, withdrawals for any other purpose, even incidental, must be made from the production wells, which are only authorized by the General Water Use Permit. Before a test well can be used for normal consumptive purposes, the permit holder must seek a modification of the permit to include it as a part of its general water use permit. Here, no such modification was sought by Respondent, and no authorization was given by the District. Therefore, Respondent's incidental water uses associated with its test well cannot be counted as "uses" for the purpose of complying with the use requirement in Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes. In light of the District's credible assertion to the contrary, Respondent's contention that it is common practice to lawfully withdraw water from a test well for incidental consumptive purposes has been rejected. (It is noted, however, that the District has not charged Respondent with violating the terms of its test well permit.) Extreme Hardship Under Section 373.243, Florida Statutes (which was enacted in 1972), the District is authorized to revoke a water use permit "for nonuse of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of 2 years." However, if the user "can prove that his or her nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control," revocation of the permit is not warranted. The phrase "extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control" is not defined by statute or rule. In the context of this case, however, the District considers an extreme hardship to occur under two scenarios. First, if the aquifer level has dropped so low due to drought conditions that a permit holder cannot access the water through its well, its nonuse is excusable. Alternatively, if an emergency order has been issued by the District directing permit holders (including Respondent) to stop pumping due to certain conditions, an extreme hardship has occurred. (Presumably, a severe water shortage would precipitate such an order.) In this case, the District issued a water shortage advisory, but not an emergency order, due to a "severe drought," indicating that users could still pump water, but were encouraged to voluntarily reduce their usage. This advisory remained in effect from the summer of 1998 until the spring of 2003, when a severe drought ended. However, no emergency order was ever issued by the District. Respondent contends that its nonuse was due to an extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control. More specifically, it argues that a severe drought occurred in Alachua County during the years 1998-2003, and that under these conditions, federal regulations prevented it from withdrawing water for bottling purposes, which was the primary purpose for securing a permit. Further, even if it had withdrawn water during these drought conditions, such withdrawals could have adversely impacted Hornsby Spring and constituted a violation of a District requirement that water resources not be adversely impacted. Because an investment of several hundred thousand dollars was required to drill and install the two production wells, Respondent contends it was not financially prudent to make that type of investment and begin operations until normal spring conditions returned. These contentions are discussed in greater detail below. Around September 7, 1999, a representative of a water bottling company first approached Respondent about the possibility of the two jointly operating a water bottling plant and/or transporting water in bulk from Respondent's property. Prompted by this interest, less than three weeks later Respondent filed its application for a water use permit (although at that time it did not mention on the application that off-site bulk transfers would occur), and a permit was eventually issued in February 2000. Later, and through a professional firm it employed, Respondent had discussions with representatives of several bottling companies, including Great Springs Waters of America (Great Springs) and Perrier Group of America. Apparently, these more serious discussions with a potential suitor did not take place until either late 2000 or the spring of 2001. Periodic measurements taken by District staff at Hornsby Spring reflected natural drought conditions from April 2000 to April 2003. As noted earlier, this was the product of a "severe drought" which took place between the summer of 1998 and the spring of 2003; the drought was one of a magnitude that occurs only once in every 50 to 100 years. During the years 2000 through 2002, the spring had zero flow or was barely flowing much of the time.6 Had Respondent pumped water during 20 out of the 24 months after the Permit was issued, it could have potentially violated the requirement that it not harm Hornsby Spring. This fact is acknowleged by a District witness who agreed that if the "spring is not flowing, . . . [pumping] would have an [adverse] impact." Even as late as October 2003, the spring had tannic discoloration caused by the lengthy drought conditions. The parties agree, however, that there is no water shortage in the District at the present time. To illustrate the difficulty that it experienced in obtaining a joint venture partner for water bottling purposes, Respondent established that in the spring of 2001, a Great Springs representative visited the site when the spring was "barely flowing." For obvious reasons, Respondent could not "bring a party there who would want to enter into a business [agreement]" under those conditions. These same conditions remained in effect during most of the two year period. The District points out, however, that even though the spring was low or barely flowing, so long as the aquifer itself was not too low, Respondent could still withdraw water from the aquifer, since Condition 2 of the Permit authorizes withdrawals from the aquifer, and not the spring. The reason for this apparent anomaly is that when a spring ceases to flow, the aquifer has simply dropped below the level of the spring vent; even under these circumstances, however, there may still be a substantial quantity of water in the aquifer available for pumping. Assuming that it could still lawfully pump water when the spring was dry or barely flowing without causing adverse impacts to the spring, Respondent was still subject to federal regulations which govern the bottling of spring water. See Title 21, Part 165, C.F.R. For spring water to be marketed as bottled "spring water," 21 C.F.R. § 165.119(2)(vi) requires that the water "be collected only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring." This means that the bore hole had to be physically connected with the cave system feeding Hornsby Spring or produce water of the same quality as that discharging from the spring. The regulation goes on to provide that "[i]f spring water is collected with the use of an external force [such as by a pump], water must continue to flow naturally to the surface of the earth through the spring's natural orifice." While this regulation obviously does not prohibit Respondent from pumping water, since that authority lies within the District's exclusive jurisdiction, it does provide that in order to use spring water for bottling purposes, the water must continue to flow naturally from the aquifer to the spring. If it does not, the water cannot be used for this purpose. Because Hornsby Spring had zero flow for parts of 2001 and 2002, and severely reduced flows during most of the other time during the two-year period ending February 2002, Respondent was effectively prevented by the foregoing regulation from using the water for bottling purposes. Therefore, Respondent's nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control -- a severe drought lasting throughout the two-year period after the Permit was issued, and federal regulations which prevented it from using water for the purpose for which the Permit was issued. Thus, the nonuse is excusable.
Findings Of Fact This application is to provide irrigation necessary to develop 11,520 acres zoned agricultural into improved grazing land. The land to be so developed is Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, & 25, Township 47 South, Range 34 East, a portion of Sections 4, 9, 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 35 & 36, Township 47 South, Range 34 East, a portion of Section 1, Township 48 South, Range 34 East, and a portion of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 35, East. It is bounded on the west and southwest by the L-3 canal, and on the east by the Rotenberger tract which has been purchased by the State of Florida as a Wildlife Management Area. Details of the proposed water management system are contained in Exhibit 4, C&SFCD Staff Report. The tract here involved is basically flat with the elevation going from +14 feet in the northwest portion to +13 feet in the southeast portion. Although the Addendum to the Staff Report (Exhibit 5) states that the application calls for the conversion of several thousand acres of original sawgrass Everglades into improved pasture, expert witnesses testified without contradiction that the tract involved is more on the edge of the Everglades and only a small portion in the southeastern part thereof is truly swamp and marsh land typical of the Everglades. The western portion of the area is comprised of sandy soil rather than the muck characteristic of Everglades land. Although the Intervenors contended that the development of the tract would be environmentally counterproductive, no evidence was submitted to support this position. Conversion of the land to pasture may prove more useful to wildlife than leaving it in its present state which primarily supports deer. As improved pasture the land would still support a substantial deer population. Wading birds in particular will benefit if the wild land is converted to pasture. The annual water allocation recommended by the C&SFCD staff and concurred in by applicant, should be 15,360 acre-feet (16.0 inches/acre/year) which is the basin yield for the area. Therefore the irrigation use should have no adverse impact on the water resource or affect other users.
The Issue Whether Petitioner Ross has standing to challenge the issuance of the WUP? Whether the District should approve the Application and enter a final order that issues the WUP?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Ross Petitioner Ross is a resident of Pinellas County, (referred to by him at hearing as "the most urbanized county in the State of Florida"). Besides residing there, Petitioner Ross operates a farm on his property in the County. The City's experts reasonably projected and mapped a 0.5 foot drawdown contour surrounding the well field that is the subject of this proceeding. The contour defines "the cone of depression" associated with the well field. See Tr. 136. Mr. Ross' property is outside the cone of depression, to its south and west. The overall groundwater gradient in the area of the well field is from the east to the west. The water pumped from the well field does not pull water from the west because the pumping withdrawal will not reduce the potentiometric surface gradient enough to reverse the current gradient. Mr. Ross' property and the well on his property are "way outside," tr. 138, the well field and the 0.5 drawdown contour surrounding the well field. Based on the amount of drawdown reasonably projected by the well field, the effect on Mr. Ross' property could not be measured because it would be so slight. If the water in his well were to rise after the WUP is implemented, it would be impossible to tell whether the water rose "because the pump's turned off or because it rained the day before." Tr. 163. The District The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. The District administers and enforces chapter 373, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Among those rules are those that relate to the consumptive use of water found in chapter 40D-2. The City The City of Tarpon Springs is the applicant for the WUP that is the subject of this proceeding. The City's application seeks to modify an existing permit. The Existing Permit The City has an existing Water Use Permit (the "Existing Permit") from the District. Originally granted in 1976, it allows for withdrawal of fresh groundwater for public supply. The Existing Permit was last renewed in October of 2005 for a ten-year period. It expires in October of 2015. Under the Existing Permit, the withdrawal capacity is 1.38 million gallons per day annual average and allows for seven production wells. The Application and its Modification The City submitted the Application in July, 2008. The Application at that time was for 25 wells in a brackish water well field for a proposed brackish groundwater reverse osmosis plant that the City plans to build. The City's intent originally was to apply for a permit separate from the Existing Permit.1/ In September of 2009, however, the City requested that the Application be considered a modification of the Existing Permit. In honoring the request, the District changed the number assigned to the Application to "20000742.010."2/ The Application was also modified with regard to the number of production wells in the brackish well field. The number was reduced from 25 to 22, "due to land acquisition efforts indicating that the maximum number of wells . . . required for the project would be 22." Tr. 54. The Application contains an introduction that summarized the City's water supply system and its water supply plans, a completed Individual Water Use Permit Application form, a completed Public Supply Supplemental form, and an Impact Analysis Report (the "Report"). The Report states that the ground-water flow model "MODFLOW"3/ was used to perform the impact analysis. Assessment of average annual and peak month withdrawal impacts in the Upper Floridan and surficial aquifers used the SWFWMD District Wide Regulation Model Version 2 ("DWRM2"). One of the enhancements the DWRM2 offers over earlier model versions is "integrated focused telescopic mesh refinement (FTMR) which allows the model grid user to refine the model grid spacing to focus on specific areas within the District."4/ The Report included the FTMR model grid, total drawdown scenarios in the Upper Floridan Aquifer and the surficial aquifer, and a peak month drawdown scenario. The Application also included a summary of the regional hydro-geology, a summary of the City's wastewater system, a description of the City's potable water supply, an historical operating protocol and a proposed well field management plan for the City's new brackish water well field, a service area and well field location aerial, a table showing the general hydrostratigraphy in northern Pinellas County, a summary of seasonal fluctuations which addressed the conditions for issuance of a permit as set forth in rule 40D-2.381, a summary of the City's reclaimed water system, well location maps, wetland maps, Water Use Permit maps and schedules, the City's well field protection ordinance, maps pertaining to the proposed service areas, a water conservation letter, and water conservation information. The 22 new production wells in the brackish water well field will provide enough water once treated at the proposed reverse osmosis membrane treatment plant to enable the City to supply the anticipated potable water demand for all of the City's customers through the year 2015. Installation of the additional production wells will increase the annual average quantity of groundwater pumpage to 4,200,000 gallons per day ("gpd") and the peak month quantity to 6,300,000 gpd. Review of the Application by the District led to four requests by the District for additional information. The City responded to each. The responses included a well construction and aquifer testing program report, a Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation Plan, a Water Quality Action Plan, a revised Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation Plan, a revised Water Quality Action Plan and a second revision of the Water Quality Action Plan, a second Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation Plan, a proposed Environmental Monitoring Plan, a third revised Water Quality Action Plan, a third revised Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation plan, and the final Environmental Monitoring Plan. Draft Water Use Permit On October 8, 2010, the District gave notice of its intent to issue a permit that would modify the City's Existing Permit for public supply use. Attached to the notice is a Draft WUP. The modification includes the development of a brackish water well field with 22 additional production wells to allow the City to self-supply the anticipated potable water demand in 2015 for a customer base of approximately 34,259 persons. The annual average quantity authorized by the WUP is 4,200,000 gpd and the permitted peak month quantity increases to 6,300,000 gpd.5/ Special conditions of the Draft WUP require the City to maintain meters on existing and proposed withdrawal points; record and report monthly meter readings; confirm meter accuracy every five years; monitor and report the water quality and aquifer water levels; maintain an adjusted per capita rate of 150 gpd or less; conduct and report water audits; submit annual reports of residential water use, reclaimed water supplied, per capita water use rates, and well field operations; investigate withdrawal-related well complaints; conduct a well field inventory prior to the activation of the proposed production wells; comply with the environmental monitoring plan; set water quality concentration limits prior to the activation of the proposed production wells; and submit an Annual Water Quality Report and an annual Well Field Report. Criteria in Rule for Issuance of WUPs The District utilizes rule 40D-2.381 (the "Rule") in its review of water use permit applications. The Rule opens with the following: In order to obtain a Water Use Permit, an Applicant must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water . . . Rule 40D-2.381(1), Tab 1 of the Binder Containing the Matters Officially Recognized, pp. 7-8. The Rule requires that the applicant make the required demonstrations through the provision of "reasonable assurances, on both an individual and a cumulative basis that the water use," id., will meet 14 conditions listed in subsections (a) through (n).6/ Condition (a) Condition (a) requires that the City demonstrate that the water use is necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand. To meet this condition, the City provided a population estimate through the end of the permit term and also provided a per capita rate that the City had used in the last five years. Calculations set forth in a table prepared at the request of the City show the population projections and projected water demands over a period from 2008 through 2030. These calculations provide reasonable assurances that the proposed water use meets Condition (a). Condition (b) Condition (b) requires that the City must demonstrate that the water use will not cause quantity or quality changes that adversely affect the water resources, including both surface water and groundwater. The City provided a groundwater model showing the anticipated groundwater drawdowns within the Upper Floridan and surficial aquifers. The City also completed a study on the wells within the sections of the actual proposed well field. Based upon the modeling, the drawdowns are not large enough to cause any impacts to quantity or quality of the water in the area. The City has a Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation Plan, should there be any complaints of impact, to correct any problems after implementation of the WUP. The well field is designed with 22 supply wells. All 22 wells need not be operated at the same time to meet the water demand. Wells beyond those needed by demand have been designed into the well field so that there can be rotational capacity. Pumping at lower rates from among the 22 wells on a rotational basis is a management tool for protecting the resource and minimizing the effects of the withdrawals. The City's monitoring program provides for the collection of water levels from a large number of wells either on a monthly or quarterly basis to assess water level fluctuations in the Upper Floridan and surficial aquifers. The City also has numerous wells that will sample for chloride sulfates, total dissolved solids (TDS) and other water quality constituents on a monthly and quarterly basis to ensure that the conditions of issuance continue to be met. The City will submit groundwater pumping data on a monthly basis from all the production wells so that the District can determine that the City is indeed adhering to the quantities reflected in the WUP. Groundwater in the Upper Floridan Aquifer flows in a westward direction towards the Gulf of Mexico. The location of the proposed wells is in an urban land use area near the Gulf Coast. The wells will capture brackish groundwater that would otherwise flow westward into the Gulf. Brackish groundwater from the City's service area is the lowest quality water available for public supply in the area. The City plans to construct a reverse osmosis facility to utilize available brackish groundwater. The brackish groundwater pumped from the well field is an alternative supply source. Isolated from the regional system, it will be used for public supply in the service area. The high number of low-capacity wells will provide rotational ability for the City to manage the quantity and quality of the water resource in the area of the well field. Maximum drawdown within the well field area due to the average annual withdrawal is approximately 3 feet, with an additional 1.5 feet during peak month withdrawal. This amount of drawdown is not likely to impact other wells in the area. Condition (c) Condition (c) requires the City to demonstrate that water use will comply with the provisions of 4.2 of the WUP Basis of Review, incorporated by reference in rule 40D-2.091, regarding adverse impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife or other natural resources. The Anclote River and associated wetlands are tidally influenced and will not be adversely impacted by the proposed withdrawal. Other wetlands in the well field area examined by a District biologist identified several isolated wetlands of concern. Isolated wetlands are generally more sensitive to withdrawal of groundwater than wetlands connected to larger basins. Initially, the City's proposed drawdowns were deemed to be unacceptable to the District because of the impact to the isolated wetlands of concern. As a first step, the City reduced the quantities of water to be withdrawn. Subsequently, an extensive Wetland Monitoring Plan was developed that included a mitigation plan if adverse impacts did occur to wetlands. Storm-water runoff will be the primary factor controlling the functions of the wetland areas. Mitigation measures, should any adverse impact become too great, include reduction of well field pumping, augmentation with well water, potable water and other feasible sources, and the purchase of mitigation credits. Condition (d) Condition (d) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will not interfere with a reservation of water as set forth in rule 40D-2.302. The groundwater modeling that the City provided the District indicates that there are no adverse impacts to the minimum flows and levels ("MFLs") in the Anclote River or the water level at the Tarpon Road Deep Well. There are, therefore, no impacts to reservations of water. Condition (e) Condition (e) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will comply with the provisions of 4.3 of the WUP Basis of Review,7/ regarding MFLs. The closest MFL site is the Upper Floridan Aquifer monitoring well called Tarpon Road Deep, located approximately 2.4 miles southeast of the well field. The impact analysis model results show that at the annual average withdrawal rate of 4.20 million gallons per day ("mgd") approximately 0.1 feet of drawdown at this MFL site is currently projected to occur, assuming static pumping conditions in all other regional groundwater withdrawals. This amount of drawdown will not cause the water level at the Tarpon Road Deep Well to fall below its minimum level. The District is in the process of setting an MFL for the Anclote River. Based on the operation of the new well field and the City's continued operation of their freshwater discharge to the Anclote River from their reclaimed water facility, there will be no impact to the Anclote River. Condition (f) Condition (f) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will utilize the lowest water quality the City has the ability to use, provided that its use does not interfere with the recovery of a water body to its established MFL and it is not a source that is either currently or projected to be adversely impacted. The City is using brackish water, the lowest water quality available to be used for public supply. The City will be treating it at a reverse osmosis water treatment plant. Water of this quality is not available for others to use without special treatment. Based upon the modeling provided by the City, there are no anticipated impacts to MFLs or any other water body resources. Condition (g) Condition (g) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will comply with section 4.5 of the WUP Basis of Review,8/ regarding saline intrusion. Groundwater in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the area of the well field is brackish. The well field's design allowing well rotation minimizes changes in water quality during operation. The amount of drawdown and the fact that water levels will remain above sea level suggests that saline water intrusion will not occur. The reported potentiometric surface in the area of the well is approximately five feet NGVD while the land surface is roughly five feet higher at approximately ten feet NGVD. The City's monitoring and mitigation programs will address adverse impacts from saline intrusion should they occur. Condition (h) Condition (h) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will not cause the pollution of the aquifer. Soil and groundwater contamination is documented at the Stauffer Management Company site located approximately 3,000 feet west of the well field. The drawdown from the well field is calculated to be about one foot at the Stauffer site. That level of drawdown will not induce migration of contaminants because the upward head differential from the Upper Floridan Aquifer to the surficial aquifer will be altered and the Stauffer site is down gradient of the well field. Testimony from Mr. Wiley established that the aquifers should not be contaminated by the City's withdrawals despite the presence of the Stauffer site: [T]here is a known source of contamination approximately 3,000 feet from the new well field to the west, Stauffer Chemical Company. With the small amount of drawdown that's caused in the Upper Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer, there's no potential for the withdrawals to cause pollution of the aquifer. Tr. 254-55. Mr. Wiley's opinion was reached primarily based on the use of the groundwater flow model to determine the drawdown at the Stauffer site and through review of groundwater levels in the Floridan and the surficial aquifers. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") is in charge of managing the contamination at the Stauffer site. A remediation plan has been developed based, in part, on EPA records. The remediation plan includes the construction of a barrier wall in the subsurface around the contaminated area to prevent contaminated groundwater from migrating. The City's groundwater monitoring wells will detect movement of contaminants toward the well field. The monitoring of the wells and the mitigation plan will assist in preventing pollution of the aquifers. Condition (i) Condition (i) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will not adversely affect offsite land uses existing at the time of the application. Primary existing land uses within the City's service area are residential, commercial, and light industrial. The proposed withdrawal will not adversely impact these land uses as shown in Figure 10 of the City Exhibit 1. Five sink holes are known to exist in the general area around the well field. The closest is approximately 1,000 feet from a proposed well location. Maximum drawdown at the distance is approximately 2 feet. This amount of drawdown does not significantly increase the potential for sinkhole activity. Condition (j) Condition (j) requires that the City demonstrate the water use will not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal. The Pasco County Utilities' wells located to the north of the well field are listed on the WUP as plugged. Wells owned by Crest Ridge Utility Corp. are located within 0.5 to 0.8 miles of the well field. Drawdown at these wells, due to the average annual withdrawal, is approximately one foot, with an additional 0.4 feet during peak month withdrawal. This amount of drawdown will not create a water level impact at these wells. Maximum drawdown at domestic wells in the area due to the average annual withdrawal is approximately three feet, with an additional 1.5 feet during peak month withdrawal. This amount of drawdown is not likely to impact other wells in the area. The City's mitigation plan addresses any adverse impact that might occur from the City's withdrawal. Condition (k) Condition (k) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will incorporate water conservation measures. The existing per capita use rate for the City's service area is 110 gpd. Its position well below the district goal of 150 gpd per person demonstrates that the City's water conservation measures are effective. The City uses an inclined block rate structure which encourages water conservation. It also encourages water conservation through a reclaimed water system that encourages conservation of public water supply. It currently uses a little over one million gallons per day of reclaimed water. The City also conserves water through a leak protection program, a water loss audit program, adherence to the District's watering restrictions and provision of a low-flow toilet rebate program through the County, a landscape code, and the provision of educational materials to users. Condition (l) Condition (l) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will incorporate the use of alternative water supplies to the greatest extent possible. The City has an extensive reclaimed water program. It provides reclaimed water for its golf course, for residential irrigation, for public parks and recreation, and for public schools. The City expanded its reclaimed water storage system recently by doubling the amount of reclaimed water that it is able to store for redistribution. Condition (m) Condition (m) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will not cause water to go to waste. The City performs an unaccounted-for water audit of its system as required by a special condition of its existing WUP. The unaccounted-for water use is approximately 4 percent, well below the District guidelines. Furthermore, the City's per capita use rate of 110 gpd is well within the District's goal of 150 gpd per person. The City also has an extensive reclaimed water system which offsets potable water supply and prohibits wasted drinking water as an irrigation source. Condition (n) Condition (n) requires that the City demonstrate that the water use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. Facts found above support a conclusion that the City has provided reasonable assurances that it meets this condition. In addition, the water that is pumped locally by the City will offset the need for ground water that would have otherwise been obtained from elsewhere in the region. Notices The District published its Notice of Proposed Agency Action in the Tampa Tribune on October 22, 2010. The District published its Notice of Proposed Agency Action in the St. Petersburg Times on October 24, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner Ross lacks standing and that his Petition, therefore, be dismissed. Should it be determined in a Final Order that Petitioner Ross has standing, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order that issues Water Use Permit No. 20000742.010 to the City of Tarpon Springs. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500165 requested average withdrawal of water of 1,804,750 gallons per day from 4 wells located about a mile east of Highway 41 and a mile north of Apollo Beach. The four wells would be for irrigation of tomato crops on total acreage of 4 acres located in Hillsborough County (Exhibit 1, Testimony of Elsberry and Boatwright). Notice of hearing as to the application was published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with statute and rule (Exhibit 3). A letter of objection from Joseph S. Benham, Apollo Beach, Florida, dated November 19, 1975 was submitted to the Water Management District, wherein he expressed concern regarding water shortages and, although he does not seek to totally deny the application, is of the belief that the district must insure sufficient controls and management of irrigation activities so that resources are not wasted, water runoff to drainage ditches is eliminated and renewed justification is given each year for the withdrawal (Exhibit 2). A representative of the District staff established that there would be no violation of statutory or regulatory requirement for issuance of a consumptive water use permit in this case except as to the fact that potentiometric level of the applicant's property would be lowered below sea level as a result of withdrawal. It was agreed at the hearing that a period of thirty days should be granted both parties to formulate a stipulation as to control of runoff. An unsigned stipulation was received from the Water Management District by the hearing officer on March 1, 1976, which provided that the permit would be granted with the following stipulations: Runoff from the property will be limited to 25 percent of the quantity pumped and by December 31, 1980 shall be reduced to 16.5 percent of the quantity pumped. The District may at its own expense install metering devices for the purpose of monitoring runoff. The permittee will be notified in advance of such action. The Permit will expire on December 31, 1980. (Testimony of Boatwright, Exhibit 4).
Recommendation That application 8500165 submitted by Elsberry and Elsberry, Inc. Route 2, Box 70 Ruskin, Florida, for a consumptive water use permit be granted with the conditions as follow: Runoff from the property will be limited to 25 percent of the quantity pumped and by December 31, 1980 shall be reduced to 16.5 percent of the quantity pumped. The District may at its own expenseinstall metering devices for the purpose of monitoring runoff. The permittee will be notified in advance of such action. The Permit will expire on December 31, 1980. That the Board grant an exception to the provision of Rule 16J- 2.11(4)(e), F.A.C., for good cause shown. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Elsberry & Elsberry, Inc. Route 2, Box 70 Ruskin, Florida
The Issue The issues in this case are set out in the Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Rules and Agency Statement filed by A. Duda and Sons, Inc. (Duda): Count I, whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) has an invalid and unadopted strategy to use various means to negate the agricultural exemption set out in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes; Count II, whether Section 3.4.1(b) of SJRWMD's Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (the Handbook), which is incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-4.091, is invalid essentially because it conflicts with the agricultural exemption set out in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, and is vague; Count III, whether Rule 40C-4.041 is invalid essentially because it conflicts with the agricultural exemption set out in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, and is vague; Count IV, whether certain documents--namely, all or part of The Manual of Reference Management Practices for Agricultural Activity (November 1978) (the Manual), excerpts from the Journals of the Florida House of Representatives and Senate (1984), and parts of the Model Water Code Commentary (Univ. of Florida 1972)(the Code Commentary), all of which are referred to in Section 3.4.1 of the Handbook but not filed with the Secretary of State--are invalid because they were not properly incorporated by reference under Rule 1S-1.005(2), because they conflict with the agricultural exemption set out in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, and because they are vague; and Count V, whether Rule 40C-44.041 is invalid because it conflicts with the agricultural exemption set out in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, and is vague.
Findings Of Fact Duda clearly has standing since it is challenging the validity of SJRWMD rules and alleged rules that pertain to an enforcement action SJRWMD is bringing against Duda. As reflected in the Statement of the Issues, Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, is at the heart of most of the issues in this case. It states: Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture to alter the topography of any tract of land for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Section 3.4.1(b) of SJRWMD's Handbook states, in pertinent part, how SJRWMD interprets the exemption set out in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes: In determining whether an exemption is available to a person engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture or horticulture, the following questions much be addressed: Is the proposed topographic alteration consistent with the practice of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture? Is the proposed topographic alteration for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters? If the first question is answered affirmatively and the second is answered negatively, an exemption under subsection 373.406(2), F.S., is available. The exemption is construed as set forth in the Conference Committee Report on CS/CS/HB 1187, Journal of the House of Representatives, May 29, 1984, page 734 and Journal of the Senate, May 28, 1984, page 475. The District presumes that the following activities are consistent with the practice of silviculture when they are undertaken to place property into silvicultural use or to perpetuate the maintenance of property in silvicultural use. The following activities are also presumed not to be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters: normal site preparation for planting of the tree crop; planting; and harvesting. If any activity is undertaken to place the property into a use other than silviculture (for example: harvesting which is designed to clear property in preparation for commercial, industrial or residential development rather than regeneration) the activity is not considered to be consistent with the practice of silviculture and will be subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. Examples of activities which are considered to be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters because they have the effect of more than incidentally trapping, obstructing or diverting surface water are activities which create canals, ditches, culverts, impoundments or fill roads. In determining consistency with the practice of agriculture occupations, the District will refer to the following publication: "A Manual of Reference Management Practices for Agricultural Activities (November, 1978)[.]" The following practices described in the manual are considered as having impoundment or obstruction of surface waters as a primary purpose: Diversion, when such practice would cause diverted water to flow directly onto the property of another landowner Floodwater Retarding Structure Irrigation Pit or Regulating Reservoir Pond Structure for Water Control Regulating Water in Drainage Systems Pumping Plant for Water Control, when used for controlling water levels on land Other practices which are described in the manual and which are constructed and operated in compliance with Soil Conservation Service standards and approved by the local Soil and Water Conservation District are presumed to be consistent with agricultural activities. Practices which are not described in the manual are presumed to be inconsistent with the practice of agriculture and a permit is required for the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a system, subject to the thresholds. See Appendix H for a complete listing of agricultural practices described in the manual. A copy of the manual may be obtained by contacting the District headquarters. Appendix H to the Handbook sets out brief descriptions of listed soil conservation practices for agriculture and states that those practices are described in detail in the Soil Conservation Service's Field Office Technical Guides; it also sets out several other recognized Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agriculture. Appendix H of the Handbook is a verbatim reproduction of the part of the Manual from which it is taken. While Section 3.4.1(b) of the Handbook advises that a copy of the entire Manual may be obtained from SJRWMD, it only incorporates the parts set out verbatim in it and Appendix H. The conference committee reports referred to in Section 3.4.1(b) of the Handbook recommended enactment of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984 (the Henderson Act), were voted on, and were approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Both reports stated in pertinent part: The language contained in s. 403.913, relating to agricultural activities, shall be construed in conjunction with s. 373.406(2) to exempt from permitting only those activities defined as "agricultural activities" pursuant to this act in accordance with the Commentary to s. 4.02.(2) of the Model Water Code. Section 403.913[now 403.927](4)(a), Florida Statutes, stated: "Agricultural activities" includes all necessary farming and forestry operations which are normal and customary for the area, such as site preparation, clearing, fencing, contouring to prevent soil erosion, soil preparation, plowing, planting, harvesting, construction of access roads, and placement of bridges and culverts, provided such operations do not impede or divert the flow of surface waters. The Commentary to Section 4.02.(2) states in pertinent part: The intent of this subsection is to allow persons engaged in agricultural, floricultural, and horticultural operations to engage in ordinary farming and gardening without obtaining a construction permit under §4.04. Theoretically, such operations may incidentally trap or divert some surface water. For example, by plowing a pasture a farmer is trapping and diverting surface water that would have constituted part of the runoff and eventually would have become part of the surface water of the state. Without this exemption the farmer would have theoretically been required to obtain a permit under §4.04. In addition, it would appear that all changes of topography which would alter natural runoff, such as contour plowing, would also require a construction permit under §4.04. The quantity of the water being diverted and trapped is so small that it would serve no practical purpose to require a permit for such work. In addition, the administrative burden of regulating such operations would be enormous. Rule 40C-4.041 provides in pertinent part: Unless expressly exempt, an individual or general environmental resource permit must be obtained from the District under Chapter 40C-4, 40C-40, 40C-42, 40C-44 or 40C-400, F.A.C., prior to the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment or removal of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work or works, including dredging or filling, and for the maintenance and operation of existing agricultural surface water management systems or the construction of new agricultural surface water management systems. Rule 40C-44.041 provides in pertinent part: Unless expressly exempt by Section 373.406, F.S., or Rule 40C-4.051 or 40C- 44.051, F.A.C., a permit is required under this chapter for the maintenance and operation of existing agricultural surface water management systems which serve an agricultural operation as described in paragraph (a) or (b) below. Other than the argument that certain agency statements are unadopted statements defined as rules, Duda's primary argument is that Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, is unambiguous and that SJRWMD's interpretation of it, as reflected in its rules and statements, is contrary to the plain meaning of the unambiguous statutory language. Specifically, Duda focuses on SJRWMD's interpretation of the language "for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation" and "not for the sole or predominant purpose of . . . obstructing surface waters." But it is concluded that SJRWMD's interpretation of the statutory language is as or more reasonable than Duda's. Section 3.4.1(b) of SJRWMD's Handbook describes seven activities that are not "consistent with the practice of [the listed occupations]," including just one that may be disputed by Duda--namely: "Diversion, when such practice would cause diverted water to flow directly onto the property of another landowner." Since Duda's activities that are subject to SJRWMD's enforcement actions do not "cause diverted water to flow directly onto the property of another landowner," Duda's challenge did not focus on that part of Section 3.4.1(b) of the Handbook but rather on diversions of water that do not "cause diverted water to flow directly onto the property of another landowner." But to the extent that Duda was attacking this part of SJRWMD's interpretation, the evidence presented by Duda did not prove that diversion of water to flow directly on the property of another landowner is consistent with the practice of the listed occupations. The Handbook also describes, through Appendix H, activities "presumed to be consistent with agricultural activities." Duda has no dispute with activities described in Appendix but disputes the Handbook's statement that all other activities are "presumed to be inconsistent with the practice of agriculture." But the presumption is rebuttable, and the impact of the statements in the Handbook is to simply require proof of entitlement to the agricultural exemption for activities not listed in Appendix H in proceedings under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Duda also argues that, by its plain meaning, the word "purpose" as used in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, means the actor's subjective intent, not the action's objective effect --in this case, namely, the more-than-incidental trapping or diversion of water to create canals, ditches, culverts, or fill roads. To the contrary, one of the several accepted meanings of the word "purpose" is: "1a : . . . an object or end to be attained : INTENTION b : RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION 2 : a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution." See Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1011 (11th ed. 2005). That dictionary also identifies intention as a synonym of the first sense given for purpose and lists design and end among the additional synonyms in the synonymy paragraph after the entry for intention. See id. at 651. For a list of synonyms of the second main meaning of purpose listed in the dictionary ("an action in the course of execution"), one may turn to the second entry for purpose in the companion thesaurus likewise published by Merriam- Webster. That entry lists use in its fourth sense ("a particular service or end") and function as additional synonyms of purpose. See Merriam Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus 591 (1988). Likewise, the dictionary lists purpose as a synonym of function in its sense as "the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists." See Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 507 ("function implies a definite end or purpose that the one in question serves or a particular kind of work it is intended to perform"). Broadly, these potential meanings of purpose describe an action, operation, or effect (or a function, use, or result) of a thing done, which can be observed objectively. Duda also argues that, by its plain meaning, the word "obstructing surface waters" as used in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, cannot mean just more-than-incidentally trapping or diverting surface waters to create canals, ditches, and culverts because those works speed or increase water flow rather than obstruct it. To the contrary, Merriam-Webster defines obstruct as "1 :to block or close up by an obstacle 2 :to hinder from passage, action, or operation : IMPEDE 3 :to cut off from sight." Treating impede as a synonym for hinder and obstruct and listing further synonyms at hinder. See Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 857. The synonymy paragraph at hinder states that the core meaning shared by obstruct and its synonyms is "to interfere with the activity or progress [of something]." Id. at 588 (emphasis added); accord, The American Heritage Dictionary 960 (defiing obstruct as "1. To block or fill a passage with obstacles or an obstacle. . . . 2. To impede, retard, or interfere with; hinder"). One of these possible meanings of obstruct describes interfering with or hindering something, including its passage, action, or operation. In interpreting the word "purpose" in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, it is reasonable for SJRWMD to choose the alternative meaning of an action, operation, or effect (or a function, use, or result) of a thing done, which can be observed objectively. To choose the other alternative meaning of the word would place the regulator at the mercy of the subjective intent of the person regulated and could lead to absurd results. Also, in interpreting the word "obstructing" in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, it is reasonable for SJRWMD to choose the alternative meaning of interfering with or hindering something, including its passage, action, or operation. First, if the word meant only blocking, obstructing would mean the same thing as impounding and would be redundant. Second, if SJRWMD chose "blocking" as the meaning the latter meaning of the word "obstructing," it would countenance draining wetlands to use the drained land for agricultural purposes. Such a result would be in direct conflict with the intent of Chapter 373 to manage and protect water resources. See Conclusion of Law 23, infra. The extrinsic evidence of legislative intent supports SJRWMD's interpretation of Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. For that reason, SJRWMD's interpretation of the statute--as reflected in the Handbook--does not conflict with, exceed, modify, or contravene the statute; does not exceed statutory authority; is not standard-less or vague (so as to give SJRWMD unbridled discretion); is not arbitrary or capricious; and is not unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. It also was not proven that SJRWMD has an invalid and unadopted strategy to use various means to negate the agricultural exemption set out in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. To the contrary, the evidence proved that SJRWMD interprets the statute validly and in accordance with the extrinsic evidence of the legislative intent. Finally, in the nearly 25 years that SJRWMD has interpreted Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, essentially as reflected in the Handbook, the Joint Administrative Procedure Committee (JAPC) has never objected to SJRWMD's interpretation as being invalid.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00450 is for a consumptive use permit from 10 wells located in Hillsborough County, to be used for public water supply for the City of Temple Terrace. The permit seeks to withdraw 2.028 million gallons a day average annual withdrawal and 4.564 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal. The sought for withdrawal may affect other wells by drawdown of an average of 1" in a surrounding well. Such a drawdown will not seriously and adversely affect the surrounding wells. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of a type acceptable to the district on all withdrawal points covered by the permit. That the applicant shall record the pumpage on a weekly basis and shall submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly beginning January 15, 1977. All individual connections supplied by withdrawals permitted will be metered. Records of meter readings will be made available to the district upon request. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980.
Findings Of Fact Mr. George Szell was presented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and sworn as a witness. Mr. Szell was qualified and accepted as an expert hydrogeologist employed by the District. Included within Mr. Szell's responsibilities to the District were evaluation of the subject application. An application for consumptive use permit has been filed in proper from by Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc., and it was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1. The water source are two existing wells located on a 580.1 acre tract of land in Hillsborough County, Florida, legal description of which is included and admitted into evidence as part of Exhibit 1. A maximum daily withdrawal of each of the wells is 591,700 gallons and the average daily withdrawal of each of the two wells is 295,850 gallons. The total average daily withdrawal for both wells combined is 591,700 gallons, or 94.43 percent of the water crop of the applicant as defined in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. 85 percent of the water used would be used for general residential purposes and 15 percent of the water used would be used for watering the grounds of the development. Letters of objection were received from Joseph and Roseamn Clements, C. C. and Ida M. Weisner, Sr.,. Miguel and Juanita Perez, Howard R. Lewis, Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie F. Lovell, Stephen J. KucIar (sic), and Carmen Vasquez. Reasons for the objections as stated in these letters was the effect the pending application would have upon the wells of the persons objecting. Mr. Szell testified that none of the matter set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) and (4), F.A.C. exists so as to require the denial of the permit. Mr. Earl Bessent testified that 55 acres of holding ponds were to be constructed on the property during the development and that the effect of these holding ponds would be to increase the input of waters from the 580 acres to the surface aquifer.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500087, submitted by Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc., 111 Fountainbleau Boulevard, Miami, Florida, be granted for a maximum daily withdrawal of 1,183,400 gallons and an average daily withdrawal of 591,700 gallons, subject to the installation of flow meters on each of the wells and monthly readings thereof reported to the District quarterly. Entered this 4th day of August, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. T. Ahern, Esquire C. C. and Ida Weismer, Sr. Staff Attorney Route 7, Box 635-J Southwest Florida Water Tampa, Florida 33614 Management District Post Office Box 457 Miguel and Juanita Perez Brooksville, Florida 33501 Route 7, Box 635-K Tampa, Florida 33614 Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Lovell 111 Fountainbleau Boulevard Route 5, Box 485-A Miami, Florida 33126 Tampa, Florida 33614 Howard R. Lewis Carmen Vasquez Route 5, box 485-AB Route 7, Box 635 Tampa, Florida 33614 Tampa, Florida 33615 Mr. Earl Bessent Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman, Inc. 3708 Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 Joseph and Roseann Clememts Route 7, Box 634-J Tampa, Florida 33614
