Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the staff report (attached thereto). Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. H. S. Cheshire 717 Northeast 2nd Street Pompano Beach, Florida Stephen Walker, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida
The Issue The preliminary issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (District) has jurisdiction over the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) filed by the Save the Manatee Club (Club)--i.e., whether the Petition was timely or, if not, if the District has jurisdiction under principles of equitable tolling or excusable neglect.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1999, Hidden Harbor filed with the District an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to construct and operate a surface water management system serving a proposed residential development in Lee County, Florida. In January 2001, the Club sent an email to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) stating that it was concerned about Hidden Harbor's Application No. 991011- 13, as it might impact an area the Club would like to see as a manatee sanctuary, and was requesting copies of all FWCC documents relating to the permit. FWCC forwarded a copy of this email to the District on January 19, 2001. At the time, the Club's internet website gave the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. On April 9, 2001, the Club opened a Southwest Florida regional satellite office in Estero, Florida, and installed Laura Combs as Regional Coordinator in charge of that office. Responsibility for monitoring the Hidden Harbor application was delegated to Combs and the satellite office. Nonetheless, the Club's website continued to give the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. Combs's prior work experience with the Club was as assistant director of governmental relations in Tallahassee, Florida. In that position, she tracked legislation and actions of the Governor and Cabinet that were of interest to the Club. She had no role in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of governmental agencies. Combs's education included a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in urban and regional planning. She did not have specific legal education in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of state governmental agencies. On May 30, 2001, the District mailed to the Club at its Maitland office address a letter enclosing the "District's staff report covering the [Hidden Harbor] permit application [No. 991011-13]" and notifying the Club that the "recommendations as stated in the staff report [to grant the attached draft permit] will be presented to our Governing Board for consideration on June 14, 2001." The Club also was advised: Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers (refer to the attached "Notice of Rights") to [the District's deputy clerk]. The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs materially from the proposed agency action. The Notice of Rights stated that it was intended to conform to the requirement of Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to "inform the recipient of any administrative hearing or judicial review that is available under this section [120.569(1)], s. 120.57 or s. 120.68." It cautioned: Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. The Notice of Rights included a section entitled "Petition for Administrative Proceedings," which stated in pertinent part: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action. The affected person may request either a formal or an informal hearing, as set forth below. A point of entry into administrative proceedings is governed by Rules 28-106.111 and 40E-1.511, Fla. Admin. Code, (also published as an exception to the Uniform Rules of Procedure as Rule 40E-0.109), as set forth below . . .. Formal Administrative Hearing: If a genuine issue(s) of material fact is in dispute, the affected person seeking a formal hearing on a SFWMD decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. or for mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, Fla. Stat. within 21 days . . . of either written notice through mail or posting or publication of notice that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action. Pertinent to this case, the Notice of Rights included a verbatim reproduction of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.201, addressing required contents of a petition to initiate proceedings involving disputed issues of material fact. Rules 28-106.111, 40E-1.5111, and 40E-0.109 were not reproduced in the Notice of Rights. It is not clear from the evidence when the letter dated May 30, 2001, with attachments (the Notice Correspondence), was received in the Club's Maitland office. It was not date-stamped, as time-sensitive correspondence normally would be. Apparently, it was decided to forward the Notice Correspondence to the new satellite office in Estero for handling. Combs received the forwarded Notice Correspondence in early June 2001. This was the "first time [Combs] had been through this type of process." Combs reviewed the Notice Correspondence, eventually focusing on paragraph 1.a. of the "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" section of the Notice of Rights. She did not read any of the cited statutes and rules except for the rules reproduced verbatim as part of the Notice of Rights. Combs made conflicting statements regarding her understanding of the District's administrative process. However, it appears that she understood that the Club could file a petition within 21 days of receipt of the Notice Correspondence, or within 21 days of the "final" action of the District's Governing Board. She testified that, because the Notice Correspondence did not bear a date-stamp, it was unclear when the first 21-day time period began or ended; as a result, she decided to wait until the District's Governing Board took "final" action and file a petition within the second 21-day time period. Combs appeared at the meeting of the District's Governing Board on June 14, 2001, and spoke in opposition to issuance of the draft permit. Notwithstanding the Club's opposition, the Governing Board decided to issue the draft permit. Combs does not have authority to file petitions for administrative hearings on District actions. She consulted with her supervisor, Patricia Thompson, and they made a recommendation to the Club's governing board, which has ultimate authority to file petitions. Prior to Combs's involvement in the Hidden Harbor application, the Club had staff legal counsel, who could be consulted with respect to the filing of petitions and would advise the Club's governing board. However, the Club did not have staff legal counsel at the time of Combs's involvement and through the time of filing of this petition. (The Club now again has staff legal counsel.) Neither Combs nor Thompson saw any need to consult an attorney. It is not clear when the recommendation of Combs and Thompson was presented to the Club's governing board or when the Club's governing board made its decision to file the Petition. Neither Thompson nor any member of the Club's governing board (nor anyone else who may have participated in the decision to file the Petition) testified. Several (according to Combs, approximately 12) times after the District's Governing Board's meeting on June 14, 2001, Combs telephoned the District's offices to obtain a copy of the District's Governing Board's "final" action when it was reduced to writing. It is not clear from the evidence why several telephone calls were required. Eventually, on June 26, 2001, Combs received a copy of the permit issued to Hidden Harbor; there was no Notice of Rights attached. On July 17, 2001, the Club filed its Petition challenging the permit issued to Hidden Harbor. In the meantime, Hidden Harbor had obtained a final development order from Lee County in reliance on the Club's failure to petition for an administrative hearing. The Club is not a newcomer to Florida's administrative process. It can be officially recognized that the Club has participated in numerous proceedings before DOAH. At least one of those cases involved issues similar to those presented for determination in this case. See Conclusion of Law 32, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire Post Office Box 861118 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Martha M. Collins, Esquire 233 3rd Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3089 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to Conquest Developments USA, L.C., authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a residential development known as Silver Lakes in Collier County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to Respondent, Conquest Developments USA, L.C. (Applicant), authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a private, gated residential community known as Silver Lakes RV and Golf Club, Inc. (Silver Lakes) in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. As the agency responsible for the administration of the ERP program, the District has the authority to grant or deny the requested permit. Preliminary action approving the application was taken by the District on August 15, 2001. Silver Lakes is a 146-acre residential development located adjacent to, and on the east side of, County Road 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and County Road 951 in southwestern Collier County, Florida. The project site is a part of the larger development and consists of approximately forty undeveloped acres (40-acre site) just north of, and adjacent to, the residential community. If the application is approved, the Applicant would be allowed to construct an open storage facility on a 7.02-acre tract of land in the western part of the 40-acre site on which trailers, boats, motor homes, tow dollies, and similar items will be stored. It would also allow the Applicant to relocate previously permitted lots along the southeastern boundary of the 40-acre site which border the Silver Lakes development. Petitioners, Jerome and Susan Strauss, own Lots 14, 15, and 16 within Silver Lakes. Petitioners, Joseph H. and Patricia Belanger, own Lot 26 within Silver Lakes, which is adjacent to the proposed storage facility. For obvious reasons, the Belangers do not wish to have a storage facility next to their property. Rather, they and the other Petitioners have suggested that the storage facility be reduced in size and moved to a 3.0-acre site in the northeastern portion of the 40-acre site. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to bring this action. As reflected in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the proposed construction of the storage area will cause flooding, adverse secondary impacts, and adverse water quantity impacts; that the proposed activity will result in a violation of state water quality standards; that the proposed system will cause adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and the conservation of fish and wildlife; that the Applicant has failed to minimize or avoid impact to jurisdictional wetlands to the greatest extent practicable; that the proposed site provides a wildlife corridor connected to protected lands directly to the west; that the proposed site is jurisdictional wetlands; that the Applicant has engaged in District activities without a permit; and that the proposed site is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These objections, where relevant, have been grouped into five categories - wetlands, wildlife, secondary and cumulative impacts, water quality and quantity, and prior enforcement activities - and they are addressed separately below. Wetlands The District has adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a document known as the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (Basis of Review). The standards and criteria found in the Basis of Review are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Compliance with the criteria in the Basis of Review creates a presumption that the standard and additional conditions for issuance of an ERP in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302, Florida Administrative Code, respectively, have been met. See Section 1.3, Basis of Review. Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review generally requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that wetland impacts be eliminated or reduced to the greatest extent practicable. This can be done through the implementation of "practicable design modifications" to the project, or where adverse impacts still remain after such modifications, through mitigation. There are 36.82 acres of wetlands throughout the 40- acre site. If the application is approved, there will be adverse impacts to 9.9 acres of wetlands in the western portion of the site (where the storage facility will be located) and to 3.37 acres in the southeastern portion of the site. To avoid and minimize wetland impacts, the Applicant has been required to reduce the number of acres impacted from its original proposal, and to place the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site near County Road 951. In the original application, the Applicant proposed to place the storage area in the eastern part of the site and to create a larger storage area. Although the western part of the 40-acre site contains higher quality wetlands than the central or eastern parts, the western area is not pristine, and it is substantially impacted by exotic species, such as wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. In addition, the western area is adjacent to County Road 951, which reduces wetland functions and values, reduces habitat values because of increased light and noise encroachment, and increases risk to wildlife because of passing vehicles. Further, the central and eastern areas are adjacent to other undeveloped lands, and this creates the potential for larger tracts of preserved and enhanced wetlands and maximizes wetland functions and values. Impacts to wetlands will be adequately mitigated by the Applicant preserving and enhancing 26.92 acres within the 40-acre site in a recorded conservation easement; by monitoring and reporting on the on-site mitigation (easement) for a five-year period and by maintaining the property in perpetuity; by purchasing 3.66 mitigation credits of similar wetland habitat from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank; and by adhering to a remediation plan (found in the Special Conditions in the permit) to address any future deficiencies in the mitigation. Given these considerations, it is found that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the wetland impacts from the proposed activities will be eliminated or reduced as required by Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review. Impact on Wildlife Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the activity will not impact the values of wetlands and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, or habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. The primary agency responsible for the protection of wildlife is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission), and not the District. Therefore, Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires that the District provide the Commission with a copy of all ERP applications for its review and comment as to wildlife issues. In this case, the Commission offered no comments or objections regarding wildlife on the property in question. The evidence shows that listed and endangered species such as Florida panthers, wood storks, and Big Cypress fox squirrels have been spotted on infrequent occasions on the 40-acre site by residents of Silver Lake. However, the parties stipulated that there was no evidence of any nesting, denning, or breeding activity on the same site. Based on the evidence of record, including the Applicant's Protected Species Survey, it is fair to infer that there is limited or no use of the property by protected wildlife species. Indeed, Petitioners' own expert found no evidence of endangered or threatened species on the 40-acre site during his two inspections. Two Special Conditions have been incorporated into the permit to protect endangered, threatened, or other listed species. First, in the event that Big Cypress fox squirrels are observed on or near the property, Special Condition 24 requires that the Applicant prepare a habitat management plan, in consultation with the Commission, to address issues related to nesting habitat. Second, if any endangered or threatened species are ever found on the property, Special Condition 25 requires that the Applicant coordinate with the Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission for guidance or recommendations. Given the above, the evidence supports a finding that the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the requirements of Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review have been satisfied. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. At the same time, Section 4.2.8 requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which the permit is being sought. In providing the necessary reasonable assurances regarding cumulative impacts, Section 4.2.8.2 authorizes an applicant to use preservation and mitigation measures to prevent cumulative impacts. The more persuasive evidence shows that the project will not cause secondary impacts to wetlands. This is because a water quality berm system surrounds the wetlands, isolating the wetland system from the surface water management system; a 50-foot preserved area lies between the storage area and the adjacent property boundary to the north; the storage area is being placed in an area already secondarily impacted by County Road 951; and the wetland preservation area will be placed in the conservation easement. Further, the project will not cause secondary impacts to wildlife. This is because structural buffers will prevent future encroachment into the wetlands and distance any wildlife away from the more dense residential functions. These buffers include a 50-foot wide natural preserve on the north side of the storage area (Special Condition 26), an already-erected structural buffer to the south of the storage area (Special Condition 26), and a 17 to 21-foot structural buffer (planted with native vegetation or vegetated buffers) on the eastern side of the 40-acre site where the new lots are proposed. Except for two conclusionary opinion statements by Petitioners' expert, without further facts or explanation, no other evidence on secondary impacts was offered. The project will not cause cumulative impacts to the wetlands. This is because the proposed mitigation for the project adequately offsets the impacts of the 40-acre site, and the impacts from other permitted projects in the basin area have been sufficiently offset. In addition, very little property in the area remains to be developed, and there are no new applications before the District involving the same basin. In the event a new application may be filed, however, the District will require the applicant to offset any impacts associated with its project with buffers and conservation easements, like the Applicant in the instant case. Water Quantity and Quality Section 5.0 et. seq. of the Basis of Review contains water quality criteria that must be satisfied in order for an ERP to be issued, while Section 6.0 et. seq. addresses water quantity criteria for an ERP. Given the limited nature of changes to the existing system and the lack of a hydrologic connection to the wetlands, and for the following additional reasons, the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the project complies with the water quality and quantity criteria. The project as designed includes a grass swale near the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site. The rainfall and run-off from the storage area flows into an internal road, through the grass swale, into a storm drain, and then into the pre-existing water management system associated with the original permit for Silver Lake. The project also allows rainfall and run-off from the proposed lots on the southeastern border of the 40-acre site to sheetflow onto an internal road, where waters are collected in existing catch basins and conveyed into the previously permitted water management system associated with the original permit. Since the rainfall and run-off from the storage area and lots drain into the existing lakes (Lakes 1 and 2) that are part of the Silver Lakes water management system, those waters will be treated for water quality through wet detention before their eventual discharge to McIlvane Bay, which lies to the southwest of Silver Lake. The basin discharge rates, minimum floor elevations, road designs, parking lot designs, structure control elevations, and structure sizes are specified in the the District's Staff Report, and were set at or above the calculated design limitations to meet water quality and quantity requirements. Section 5.2.1(a)1. of the Basis of Review specifies that wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project. The evidence shows that the proposed system captures one inch of run-off over the entire site, which drains into the existing lake system to provide water quality treatment. The system is also designed to meet the relevant discharge rate requirements for a 25-year, 3-day storm event, and the minimum floor elevations were based on a 100-year, 3- day storm event. The wetland preserve area is outside the area served by the surface water management system, is not hydrologically connected to that system, and will not be affected by run-off from the storage area or lots. Just prior to the final hearing, the District added Special Condition 23 to create a 50-foot buffer zone along the southern boundary of the storage area for aesthetic purposes and to reduce secondary impacts. Implementation of that buffer must be in accordance with the staff report, will not change the surface water management system, will have no impact on water quality or flood control, and will be implemented after additional consultation with the District. Past Enforcement Rule 40E-4.302(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the District take into consideration past violations of various rules adopted by the District. No enforcement action relating to the property has ever been taken by the District against the Applicant for any violation of ERP requirements. Although Petitioners suggested that unpermitted fill activities have taken place on the southeastern part of the 40-acre site, an inspection by District personnel revealed that unpermitted activities were "not significant." Further, Special Condition 23 requires that the Applicant restore "that portion of the disturbed wetland area located in the southeast corner of the site which is to be included in the wetland preserve area." Therefore, any impacts to the 40-acre site resulting from past unpermitted activities have been considered and remedied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Permit Application No. 010223-5 of Conquest Developments USA, L.C., for an Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esquire Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 3200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103-4105 Robert E. Murrell, Esquire Samouce, Murrell & Francoeur, P.A. 800 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108-2713 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Kenneth B. Cuyler, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103-3556
The Issue Whether Rules 40B-1.702(4); 40B-4.1020(12) and (30); 40B-4.1030; 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c); 40B-4.2030(4); 40B-4.3000(1)(a); 40B-4.3010; 40B-4.3020; 40B-4.3030; 40B- 4.3040; and 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, of the Suwannee River Water Management District, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for reasons described in the Second Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Rules.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. The District is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between the District and the Department (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the work of the district (WOD) impacts. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile. The Challenged Rules The rules or portions thereof which are challenged in this proceeding are as follows: Rule 40B-1.702(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) A works of the district permit under Chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to initiating any project as outlined in (3) above within a regulatory floodway as defined by the District. Rule 40B-4.1020(12) and (30), Florida Administrative Code, read as follows: (12) "Floodway" or 'regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river, stream, or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the 100-year flood elevation more than a designated height. Unless otherwise noted, all regulatory floodways in the Suwannee River Water Management District provide for no more then one-foot rise in surface water. * * * (30) "Work of the district" means those projects and works including, but not limited to, structures, impoundments, wells, streams, and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands, which have been officially adopted by the governing board as works of the district. Works of the district officially adopted by the board are adopted by rule in Rule 40B-4.3000 of this chapter. Rule 40B-4.1030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The implementation dates of this chapter are as follows: January 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(a) which requires persons to obtain surfacewater management permits. April 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(b) and Rule 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain works of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; The Aucilla River and its floodway in Jefferson, Madison, or Taylor counties, Florida; The Suwannee River or its floodway in Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, or Suwannee counties, Florida; or The Withlacoochee River and its floodway in Hamilton or Madison counties, Florida. (c) July 1, 1986 for Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) or 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain work of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Santa Fe River and its floodway in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, or Union counties, Florida; or The Suwannee River and its floodway in Dixie, Gilchrist, or Levy counties, Florida. Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) Permits are required as follows: * * * Works of the district development permit prior to connecting with, placing structures or works in or across, discharging to, or other development within a work of the district. When the need to obtain a works of the district development permit is in conjunction with the requirements for obtaining a surfacewater management permit, application shall be made and shall be considered by the district as part of the request for a surfacewater management permit application. Otherwise, a separate works of the district development permit must be obtained. Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) The new surfacewater management systems or individual works shall not facilitate development in a work of the district if such developments will have the potential of reducing floodway conveyance. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3000(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The governing board is authorized to adopt and prescribe the manner in which persons may connect with or make use of works of the district pursuant to Section 373.085, Florida Statutes. Further, Section 373.019(15) provides that works of the district may include streams and accompanying lands as adopted by the governing board. In order to implement the non-structural flood control policy of the district, the governing board finds it is necessary to prevent any obstruction of the free flow of water of rivers and streams within the district. Therefore, the governing board does hereby adopt the following rivers and their accompanying floodways as works of the district: The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; . . . . Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: A general works of the district development permit may be granted pursuant to the procedures in Rule 40B-1.703 to any person for the development described below: Construction of a structure for single-family residential or agricultural use including the leveling of land for the foundation and associated private water supply, wastewater disposal, and driveway access which is in compliance with all applicable ordinances or rules of local government, state, and federal agencies, and which meets the requirements of this chapter. A general permit issued pursuant to this rule shall be subject to the conditions in Rule 40B-4.3030. Rule 40B-4.3020, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Content of Works of the District Development Permit Applications. Applications for a general work of the district development permit shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-5, "Application for General Work of the District Development Permit," Suwannee River Water Management District, 4-1-86, hereby incorporated by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the applicant or owner; Copies of all permits received from local units of government, state, or federal agencies, specifically a copy of the building or development permit issued by the appropriate unit of local government, including any variances issued thereto, and a copy of the onsite sewage disposal system permit issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code; A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon; and Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable documents, which in the applicant's opinion, may support the application. Applications for individual or conceptual approval works of the district development permits shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-4, "Application for Surfacewater Management System Construction, Alteration, Operation, Maintenance, and/or Works of the District Development", Suwannee River Water Management District, 10-1-85, hereby adopted by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the owner. General project information including: The applicant's project name or identification number; The project location relative to county, section, township, and range, or a metes and bounds description; The total project area in acres; The total land area owned or controlled by the applicant or owner which is contiguous with the project area; A description of the scope of the proposed project including the land uses to be served; A description of the proposed surfacewater management system or work; A description of the water body or area which will receive any proposed discharges from the system; and Anticipated beginning and ending date of construction or alteration. Copies of all permits received from, or applications made to, local units of government, state, or federal agencies. A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon. Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable legal documents, which in the applicant's opinion, support the application. Copies of engineer or surveyor certifications required by this chapter. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Conditions for Issuance of Works of the District Development Permits. The district will not approve the issuance of separate permits for development in a work of the district for any proposed project that requires a district surfacewater management permit pursuant to Part II of this chapter. For such projects, development in a work of the district may be authorized as part of any surfacewater management permit issued. The district will not approve the issuance of a works of the district development permit for any work, structures, road, or other facilities which have the potential of individually or cumulatively reducing floodway conveyance or increasing water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation, or increasing soil erosion. The district will presume such a facility will not reduce conveyance or increase water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation or increase soil erosion if: Roads with public access are constructed and laid out in conformance with the minimum standards of local government. Where roads are not required to be paved, the applicant must provide design specifications for erosion and sediment control. Where roads are required to be paved, swales will generally be considered adequate for erosion and sediment control; Buildings in the floodway are elevated on piles without the use of fill such that the lowest structural member of the first floor of the building is at an elevation at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation; The area below the first floor of elevated buildings is left clear and unobstructed except for the piles or stairways; A permanent elevation monument is established on the property to be developed by a surveyor. The monument shall be adequate to establish land surface and minimum buildup elevations to the nearest 1/100 of a foot; No permanent fill or other obstructions are placed above the natural grade of the ground except for minor obstructions which are less than or equal to 100 square feet of the cross-sectional area of the floodway on any building or other similar structure provided that all such obstruction developed on any single parcel of land after the implementation date of this chapter is considered cumulatively; No activities are proposed which would result in the filling or conversion of wetlands. For any structure placed within a floodway which, because of its proposed design and method of construction, may, in the opinion of the district, result in obstruction of flows or increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, the district may require as a condition for issuance of a work of the district development permit that an engineer certify that such a structure will not obstruct flows or increase 100-year flood elevations. The following conditions shall apply to all works of the district development permits issued for development on lands subdivided after January 1, 1985: Clearing of land shall be limited [except as provided in (b) and (c) below] to that necessary to remove diseased vegetation, construct structures, associated water supply, wastewater disposal, and private driveway access facilities, and no construction, additions or reconstruction shall occur in the front 75 feet of an area immediately adjacent to a water. Clearing of vegetation within the front 75 feet immediately adjacent to a water shall be limited to that necessary to gain access or remove diseased vegetation. Harvest or regeneration of timber or agricultural crops shall not be limited provided the erosion of disturbed soils can be controlled through the use of appropriate best management practices, the seasonal scheduling of such activities will avoid work during times of high-flood hazard, and the 75 feet immediately adjacent to and including the normally recognized bank of a water is left in its natural state as a buffer strip. As to those lands subdivided prior to January 1, 1985, the governing board shall, in cases of extreme hardship, issue works of the district development permits with exceptions to the conditions listed in Rule 40B-4.3030(4)(a) through (c). The 75-foot setback in paragraphs (a) through (d) above shall be considered a minimum depth for an undisturbed buffer. The limitations on disturbance and clearing within the buffer as set out in paragraphs through (d) above shall apply, and any runoff through the buffer shall be maintained as unchannelized sheet flow. The actual depth of the setback and buffer for any land use other than single-family residential development, agriculture, or forestry shall be calculated in accordance with the methodology in: "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55, June 1986; and, "Buffer Zone Study for Suwannee River Water Management District", Dames and Moore, September 8, 1988, such that the post-development composite curve number for any one-acre area within the encroachment line does not exceed; a value of 46 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class A soils; a value of 65 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class B soils; a value of 77 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class C soils; or a value of 82 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class D soils. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Unlawful Use of Works of the District. It shall be unlawful to connect with, place a structure in or across, or otherwise cause development to occur in a work of the district without a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause an unpermitted development to be removed or permitted. It shall be unlawful for any permitted use to violate the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or this chapter, or the limiting conditions of a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause the unpermitted use to be removed or brought into compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and this chapter. Damage to works of the district resulting from violations specified in Rule 40B-4.3040(1) and (2) above shall be repaired by the violator to the satisfaction of the district. In lieu of making repairs, the violator may deposit with the district a sufficient sum to insure such repair. Rule 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * (h) Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to s. 373.086. . . . Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record History of the rules Mr. David Fisk is Assistant Director of the District. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed there for 26 and one-half years. He played a significant role in the rule adoption process of the rules that are the subject of this dispute. As part of that process, the District entered into a consulting contract with an engineering, planning, and consulting firm and consulted with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to conduct what are described as the FEMA flood studies. Additionally, the district commissioned an aerial photography consultant who provided a series of rectified ortho photographs of the entire floodplain of the rivers within the District, and a surveying subcontractor who provided vertical control and survey cross sections and hydrographic surveys of the rivers. The District also worked in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey to accumulate all of the hydrologic record available on flooding. The information was given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who, operating under FEMA guidelines for conducting flood insurance rate studies, performed the analytical and computer modeling work to identify the flood plains and floodway boundaries. The District used the amassed knowledge of maps, cross sections and surveys that were developed as part of the FEMA flood studies as technical evidence or support for the adoption of the works of the district rules. Following a series of public workshops and public hearings in 1985, the rules were adopted and became effective in 1986. None of the rules were challenged in their proposed state. The District adopted the floodways of the Suwannee, Santa Fe, Alapaha, Aucilla, and Withlacoochee Rivers as works of the district. According to Mr. Fisk, the District adopted the rules pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to the District to adopt district works and Section 373.085, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to regulate activities within those works. The Floodway Line Petitioner hired Mr. John Barnard, a professional civil engineer, with extensive environmental permitting experience, to look at the floodway and floodplain issues associated with Petitioner's site and project. Mr. Barnard conducted an engineering study entitled, "Floodplain Evaluation." It was Mr. Barnard's opinion that FEMA's determination of the floodway line was less than precise. Mr. Barnard used FEMA's data regarding the base flood elevation but manually changed the encroachment factor resulting in his placement of the floodway line in a different location than determined by FEMA. Mr. Barnard acknowledged that different engineers using different encroachment factors would reach different conclusions.1/ Respondent's expert in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, Brett Cunningham, noted that the definition of floodway in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is essentially the same definition that used is in the FEMA regulations and which also is commonly used across the country in environmental rules and regulations. Mr. Barnard also acknowledged that the District's definition of "floodway", as found in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is fairly commonly used by environmental regulatory agencies. Moreover, it was Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the Alapaha River is a stream or watercourse within the meaning of the rule and its floodway an accompanying land. In Mr. Cunningham's opinion, the FEMA flood insurance studies are widely used across the country for a variety of reasons and are typically relied upon by hydrologists and engineers to locate floodways. The definition of "works of the district" in Rule 40B-1020(30), Florida Administrative Code, is taken directly from the language found in Section 373.019(23), Florida Statutes. The statutory definition includes express references to streams and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands. Petitioner alleges that the phrase "will not cause adverse impact to a work of the SRWMD" as found in Rule 40B- 400.103(1)(h) is not clear because it does not identify what specific adverse impacts are being reviewed. While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Price, was not clear as to what the phrase means, Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase and noted that "adverse impact" is a phrase which is very commonplace in the rules and regulations of environmental agencies and is attributed a commonsense definition. The expert engineers differed in their opinions as to the meaning of the term "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" as used in Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code. According to Petitioner's expert engineer, Mr. Barnard, "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" is not a specific term that is open to interpretation as an engineer, and that he cannot quantify what constitutes "potential." Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase to be any increase in floodway conveyance. It was his opinion that there was nothing about that phrase to cause confusion. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, addresses conditions for issuance of works of the district development permits. Petitioner's expert Mr. Price testified that there is no quantification to what constitutes an "increase in soil erosion" as referenced in subsection (2) and linked the reference of soil erosion to a 100-year flood event referenced in the same subsection. Mr. Cunningham was of the opinion that there is no need to quantify an increase in soil erosion in the rule. He noted that soil erosion is used in a common sense manner and that attempting to put a numerical limit on it is not practical and "it's not something that's done anywhere throughout the country. It's just not something that lends itself to easy quantification like flood stages do". Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the words and phrases which Petitioner asserts are vague are words of common usage and understanding to persons in the field is the more persuasive testimony. This opinion is also consistent with statutory construction used by courts which will be addressed in the conclusions of law.
The Issue The issue is whether Hernando County's application for an environmental resource permit authorizing the construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioners, Richard J. Silvani, Dick W. Thompson, James E. and Marilyn Bates, Joyce Menzie, James M. Gibson, Claudia C. Munsell, Mr. and Mrs. Phillip E. Durst, Donald R. Sosnoski, Mr. and Mrs. Robert L. Nelson, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Ladow (Petitioners), are property owners in central Hernando County, Florida. Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Managment District (District), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondent, Hernando County (County), is a local government seeking the issuance of a permit for the purpose of alleviating drainage and flooding problems in a subdivision known as High Point Gardens in the central part of the County. On June 11, 1997, the County filed an application with the District seeking authorization to construct a low earthen berm to help control flooding in High Point Gardens, an eighty- five unit residential subdivision. On September 29, 1997, the District gave notice of its intention to issue ERP No. 449342.01 authorizing the "construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement known as the Hernando County - High Point Gardens Drainage Improvements." The project is located off Sun Hill Lane, three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, in central Hernando County. On an undisclosed date, but in a timely fashion, Petitioners filed their Petition for Informal Hearing challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that the permit application contained "possible miscalculations of design" which would "alter the natural water flow route"; "adversely affect several acres of natural wetlands by changing hydrology of surface area"; "adversely affect adjacent uplands by innundating forest areas never before flooded by heavy rainfall"; "not guarantee 100% flood protection to the few affected homes"; and "create flood problems to adjacent homes and property by diverting stormwater from natural flow (north) to area east of 'proposed' retention area." The petition further alleged that the "'proposed' area should not be normal recepient [sic] of excess water from Cedar Falls subdivision" and that "all affected properties are not owned or easements acquired by Hernando County for surface water storage." The filing of the petition prompted the initiation of this proceeding. The Permit The High Point Gardens subdivision, which lies within the Bystre Lake Basin, is a "relatively old subdivision," having been built around the 1970's. There is a low area in the middle of the subdivision, and it has "[s]everal sinks with a natural drainage within the area." Because the thirty-square-mile basin is a closed drainage basin, with no natural outflows, "significant" flooding problems have been present throughout the basin since at least the 1980's. In an effort to resolve flooding problems within the basin, the County and District jointly sanctioned a study by a consulting firm, Dames and Moore, to provide suggested alternative actions to correct the problem. The firm's first interim report was rendered on August 5, 1988, and a final report known as the Bystre Lake Stormwater Management Master Plan was rendered in August 1989. Among other things, the consultant's report recommended that a berm be constructed to relieve the flooding in the High Point Gardens' area. Acting on the report, the County obtained a construction permit from the District in August 1991 in accordance with the consultant's recommendation, but construction on the project was not commenced prior to the permit expiring in 1994. Although the consultant's report was the genesis for the first permit, the plans and specifications for the new berm have been modified by engineers after further study and review. It is noted that the total land area of the project will be less than 100 acres. The High Point Gardens subdivision lies within sub-basin 304 of the basin. Under the new proposal, water which now comes into sub-basins 304 and 406 from sub-basins 305 and 306 will be stored in those latter sub-basins. The requested permit would authorize the County to construct a low earthen berm along the western side of sub-basin 406 and the southern boundary of sub- basin 304 to help control flooding in the subdivision. The proposed berm will range from one to five feet in height and extend some 3,250 feet, or approximately six-tenths of a mile. It will range from eight to ten feet in width with a side slope of 4 to 1. The berm will impound water upstream of the berm to an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which is 1.5 feet higher than the water would rise in the area under natural conditions. The water will be stored in two natural ponds which are now located in the project area. Once the water reaches an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which will occur only during an event exceeding a 25-year storm event, three overflow structures will become operative and are designed to mimic the natural water flows of the area. After the berm is constructed, all basins "downstream" of the berm, including sub-basins 304, 405, and 406, will have "significantly lower flood elevations than the 10, 25 and 100- year storm event." That is to say, existing flooding to the north and east of the proposed berm will be lessened. To the extent that additional impoundment of water behind the berm will occur, or flooding beyond the berm may occur during a 100-year storm event, the County will acquire easements from local property owners to store the additional water. Until the aquisition of land occurs, construction cannot begin. There is one already disturbed wetland area near the proposed construction area. No mitigation is required, however, since the impact will be temporary and the area is expected to naturally revegetate itself. There will be no adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or adjacent wetlands. Neither will the project create any other environmental concerns. While there will be some impact to upland trees caused by the impounded water, under existing District rules, that impact cannot be used as a basis to deny the permit. Based on generally accepted engineering principles, the project is capable of being effectively performed and can function as proposed. Also, the project can be effectively operated and maintained. The County has the resources to undertake the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurances that all applicable criteria for the issuance of a permit have been met. Petitioners' Objections At hearing, Petitioners contended that the overflow structures for the berm would alter the natural flow of water, and increase the flow of water to the east of the proposed project, where several Petitioners reside. As previously noted, however, the more credible evidence shows that the project will not increase the natural flow of water to the east of the berm. More specifically, expert testimony demonstrated that the regular flow through each weir in the post-development condition will not be adversely greater than what occurred during the pre- development condition. Petitioners also contended that the wetlands will be negatively impacted by the project. Contrary expert testimony by witness Defoe established, however, that there will be no permanent adverse impacts to wetlands, fish, or wildlife if the permit is approved. Petitioners next contended that the process was flawed because very few on-site inspections of the project area were made by District and County personnel, especially during the rainy season, before the application was preliminarily approved. There were, however, on-site inspections by District and County staff and consultants, and it was not shown that the lack of additional inspections affected the validity of their studies. A further contention was made at hearing that the information supporting the application was insufficient and that more study, including soil boring tests, should have been made. As to additional soil boring tests, the evidence shows that it is not a common engineering practice to perform soil testing throughout the entire area that will be submerged. Therefore, the existing tests were adequate to support the engineering assumptions. Further, even if there were some infirmities in the data and assumptions used and made in the 1989 Dames and Moore report, as alleged by Petitioners, the errors or omissions were minor, they were subject to later refinement by professional engineers, and they did not materially affect the overall validity of the current application. Finally, the application file contains uncontradicted technical information supporting the issuance of the permit. Petitioners' other concerns, while sincere and well- intended, are not relevant to the permitting process. For example, a concern that the construction of a berm will decrease nearby property values, even if true, is not a consideration in the permitting process. Similarly, Petitioners' valid concern that some nearby upland trees will be damaged if water levels rise for a prolonged period of time is not a basis under existing District rules to deny the permit. At the same time, whether the project is cost-effective and the best alternative for alleviating flooding conditions in the area are political decisions for the County, and thus they are not in issue in this proceeding. Finally, Petitioners have pointed out that the County has not completed acquisition of the necessary easements for the project, and that until this is done, a permit should not issue. However, the District has specifically provided as a condition precedent to any construction work that the County finalize ownership or control for all property where water levels will be raised by the project.
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 granting Hernando County's application for Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 449342.01. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Chester Bradshaw 18520 Bradshaw Road Dade City, Florida 33523 Richard L. Silvani 24419 Lanark Road Brooksville, Florida 34601 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Robert Bruce Snow, Esquire 20 North Main Street, Room 462 Brooksville, Florida 34601
Findings Of Fact By application number 21312, the applicant seeks a ten year water use permit for a total annual diversion of 3,831 million gallons to provide water and sewer services to an area containing approximately 7,300 acres. In September of 1969, the Florida Public Service Commission granted the applicant certificates of convenience and necessity. The existing facilities of the applicant include nine wells and an average capacity of 700 gallons per minute each. Based upon historical data and taking into accourt the reduction of construction in the service area, the projected 1984 water demand is 375 gallons per day per unit. This is equivalent to an average of 150 gallons per day per person, using a figure of 2.5 persons per living unit. The ultimate estimated population is to be 70,000 to 80,000 people with 28,000 to 32,000 living units. Based upon the average capacities of the wells, in order to meet the projected demand a total number of 22 or 23 wells will be required. This includes the nine existing wells, eleven proposed wells with the same 700 gallon per minute average and a fifteen percent standby capability of two or three additional wells. Rather than the total number of wells utilized -- 22 or 23, -- what is important is the total gallon per minute capacity of 15,400. An allocation based on this data would be equal to the applicant's requested annual maximum diversion of 3,831 million gallons and a daily maximum diversion of 18.37 million gallons. The requested diversion presents no threat of salt water intrusion. The proposed well sites will create no adverse impact upon the Fort Lauderdale well fields. While there is evidence of recharge to the aquifer from runoff waters, there is insufficient data to determine the exact amount which will be returned. For this reason, the staff report's water budget calculations are conservative.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a ten year permit be issued to the applicant for a maximum annual diversion of 3,831 million gallons; a maximum daily diversion of 18.37 million gallons and a maximum installed field capacity of 15,400 gallons per minute, utilizing 22 or 23 wells with a capacity of 700 gallons per minute each. It is further recommended that the applicant be subject to the conditions set forth on page 5 of the staff report (Exhibit 8) concerning the submission of monthly reports of daily pumpage and actual connections or population served, conformance with health department standards of the water quality of all wells, and the installation and maintenance of an observation well and monthly reports of the data obtained therefrom. Respectively submitted and entered this 10th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John R. Maloy Executive Director Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mr. Edward B. Deutsch 350 Southern Federal Building 400 North State Road 7 Margate, Florida 33063 Mr. John Wheeler P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palafox, LLC (“Palafox”), is entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in its defense of the challenge to its Environmental Resource Permit (“Permit”) as raised in the Amended Petition in the underlying administrative matter, filed by Respondent, Carmen Diaz or her attorney, Jefferson M. Braswell, or both, pursuant to section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Palafox is a Florida limited liability company and was the applicant for the Permit in Case No. 19-5831. Palafox owns Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision, the six-acre property on which the Project will be developed. Ms. Diaz is the owner of Lot 18, Block A, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision. Petitioner is a member of the Palafox Preserve Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”). The HOA is not a party to this litigation. The HOA has previously agreed not to challenge any permits sought by Palafox for the development of the project. Mr. Braswell is not a party to this matter. He represented Ms. Diaz through the Final Order issued by the District in Case No. 19-5831. Palafox’s Renewed Motion for Fees sought attorney’s fees and/or sanctions against Mr. Braswell for his role in that case, as allowed under section 120.569(2)(e). Ms. Diaz’s Challenge to the Project The Project consists of a 36-unit multi-family residential development proposed to be built on Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision. The Project encompasses approximately 2.68 acres of Lot 1, Block B. The Project lies adjacent to, and immediately west of, Martin Hurst Road and adjacent to, and immediately south of, Palafox Lane. The remainder of 2 Mr. Braswell also filed a Proposed Final Order and Amended Proposed Final Order, which were not authorized and have not been considered by the undersigned in preparing this Final Order. Mr. Braswell is not a party to this proceeding and did not become a party thereto by merely appearing at the final hearing to make some argument on his own behalf. He did not move to intervene in this proceeding, or otherwise obtain party status, not even by ore tenus motion at the Final Hearing. Mr. Braswell did not file a notice of appearance and did not attend the Final Hearing as counsel for Ms. Diaz. Furthermore, Mr. Braswell did not request permission to submit a Proposed Final Order. Palafox’s property runs to the west of the Project and south of Palafox Lane, and is located within a perpetual conservation easement. Ms. Diaz’s property is a residential lot located west of, and not adjacent to, Palafox’s property. An approximate nine-acre conservation easement owned by the HOA lies between Ms. Diaz’s property and Palafox’s property. A portion of Petitioner’s back yard is located within the conservation easement. Approximately seven acres within the conservation easement are wetlands. The conservation easement, including the wetlands, straddles the boundary between Block A and Block B, with about two-thirds in Block A, for the most part owned by the HOA, and one-third in Block B, wholly owned by Palafox. Palafox sought an environmental resource permit from the District to construct storm water management facilities (SWMFs) to serve the Project. The SWMFs to be authorized by that Permit are on Palafox’s property. Palafox’s property, the conservation easement and wetlands, and Ms. Diaz’s property, are all located within the same closed basin. This means that storm water within the basin will generally not flow out of the basin in all storm events up to, and including, a 100-year, 24-hour storm. On October 30, 2019, following the District’s notice of intent to issue the Permit, Ms. Diaz filed an Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings Before a Hearing Officer (“Amended Petition”). In the Amended Petition, Ms. Diaz challenged the District’s issuance of the Permit alleging that the Project will (1) have adverse water quantity impacts to adjacent lands; (2) cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site properties; (3) cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and (4) adversely impact the value and function of wetlands and other surface waters. She also alleged that the wetland had not been properly delineated previously, and that an older delineation was no longer valid. Specifically, Ms. Diaz alleged that the “proposed [storm water] system results in a massive change in the amount of storm water being discharged from the applicant’s site directly onto Petitioner’s property which leads to adverse impacts on her property.” On November 19, 2019, the Final Hearing was scheduled for February 19 and 20, 2020. Ms. Diaz was deposed on January 17, 2020, almost three months after filing her Petition, and two months after the Final Hearing date was set. The deposition revealed that Ms. Diaz was not the least bit informed of the Project. Ms. Diaz had not reviewed the Permit, and believed that the Permit authorized Palafox to build the Project, rather than the storm water treatment system. Ms. Diaz had not seen the site plans, had no understanding of what the Project would look like, and admitted she had done nothing to learn about the Project. In fact, Ms. Diaz testified repeatedly at her deposition that she simply does not want the Project built, regardless of whether it would actually impact her property or the wetlands, and regardless of what kind of development it is. She does not want Palafox’s property developed, in any capacity, and wants it to stay “the way it is now.” Ms. Diaz conducted no written discovery nor any depositions, and did not hire an expert until approximately one month before the final hearing. That expert, Mr. Carswell, had never visited the site. Although Mr. Carswell conducted a storm water analysis, Mr. Carswell conceded that Mr. Braswell prepared and sent him a ten-page report and asked him to consider it as Mr. Carswell’s opinion report. In reviewing and adopting that report, Mr. Carswell admitted that he did not do the type of analysis that he would have if he wanted to determine the incremental addition of storm water to a closed basin. Instead, he did a simple water balance equation. Mr. Carswell testified that he had never before used this type of analysis to support permitting for a storm water pond and that if he was going to try to predict the incremental contribution of storm water discharge from a project into a closed basin, he would utilize a model similar to the one submitted by Palafox in support of this Project. The undersigned found Mr. Carswell’s analysis was not a professionally-acceptable method for determining whether the Project met the standards for the Permit. In addition to Mr. Carswell, Petitioner offered the testimony of four other witnesses at the final hearing. None were able to offer any evidence that Palafox failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off- site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. The testimony of two of those witnesses, Mr. Songer and Mr. Stinson, was in transcript form and was actually given in DOAH case No. 18-2734. In that case, neither witness’ testimony was accepted to defeat Palafox’s site plan approved under the more stringent permitting requirements of Leon County. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 18-2734 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 31, 2018; Leon Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’s (Sept. 24, 2018)). The remainder of Ms. Diaz’s witnesses’ testimony was equally ineffective. Mark Cooper, the Project engineer, testified that the Project would raise the water level in the wetland by .04 feet in a 100 year, 24-hour storm event, which he classified as a negligible impact. Mr. Cooper’s testimony confirmed that of Palafox’s expert engineer, Mark Thomasson, who classified that increase as “de minimus.” Cheryl Poole, Ms. Diaz’s other witness and an engineer who worked on a prior project on the property, merely testified to conditions that existed a decade prior that are not relevant to the Project. In short, Ms. Diaz presented no credible evidence at all that the Project would negatively impact either the wetlands or her property. After the final hearing, the undersigned administrative law judge issued a Recommended Order, adopted in toto by the District, concluding that Ms. Diaz did not carry her burden to prove that Palafox failed to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not (a) cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; (b) cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; (c) cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and (d) adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Braswell’s Prior Challenges to the Project Mr. Braswell has been involved in challenges to the Project for over five years. In those challenges, he has represented his parents, the HOA, Ms. Diaz, or some combination of those parties. In 2015, Mr. Braswell filed an administrative challenge on behalf of his parents—Wynona and Robert Braswell (the “Braswells”), who live in the Palafox subdivision and are members of the HOA. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC (Fla. DOAH Case No. 15-1190). In that administrative challenge, the Braswells challenged Leon County’s approval of the Project site plan.3 The Braswells raised many of the same factual issues regarding the wetlands and storm water impacts that Mr. Braswell later raised again in Ms. Diaz’s challenge to the Permit. The Braswells also raised the issues that 3 Mr. Braswell admitted that when he filed that case, he “didn't know very much about the [P]roject,” “didn't know the rules” for Leon County’s site plan approval, and that he and his parents “didn't realize kind of what [they] were getting [them]selves into.” the Project violated a private covenant in the subdivision’s governing documents, which was beyond the Division’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, Palafox filed a civil suit for declaratory judgement to resolve that claim. In the interim, jurisdiction of Case No. 15-1190 was relinquished to the County without prejudice to refer it again to the Division should the civil suit not dispose of the issues raised in the administrative case. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 15-1190 (Ord. Rel. Jsd. May 14, 2015). After an initial grant of summary judgment for the Braswells and a reversal by the First District Court of Appeal, the trial court entered a final judgment for Palafox. (Final Judgment, Evergreen Communities, Inc. v. Braswell, No. 2015-CA-000765 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. 2017)). After the civil suit was resolved, Mr. Braswell renewed his parents’ challenge to the site plan. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 18-2734 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 31, 2018; Leon Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’s Sept. 25, 2018). As in the underlying Permit challenge, Mr. Braswell argued that the wetlands were not correctly delineated, and that the project would cause the wetland area to overflow and burden the “downstream” storm water facilities owned by the residential homeowners. While the County did not issue a storm water permit for the Project, approval of the site plan required a determination that the Project meets the County’s environmental code requirements. The County’s standard for volume control requires the runoff volume in excess of the pre-development runoff volume to be retained for all storm events up to a 100-year, 24-hour duration storm. That standard is more stringent than the District’s requirement to provide “reasonable assurances” that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. In the site plan challenge, the administrative law judge found that the Project was consistent with the Code requirements and specifically found as follows: the Project’s proposed storm water system will not significantly impact the conservation easement wetlands and will not cause flooding or other adverse impacts to downstream areas. no statute, ordinance, rule or regulation requires a wetland to be re-delineated after it has been identified and placed in perpetual preservation under a conservation easement and that the argument to the contrary “would lead to the absurd result of re-surveying and re- recording allegedly ‘perpetual’ conservation easements every time a lot was developed” within a plat. Id. at R.O. ¶¶ 37 & 51. In yet another case arising from this dispute, in 2016, Mr. Braswell’s father filed a formal complaint against the Project engineer with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. Mr. Braswell submitted additional information in support of that proceeding. See In re Mark Cooper, P.E., Case No. 2016052464 (Fla. Bd. of Prof’l. Eng’rs Mar. 14, 2017). The Closing Order in that case found no probable cause of a violation by Palafox’s professional engineer related to the storm water system after the independent reviewer concluded that, based on the materials submitted by Petitioner’s counsel, “there should be no adverse surface water impacts to adjacent property” from the Project. Id. at ¶ 1. After the resolution of the civil suit and prior administrative challenges, Palafox, the HOA, and the Braswells entered into a settlement agreement. Under that agreement, the HOA and the Braswells agreed they would not challenge the Project any further, as long as it complied with the site plan that the County had approved. Mr. Braswell signed that agreement on behalf of his parents as attorney in fact. Palafox, believing that Ms. Diaz was bound by that settlement agreement as a member of the HOA, and that she had breached the agreement by filing the Amended Petition in the Permit challenge, filed a civil suit in Leon County Circuit Court. See Palafox, LLC v. Diaz, Case No. 2019-CA-002758 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct.). Mr. Braswell, representing Ms. Diaz in that suit as well, filed a counterclaim, subsequently voluntarily dismissed, in which he again raised the issues of the wetlands delineation and downstream flooding. (Def’s Ans. and Aff. Def. and Countersuit for Dec. Jdmt. at pp. 6-9). At no point between the resolution of the prior litigation regarding this Project and filing the Permit challenge did Mr. Braswell obtain new evidence or expert opinion to suggest that the Project would not meet the District’s more lenient standards for granting an environmental resource permit. Nor did he adduce evidence at hearing that would lead an administrative law judge to reach a different conclusion from Judge Ffolkes—that the project would not cause adverse impacts to downstream owners, that the Project would not adversely impact the wetlands, and that no new wetland delineation was required.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the above testimony and the exhibits received into evidence in this cause, the undersigned Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact with regard to the issue in dispute: The applicants, as owners and lessees of 3,300 acres of land to be used for sugar cane production, propose to install a surface water management system consisting of levees, ditches, culverts, and pumps for drainage and irrigation purposes. Irrigation will be drawn from and drainage water will be discharged into Canal 51, a project works of the FCD. There is no dispute between the applicant and the FCD staff concerning the permit for water use and connection to C-51. The applicant proposes to discharge, via two 30,000 gallon per minute pumps, one inch per acre per day or 62,239 gallons per minute into C-51. The soils on the applicants' land are primarily muck types which are high in organic nitrogen. A water level of three feet below ground level, as proposed, will probably cause such nitrogen in the muck soil to decompose, resulting in soil subsidence and production of inorganic nitrogen. Nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) resulting from muck decomposition and crop fertilization may enter the water in the interior canals and cause such water to have a higher nutrient content. The water in Canal 51 now has low concentrations of nutrients, as compared with the waters in canals appurtenant to other sugar cane producing areas. There appear to be unique hydrological conditions on the land in question which may keep the drainage system flushed and nitrate-free and there is evidence that sawgrass areas act as an effective nutrient filter. There was no evidence that additional nutrients entering C-51 would be environmentally harmful or degrading to the waters in C-51, both parties admitting that further research and scientific data is needed to determine the safe level of nutrients in this area. The applicants and other interested groups have shown that the construction. and operation of a retention or impoundment area would cause an adverse economic impact upon landowners and would have an adverse economic effect upon consumers, the general labor force and the community. The FCD has not adequately demonstrated that the waters of C-51 would be degraded by the applicants' proposed project or that a 140 acre impoundment area would be a reasonable condition to impose upon the issuance of the permits in question. A water quality monitoring system, such as proposed in the original and revised staff reports, will permit the parties to determine whether the water in C-51 is being degraded by the addition of nutrients.
Recommendation Based upon the above cited testimony, evidence, findings of fact and conclusions off law, the following recommendations are made: It is recommended that a water use permit, a Surface water management permit and a right-of-way occupancy permit be issued, all in accordance with the recommendations and conditions set forth in the original Staff Report dated August 5, 1975, attached hereto as Exhibit A. It is recommended that the additional requirement of a 140-acre retention area set forth in the Revised Staff Report be rejected. It is further recommended that an additional condition be attached to the surface water management permit. That condition would be to have such permit expire at the same time as the water use permit; to wit: July 15, 1977, so as to allow the FCD and the applicants sufficient time to collect further data on the effect of nutrients on the waters of C-51 and compare said data with the information derived from the monitoring program required under the permits. If such data and comparisons sufficiently demonstrate that the waters of C-51 will be degraded by the applicants' project, a retention area requirement would then be a reasonable condition to the reissuance of a permit. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George H. Bailey, Esquire JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A. 601 Flagler Drive Court Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John Wheeler, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
