The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Applicant applied for a permit for a public supply of water from two (2) wells to accommodate 3,100 family units in Hillsborough County, Florida. Each well to be 500 feet deep and designated as "new use", i.e., a use not existing prior to January 1, 1975. Well "No. 1" would draw 72,000 gallons per day and well "No. 2", 682,000 gallons per day. The center of withdrawal is located at latitude 28 degrees 6' 18" North, longitude 82 degrees 29' 48" West in Hillsborough County, Florida. The applicant lists 802.2 acres as being owned, leased or otherwise controlled by it. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune on April 28 and May 5, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were sent by certified mail to Lorenzo Lakes, A Joint Venture, Route 2, Box 737A, Lutz, Florida, and Hillsborough Dairy, Route 1, Box 115, Tampa, Florida A letter was received although it was not designated a letter of objection. The author of said letter is present at this hearing. His name is Mr. John Logan, Water Resources Director, Hillsborough County, Florida. The letter suggests that action on the subject application would be inappropriate at this time inasmuch as a part of the development is to be deeded to Hillsborough County for public roadways. A specific area does not appear to be established but it may exceed 50 acres. Additional acreage may be needed for flood easements for the extension of channel "F", a proposed part of the upper Tampa Bay Watershed Project. No formal letters of objection were received. The following exhibits were introduced without objection: Application for permit Proof of publication Letter from Mr. John Logan The witnesses were duly sworn and agreement by the parties reached on each point to be considered under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, particularly Rule 16J-2.11, with the exception that certain conditions were recommended by Mr. George Szell, Hydrologist for the Permittee, and said conditions were agreed to by the Permittee. Mrs. Sally Casper appeared as a member of the public questioning the need for new housing and objecting in essence to Rule 16J-2.11(2)(e) which restricts consideration of lake stages or vegetation to those not controlled by the applicant. Upon the request of the Hearing Officer the parties agreed to enter into a joint order of stipulation and submit said order to the Hearing Officer. Said stipulation was received by the Hearing Officer on July 7, 1975, and is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked "Supplement to Record".
The Issue The issue at this stage of the proceeding is whether jurisdiction should be relinquished to the Southwest Florida Water Management District based upon the withdrawal of Petitions filed herein on behalf of the Petitioners, and the filing of a stipulation and settlement agreement executed on behalf of the Petitioners and Respondents.
Findings Of Fact By Notices of Referral dated June 7, 1989, and filed June 1 6, 1989, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) certain Petitions filed on behalf of Petitioners which opposed the issuance of a consumptive use permit numbered 208426 by the District to the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority). These Petitions were assigned Case Numbers 89-3187 through 89-3189 by DOAH, and were consolidated for all further proceedings. On August 18, 1989, Chilpub, Inc. (Chilpub), filed a Petition to Intervene, which was granted by Order entered on September 6, 1989. On October 20, 1989, Wiregrass Ranch, Inc. (Wiregrass), filed a Petition to Intervene, which was granted by Order entered on October 31, 1989. The Petitions filed on behalf of Chilpub and Wiregrass were filed at DOAH, and specifically sought leave to intervene in Cases Numbered 89-3187 through 89-3189 in order to oppose the issuance of permit number 208426 to the Authority. Following the granting of these Petitions, Chilpub and Wiregrass have participated in this proceeding as Intervenors On or about November 8, 1989, the Authority provided Wiregrass with a copy of the Notice of Proposed Agency Action which is the subject of this proceeding, pursuant to Rule 40D-2.101, Florida Administrative Code. However, subsequent to receiving this Notice of Proposed Agency Action, Wiregrass failed to file with the District any Petition in its own right seeking to initiate a proceeding under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the issuance of permit number 208426 to the Authority. Notices of Withdrawal of Petitions for Formal Hearing were filed on behalf of the Petitioners in Cases Numbered 89-3187 through 89-3189 on April 4, 1990, and on that same date, the Petitioners and Respondents filed their Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction. A copy of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement executed by the Petitioners and Respondents was filed on April 9, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitions filed herein, and issuing permit number 208426 to the Authority. DONE AND ENTERED this 19 day of April, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 120 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Smith, Esquire Jeffrey A. Aman, Esquire 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Barbara B. Levin, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33602 Bram Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 Enola T. Brown, Esquire P. O. Box 3350 Tampa, FL 33601-3350 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box TT Plant City, FL 33564-9040 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Summary Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within the 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500043 requested water from one (1) well. The center of withdrawal will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 40' 38" North, Longitude 82 degrees 29' 31" West in Hillsborough County. Said withdrawal is for disposal off-site. This application is for an existing use. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune on May 14 and May 21, 1975 pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The application, map of the premises, legal description, receipts of certified mail, copy of the Notice, and affidavit of publication were received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 1. No letters of objection were received. The witness for Permittee was duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes with the exception as enumerated in No. 7. Upon request of the Hearing Officer a Joint Stipulation was filed in which it was agreed that the following conditions to the permit should be attached: "1. That applicant, Carol A. Ranallo, construct two observation wells on the south side of the pit mutually agreeable locations by inserting six (6) inch casings and screens to the depth of at least fifty (50) feet. The casings to be grouted in the bore hole from the bottom of the casing to the top of the ground level. The sites of the observation wells shall be selected by James Hudson of Delta Engineering Company and G. P. Szell within 15 days after issuance of the Consumptive Use Permit. 2. That the applicant or its agents or employees submit monthly readings to the staff of the Southwest Florida Water Management District of the chloride content of the water being withdrawn from the two wells and the level of the water table as read and determined under static conditions."
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00360 is for a new consumptive water use involving one well. The application seeks withdrawal of 1.29 million gallons per day average daily withdrawal and 2.59 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal. The water will be withdrawn from the Floridan Aquifer for the irrigation of tomatoes. The amount of water sought to be consumptively used will exceed the water crop as defined, by the district because approximately 25 percent of the water will be discharged off site. The land which is the subject of this application is being leased by the applicant for the purpose of growing tomatoes. Applicant's lease terminates in September, 1978 with an option to renew. Except as otherwise set forth above, the applied for consumptive use will not violate any of the conditions set forth in Subsections 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.A.C. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends granting of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: The applicant reduce runoff to 4.6 percent of the amount pumped by January 1, 1978. The district be allowed to install flowmeters and be allowed to go on the property to read these meters. The permit shall terminate on September 30, 1978, unless permitee seeks an extension. That the applicant give written notice of his intention to renew the lease if he so intends.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Application No. 76-00360 be granted subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 5 above. ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Ralph Williford Staff Attorney Glisson and Williford Farms, Inc. Southwest Florida Water Post Office Box 911 Management District Ruskin, Florida 33570 Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
Findings Of Fact Oliver DeWitt and Donald F. Richters, employees of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, were called, testified, and identified Composite Exhibit 1, the staff record of this application. Frank applied for a permit after the fact to construct a bulkhead within the mean annual floodplain of Lake Eustis. The investigation clearly revealed that fill had been placed behind a bulkhead built in Lake Eustis. Referring to the drawing marked "A" attached to the application found in Exhibit 1, the area marked in blue by the witnesses is the area filled and bulkheaded by the applicant. The applicant did not appear or present evidence to support its application.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having considered the law and the facts would recommend denial of the application. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Counsel for SWFMD Irene T. Frank Route 2, Box 55 Tavares, Florida 32778
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 allotments and conditions set forth in the Staff Report and the Addendum to Staff Report attached hereto. Respectfully submitted this 7th 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: Stephen A. Walker, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida Mr. Robert H. Fowler, P.E. 110 Lakeview Building North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
The Issue The issue is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (District's) proposed construction of a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting to the southwest side of Lake Hancock in Polk County, Florida, is exempt from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This proceeding involves a request by the District for authorization to construct a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting the southwest side of the Lake in Polk County, Florida (County). After reviewing the request, and based on its determination that the project would "have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the State," on September 27, 2002, the Department concluded that the project qualified for an exemption from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. The Department also authorized the District to use state-owned submerged lands, if applicable, for the construction of the project, and it found that the project was in compliance with the SPGP program and thus required no further permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers). Even if the Department had not considered the project to be exempt, it concluded that it had sufficient information and assurances from the District to grant a Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing the requested activity. On December 2, 2002, Petitioner, Bruce Lahey, who has resided and owned property on the southwest side of the Lake for 15 years and regularly uses the Lake for fishing and recreational purposes, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition) challenging the proposed agency action. In his Petition, as later clarified and narrowed in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Lahey contends that a weed barrier is no longer necessary since there has not been a weed problem in the Lake since late 2002; that the placement of a weed barrier will make access to and from the Lake more difficult and create a safety hazard; and that in the event a problem arises again, the more desirable options for removing the weeds are "a 'cookie-cutter,' mechanical harvester, or the spraying of [the] tussocks," rather than erecting a barrier. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that as a matter of law, Section 369.20, Florida Statutes, bars the construction of a barrier. He has not challenged the Department's authorization for the District to use state-owned submerged lands or its determination that the project complies with the SPGP program, and therefore those aspects of the proposed agency action are not in issue. Respondents do not dispute that Mr. Lahey has standing to bring this action. The Lake and Control Structure The Lake is an approximately 4,500-acre Class III waterbody located east of Highway 98 and Highland City, southeast of Lakeland, and just northeast of the City of Bartow (Bartow). It receives drainage from a significant portion of the County, including three streams and runoff from a surrounding 131-square mile watershed. Waters discharge from the Lake to Saddle Creek (the canal), which exits at the southwest end of the Lake and runs in a southerly direction for around a mile and a half until it merges with the Peace Creek, where the two then become the Peace River. At the confluence of the canal and Peace Creek, the waters flow through a broad, flat floodplain. Water moves slowly through this area, which can affect the ability of the Lake to discharge, especially during flood conditions. Like the Lake and canal, the Peace Creek also has a significant contributing basin. The canal contains a District-owned and operated water control structure known as Water Control Structure P-11 (the control structure) consisting of two twenty-foot radial arm gates that are raised when necessary to manage the water levels on the Lake and prevent the flooding of lakefront property. The control structure is approximately 3,000 feet or so south of the Lake and is the only control structure regulating water levels for the Lake. The gates are designed to discharge at a flow level of 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs). The invert elevation of the control structure is 91.7 feet and the crest elevation is 98.7 feet. Flows from the Lake will exceed 1,100 cfs when the water levels are higher than the crest elevation of the structure. At this point, water flows over the structure’s weirs and flood control is no longer provided. The maximum desirable water elevation level for the Lake is 98.5 feet above mean sea level (msl). Typically, the District begins to operate, or open, the control structure when the Lake's water elevation reaches 98.25 feet msl. A water level of 99.0 feet msl is considered minimum flood level (or high guidance level). The low management water elevation (low guidance level) is 96.0 feet msl. These established water levels have been maintained at the Lake since approximately 1981. The District seeks to hold the water level of the Lake close to the maximum desirable level, and typically tries to hold the water level at 98.25 feet msl, which is slightly below the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl, to allow storage of water and some response time. The control structure is intended primarily to be a water conservation structure that regulates the Lake's water levels to benefit the water resources, to include the Lake and the Peace River. In managing the Lake's levels, the District balances conservation of the water resource and public safety/flooding concerns. The Lake's water level elevations are monitored through the District’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA), which measures the water level and transmits hourly data to the District offices via satellite. SCADA monitors are located immediately upstream and downstream of the control structure. Since the tussock blockage events in the summer and fall of 2002, described more fully below, the District has installed an additional SCADA monitor on the north end of the Lake so that water levels in the Lake and canal can be compared. The Lake does not have direct public access or a public boat ramp and is not easily accessible. In addition, in the canal, there is only one unimproved location upstream from the control structure where boats can be placed in the water and gain access to the Lake. That portion of the canal which lies between the Lake and the control structure has not always been open to boat access. In the 1980’s, a floating weed barrier extended across the canal approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the current control structure, which blocked the canal and boat access. This floating weed barrier was installed primarily to address problems with water hyacinths that would float down the canal and interfere with the control structure. This floating barrier gave way sometime in the 1990’s. An earlier control structure also used to exist in this area, which blocked canal access. Navigation of the canal is limited due to the existence of the control structure and a number of other blockages further downstream, including a low bridge where old Highway 17 crosses the canal. Thus, boats coming from the Lake cannot navigate down the canal any further than the control structure, or slightly more than one-half mile, without taking the boat out of the water. Between 1999 and 2001, the District experienced one of the most severe droughts on record. During this time, the Lake went dry except for some isolated pools of water. Because of these conditions, a significant amount of wetland or aquatic vegetation began to grow on the exposed bottom of the Lake. The Lake historically did not support much plant growth, due to its eutrophic condition, poor water quality, and gelatinous mucky lake bottom. The types of vegetation currently existing in the Lake include cattails, pickerelweed, duck potato, and primrose willow. Following the return of summer rains and El Nino conditions in 2002, the Lake rebounded to within normal water levels. Because of the return of water in the Lake, the buoyant pressure of the water combined with the flaccid nature of the mucky lake bottom caused significant portions of vegetation to become uprooted, which formed an extensive amount of tussocks. Tussocks are floating mats of uprooted aquatic vegetation. They contain plant and organic material accumulated around the plant roots, can range from a few feet across to one hundred feet across or larger, and can reach a height of more than four feet. Once tussocks form, they move about the Lake by wind and water currents. The amount of vegetation currently existing in the Lake exceeds historic levels. At the present time, the District estimates that approximately 2,000 acres of the Lake are covered with tussocks, and that due to the flaccid nature of the lake bottom, the tussocks are susceptible to becoming uprooted through fluctuating water levels, wind, and wave action. Therefore, there is a strong potential that much of the currently rooted vegetation will form tussocks. Tussocks first impacted the District’s ability to operate the control structure in July 2002. During this event, the canal became partially filled with tussocks. Because the blockage occurred during the rainy and hurricane seasons, the District undertook efforts to clear the canal of tussocks. District staff used mechanical equipment commonly called a cookie cutter to break up the tussocks and flush them downstream through the control structure. During this tussock event, the Lake's water levels rose briefly above the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl and then fell back to within normal elevations. In late August 2002, approximately three weeks after the first tussock blockage event, a number of homeowners on the Lake, including Petitioner's wife, contacted District staff to advise that the water level of the Lake was rising and flooding their yards. A rise in water levels did not register on the District’s water level monitoring SCADA system. Visual observation of the Lake did reveal, however, that there was a significant difference between the water levels being experienced on the Lake and the water levels reported at the control structure via the SCADA system. During this tussock event, masses of tussocks had completely filled the 3,000-foot length of the canal all the way to the control structure and were jamming against the control structure gates. Tussocks had also formed a vegetation dam approximately 900 to 1,400 feet north of the control structure where they compacted and became lodged on the bottom of the canal, significantly impeding the flow of water. During this event, flows out of the Lake were significantly diminished to a fraction of what they should have been. The tussock dam caused the Lake's level to rise above the minimum flood elevation of 99.0 feet and flood Petitioner's yard. There was an approximately one to one and one-half foot difference in the water levels in the Lake and in the canal. In response to this disparity, the District installed a third water level elevation monitor at the northern end of the Lake, so that it can monitor any differences in water elevations between the Lake and the canal and be alerted in the event that a blockage occurs in the canal. To eliminate the tussock blockage and restore flow through the control structure, the District had to employ mechanical means to break up and remove the tussocks. At the control structure, a trac-hoe was initially used in an attempt to force tussocks through the control structure, as tussocks would not flow through the structure unassisted. A cookie cutter was also employed, but it became sucked into the control structure and was damaged and had to be removed with a crane and repaired. The cookie cutter proved ineffectual in addressing the tussock blockage problem. If the canal were to again become clogged with tussocks, any resulting blockage of flow from the Lake would cause water levels to rise, which would endanger public safety and welfare. Prior to the tussock blockages experienced in the summer and fall of 2002, problems with tussocks had never been experienced at the Lake. The magnitude of the tussock formation on the Lake is unique and has not been experienced elsewhere in the District. In 2002, the Department expended over $46,000.00 in contracting for mechanical equipment and for spraying herbicide on tussocks to respond to the tussock buildup on the Lake. Since their formation after the summer of 2002, tussocks have blocked Petitioner's access to his dock on several occasions, thereby preventing him from being able to take his boat out into the Lake or to return to the dock once out on the Lake. The potential for similar blockages to occur remains, regardless of whether a floating weed barrier is erected as proposed. The direction of the winds is a major factor in determining where and how many tussocks will stack up in front of anyone’s property along the Lake. Access to the canal could become blocked with tussocks at any time, depending upon how the wind blows. Breaking up tussock blockages and flushing tussocks through the control structure does not eliminate water resource problems for the District. Tussocks that are pushed through the control structure cause downstream problems requiring the District to expend resources to push the tussocks through and under low downstream bridges crossing the canal, as well as break up tussock blockages that form in downstream waters. In January 2003, tussocks again accumulated at the control structure in such volume as to require assistance in flushing through the control structure. As a result of the large volume of tussocks pushed through the control structure, a tussock blockage occurred at a downstream bridge crossing, for which the District had to use mechanical equipment to restore flow. During March 2003, tussocks flushed through the control structure created a jam downstream on the Peace River. The tussocks were jammed up in a bend in the river and were blocking navigational access to the river. An El Nino weather cycle is currently being experienced. Water levels, including the Lake's water level, are already at their maximum and the ground is saturated. Localized flooding events have occurred. A very active summer rainy season is anticipated, which will mean significant flood control operations for the District. As the summer season approaches, the District must keep the control structure open and operational, which requires that the canal be kept open and flowing. A floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal would keep tussocks from clogging the canal and prevent problems affecting operation of the control structure, downstream tussock blockages, and possible flooding. The Project To address the problem of tussocks entering the canal and causing blockages or possible flooding, on September 11, 2002, the District applied to the Department for a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, to authorize the construction of a floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal. On September 27, 2002, the Department issued its notice of intent to authorize the requested activity. The proposed barrier will be constructed in two sections arranged at approximately 90-degree angles to each other, with a twenty-foot opening between the sections to allow boat access to the canal. A schematic drawing of the barriers is found in District Exhibit 5 received in evidence. As originally proposed, the barrier would consist of a total of sixteen nine-inch diameter pilings driven twenty-one feet apart, with twenty-foot sections of floating foam-filled polyvinyl chloride pipe (pvc) connected to the pilings. Pilings will be marked with reflective tape and five of the pilings will have three-foot diamond-shaped reflective danger signs reading "DANGER PILE/FLOAT BARRIER" placed on their upstream and downstream sides. The pilings are twenty-five feet in length and will extend above the Lake's water level approximately twelve to fourteen feet. Since the District's submittal of the application and the Department's authorization notice, the District has located commercially manufactured floating booms, called "Tuffbooms," that, if authorized, will be installed in lieu of the foam-filled pvc pipes. Use of these booms reduces the number of pilings needed from sixteen to eight, and their bright orange color is more visible than pvc piping. All other aspects of the proposed activity remain the same. The change in material to be used in the construction of the proposed floating barrier does not present any water quality issues, nor does it affect the Department's determination that the proposed activity will have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources. The staggered layout of the proposed floating weed barrier is intended to keep tussocks in the Lake, where they can remain subject to the winds, while providing boat access to the canal in such a manner that is more difficult for tussocks to enter the canal. The Department's Exemption Process The Department's Tampa District Office routinely approves around 800 projects each year under various exemptions authorized by statute or rule. One type of exemption is found in Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, referred to as the de minimus exemption, which allows the Department to exempt from regulation those activities that are determined will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. The Department is authorized to make this determination on a case-by-case basis. In determining whether an activity qualifies for a de minimus exemption from permitting, the Department looks for parallels to other specific statutory or rule exemptions and analyzes the proposed activity similarly in terms of its scope, construction methods, potential to create water quality impacts or impediments to navigation, and other factors, because these recognized exemptions are also deemed to have minimal or insignificant impacts to the water resources. There is no specific exemption for a floating weed barrier as proposed by the District, but the Department considers this type of project to be similar in scope and potential impacts to other specific activities that have been determined to have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts to the water resources, such as docks and other piling-supported structures, navigational aids, and buoy systems. In assessing whether a project is appropriate for the de minimus exemption, the Department also looks to the criteria for Noticed General ERPs for guidance in determining whether a proposed project will have minimal or insignificant adverse individual or cumulative impacts upon the water resources. Under Section 373.406(5), Florida Statutes, the Department may by rule establish general permits for activities that have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. Chapter 62-341, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Noticed General ERPs established by the Department. Department Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code (as does District Rule 40D-400.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code), allows noticed general permits for piling supported structures of less than 1,000 square feet over wetlands or other surface waters, which are not designated Outstanding Florida Waters. To qualify for a noticed general permit for such activity, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed structure: Does not significantly impede navigation and does not entail the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat when navigational access to the structure does not currently exist; Does not cause a violation of state water quality standards; Does not impede the conveyance of a stream, river or other watercourse in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; Does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; Does not cause the drainage of wetlands; and Is not located in, on or over a coral community, macro-marine algae or submerged grassbed community. Will the Project Impact Water Resources? The District’s proposed floating weed barrier will involve less than 7.1 square feet of impact to the water resources, which is significantly less impact in square footage to the water resources than is allowed by Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, or occurs with other specified exempt projects. Best management practices will be used in the erection of the pilings and in the construction of the barriers. Pilings will be jetted into the lake bottom without need for any dredging or lake bottom removal. Installation of a floating weed barrier will not result in any significant detriment to existing conditions in the Lake or the canal. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will benefit the public interest and the water resources by allowing unimpeded operation of the control structure without risk of tussocks causing blockages and flooding. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will not have significant adverse impacts on fishing, boating, or recreational use of the Lake or canal. A blockage of the canal entrance by tussocks, or a tussock jam anywhere on the Lake, could occur under present conditions, and similar blockages have already occurred. The potential for tussocks to block the opening between the sections of the floating weed barrier is considered remote and of temporary duration, due to the potential for shifting winds. The District’s proposed floating weed barrier is a reasonable means of addressing the continuing potential for tussocks to interfere with operation of the control structure. Use of mechanical equipment such as a cookie cutter or harvester would not be an effective or economical means of addressing tussock blockages in the canal or preventing their occurrence and possible interference with operation of the control structure. Pushing tussocks through the control structure would not be an effective means of addressing the potential for tussocks to cause blockages and possible flooding. Merely pushing the material through the control structure moves the potential blockage problem downstream and does not alleviate the potential for tussocks to cause adverse impacts to the water resources of the District. Spraying tussocks with herbicides would not be an effective means of addressing tussock blockages due to the fact that, once treated, tussocks can take weeks to die and fall to the lake bottom. Floating tussocks are and will continue to be treated with herbicide sprays when found in the Lake to reduce the amount of tussocks. However, once tussocks enter the canal, spraying serves little benefit in preventing tussocks from causing blockages or other problems. Tussocks originate in the Lake and not in the canal. Tussocks in the Lake have had and likely will continue to have an impact on boating and recreational use of the Lake and canal, as evidenced by tussock blockages to Petitioner's dock. By confining the tussocks to the Lake, the potential for tussocks to impact boating and recreational use of the Lake will remain the same as current conditions, but the potential for tussocks to affect operation of the control structure and contribute to Lake flooding will be eliminated. Petitioner contends that the proposed floating weed barrier will impede navigation, either by itself or as a result of tussocks piling up in front of the barrier. The proposed barrier will be marked and visible through reflective tape and signage. The barrier does not create a navigational hazard and is not a significant impediment to access to the canal. Constructed in two sections, the barrier provides an opening that allows boat access to the canal. As noted above, the likelihood of tussocks piling up at the barrier and blocking the opening between the barrier sections is considered remote and temporary. Based upon the information provided by the District, the proposed floating weed barrier will not significantly impede navigation; will not cause a violation of state water quality standards; will not impede the conveyance of a stream, river, or other water course in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; will not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; and will not cause the drainage of wetlands. There is no evidence that the proposed activity is located in, on, or over a coral community, macro-marine algae, or submerged grassbed community or that it entails the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat for which navigational access does not currently exist. The proposed activity would have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. As an activity that has minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources of the District, either individually or cumulatively, the District’s project qualifies for an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, as well as a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's exemption determination authorized the District’s floating weed barrier for one year, presumably so that the effectiveness of the barriers can be evaluated during that period of time. If they are effective, an extension or renewal of the authorization will be sought. If the tussocks problem becomes less acute, or the barriers do not achieve the desired purpose, they will be taken down. In contrast, Noticed General ERPs authorize a particular activity for five years. Other Contentions by Petitioner Petitioner has also contended that the proposed activity may violate a condition of the District's Corps of Engineers general permit by interfering with general navigation. As found earlier, however, the more credible evidence indicates otherwise. Moreover, it is presumed that this issue was considered by the Corps of Engineers prior to its approval of the project. In any event, that matter should be raised with the Corps of Engineers, and not with the Department. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that since at least late 2002, the Lake has been free of a tussocks problem and therefore barriers are no longer needed. As noted above, however, blockages have occurred at the control structure and in the Peace River as recently as January and March 2003, and such blockages were the direct result of tussocks which originated in the Lake. Given the likelihood of a very active summer rainy season, it is essential that the canal be kept open so that the District can properly manage and control the water resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order determining that the Southwest Florida Water Management District's proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes; that authorization to use state-owned lands be given; and that the project is in compliance with the State Programmatic General Permit program. DONE AND ENTERED this _____ day of May, 2003, 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 _____ day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Bruce Lahey 5280 Waterwood Drive Bartow, Florida 33830-9766 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner Cargor Partners VIII – Long Bar Pointe, LLLP (“Cargor”) is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact Notice On February 17, 2017, the attorney for Cargor sent Joseph McClash a letter on law firm stationary. In the first paragraph of the letter it states, “Please allow this letter to serve as notice of Cargor’s intent to seek relief pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (the “Statute”) against you, individually as qualified representative, and the named Petitioner.” Cargor sent an email to McClash on February 28, 2017, reminding McClash that “the 57.105 deadline is March 10, 2017.” McClash referred to a motion for attorney’s fees that he received on or about March 13, 2017, but the motion was not shown to the Administrative Law Judge nor introduced into evidence. On April 5, 2017, the same day that McClash voluntarily dismissed the petition for hearing in DOAH Case No. 17-0655, Cargor filed with DOAH its motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105. Contested Claims The renewal of a FDOW is governed by section 373.421(2), Florida Statutes, which states in relevant part that the FDOW shall be renewed “as long as physical conditions on the property have not changed, other than changes which have been authorized by a permit pursuant to this part, so as to alter the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands.” If the boundaries of wetlands or other surface waters have been altered without a permit, the FDOW cannot be renewed and an application for a new FDOW is required. The SWFWMD reviewer explained in a letter requesting additional information from Cargor: Please be advised that letters of exemption do not qualify as permits issued under Part IV of chapter 373, F.S. and therefore if work has been done on the site that has altered the wetlands or other surface water boundaries in association with a letter of exemption, a new formal determination application will be required. McClash claims Cargor did not qualify for the renewal of its FDOW because Cargor altered the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands on its property after the 2011 FDOW was issued and the some of the alterations were made pursuant to letter of exemption. In its February 17, 2017, letter to McClash, Cargor set forth six grounds for Cargor’s contention that McClash’s petition for hearing should be withdrawn. The first three grounds were described in Cargor’s letter as follows: The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, which is the subject of this Proceeding, does not authorize any construction activity. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. There is no injury in fact and no one is in immediate danger of a direct injury from the issuance of the Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, as of the date and time of filing the Petition in this Proceeding. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, is not a permit, license, or authorization. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented by an association. These were issues of law and they were decided against Cargor in an Order dated February 28, 2017. The fourth and fifth grounds described in Cargor’s letter involve the central issue in the case: Changes in the land have been previously authorized by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”) pursuant to existing and final permits including (i) SWFWMD ERP No. 43040157.001, dated August 6, 2014, (ii) SWFWMD CONCEPTUAL ERP No. 49040157.002, dated September 4, 2015, (iii) SWFWMD ERP No. 4304157.003, dated March 31, 2016, and (iv) SWFWMD Notice of Qualification for Permanent Farming Exemption, dated August 30, 2016. Changes in the land are authorized by the identified permits and authorizations. All changes in the land have occurred pursuant to the identified permits and authorizations. Allegations to the contrary are simply false and are not supported by material facts. In 2015, Cargor was issued a “Conceptual ERP” permit, which describes, among other things, planned modifications to some agricultural ditches. However, the conceptual permit does not allow the commencement of construction activities. On August 30, 2016, SWFWMD issued to Cargo a Permanent Farming Exemption, pursuant to section 373.406(13), which authorized Cargor to excavate three agricultural ponds in uplands. In its application for the exemption, Cargor also proposed to modify some agricultural ditches. On March 31, 2017, SWFWMD issued Cargor an ERP Individual Construction Major Modification, which, among other things, authorized work in ditches. This permit was issued just before McClash’s voluntary dismissal and, therefore, could not have authorized the changes on Cargor’s property that McClash described in the petition for hearing. Before filing his petition, McClash consulted with a wetland scientist, Clark Hull, about the merits of McClash’s proposed challenge to the FDOW renewal. Hull gave McClash an affirmative response, but his input was speculative because it was based on assumptions and representations that Hull had not investigated. McClash consulted with another wetland scientist, Pamela Fetterman, who conducted an “aerial, desktop review of publically available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data.” Fetterman described her initial review as an evaluation of potential undelineated wetlands and other surface waters. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the delineation approved by the 2011 FDOW became final and could not be challenged by McClash. McClash then asked Fetterman to review changes in physical conditions on the property that occurred after the FDOW was issued. Fetterman produced a report (McClash Exhibit R-6), in which she opined that the changes to physical conditions on Cargor’s property “have a high likelihood of affecting the previously delineated landward extent of wetlands and other surface waters.” She stated further: [C]hanges in physical conditions of the property took place prior to issuance of the [FDOW renewal] as purported “exempt agricultural activities”, and include ditch dredging alterations to delineated other surface waters. . . . A Permanent Farming Request for Exemption Confirmation letter was applied for on August 23, 2016 for construction of these ponds and modification of existing ditches, some of which were determined to be jurisdictional other surface waters by the subsequently re-issued [FDOW]. At the final hearing on fees, neither McClash nor Cargor made clear to the Administrative Law Judge: (1) the physical changes to the property that were alleged to be authorized by permit, (2) the physical changes that were alleged to be authorized by exemption, or (3) any physical changes that were alleged to be unauthorized. The sixth ground described in Cargor’s letter is as follows: The picture attached to the Petition as set forth in Paragraph 9, and the stop work allegation set forth in Paragraph 10 are irrelevant and have no factual relationship to any issue in the proceeding. Since any changes in the land have occurred pursuant to identified permits and authorizations, the allegations are simply false and/or intentionally misleading. It is not a basis for an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 that an irrelevant photograph was included in a petition for hearing. Moreover, the aerial photograph in McClash’s petition was relevant in this case because it showed the physical conditions of Cargor’s property. In the petition, McClash states that Manatee County issued a stop work order on November 16, 2016, for construction activities commenced on Cargor’s property without a County- approved erosion control plan. This allegation also pertained to physical changes to the property. All evidence about physical changes was relevant in determining whether Cargor was entitled to renewal of the FDOW. Fees Cargor claims fees based on 48.4 hours of attorney time (Edward Vogler) at an hourly rate of $410, and 3.6 hours of attorney time (Kimberly Ashton) at an hourly rate of $385, for a total of $21,230.00. The fees Cargor is seeking include the hours spent on legal issues raised by Cargor that were rejected by the Administrative Law Judge. These fees amount to at least $1,025. See Cargor Exhibit 1, Invoice entries for February 20, 2017. Cargor’s attorney testified that the fees are reasonable. Cargor did not call an expert witness to corroborate the reasonableness of the hourly rate and the reasonableness of the hours expended.
