Findings Of Fact The subject applications requests a permit from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District for the irrigation of 280 acres of golf courses. The public notice of hearing appearing in The Fort Lauderdale News, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which noticed the permit applications submitted on behalf of the Fort Lauderdale Country Club, were received into evidence without objection. Mr. Carnahan, as representative for the applicant and Mr. Walker, on behalf of the Central and Southern Florida Flood. Control District stipulated to the introduction of the applications and the staff report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, without objection. It was further stipulated that the matters as contained in the applications and staff report could be utilized as a basis for findings of fact and recommended order, without the necessity of putting on testimony in behalf of - the applicant or the staff. Pursuant to that stipulation, oral testimony was not presented by the parties. The amount of water requested by the applicant in application number 21938 is 26 million gallons per year and the amount requested in application number 21939 is 264 million gallons per year. The staff report recommended an annual allocation in the amount of 14.4 inches which is equivalent to 336 acre/feet or 109.4 million gallons a year for approval. Mr. David Carnahan, P.E., representing the applicant, did not offer any further evidence beyond the application and staff report in support of the requests for permits. Specifically, Mr. Nagendra Khanal, Hydrology Division, Resource Planning, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, recommended the following, through his staff report: Allocation of 14.4 inches which is equivalent to 336.0 acre/feet or 109.4 million gallons per year. The following special provisions are recommended: Approval of maximum pumpage not to exceed 5.5 inches which is equivalent to 128.3 acre/feet or 41.8 million gallons per month. Diversions of water in this amount are subject to availability of surplus water in the basin, consistent with and subject to specific basin rules including minimum flows and levels, all as determined by the District. The existing five 12 inch wells with the total installed capacity of 3,020 gpm. The term of allocation is until October, 1977. The applicant shall install a measuring device. Pumpage records from the wells shall be submitted to the District at the end of each irrigation season. There were no persons at the hearing who wished to act as intervenors in the capacity of proponents or opponents of the applications, nor were there any members of the general public, not party to the proceedings, who wished to comment on the applications.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permits 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 The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David Carnahan 1350 South Pompano Parkway Pompano Beach, Florida 33020 Stephen Walker, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Fort Lauderdale Country Club 415 Country Club Circle Fort Lauderdale, Florida
The Issue The issues to be decided in this case are whether Respondent is liable for the violations charged in the NOV, whether Respondent should pay the penalties assessed in the NOV, and whether Respondent should be required to take the corrective actions demanded in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact On August 7, 2014, Petitioner issued the NOV, charging Respondent with failure to maintain its stormwater facility in compliance with its permit and state law. Respondent filed an answer and request for a hearing. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) is the state agency having powers and duties related to the regulation of stormwater facilities. Respondent Classic Homebuilders Incorporated is a Florida corporation and holds a General Stormwater Permit issued by the Department for the construction and operation of a stormwater facility at 5100 Terra Lake Circle, Pensacola, Florida. On April 9, 2013, Department staff inspected Respondent’s stormwater facility and determined that the ponds do not percolate within 72 hours as required by the permit. On July 23, 2014, Department staff inspected the facility again and determined that the percolation problem had not been corrected. Debris and silt were observed in the stormwater facility. Respondent has not submitted an “as-built” certification. The Department incurred $500 in expenses associated with its investigation of this matter. That is a reasonable amount.
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether the City of Sarasota should be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction of a dry line sewer system through the Petitioner's neighborhood.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein the Petitioners, Becky Close, et al., were residents of the area in issue which is located both within and outside the boundaries of the City of Sarasota and in portions of Sarasota County contiguous thereto. The City of Sarasota, (City), is a municipality in Sarasota County which has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation, (Department), for a permit to construct a sewage collection/transmission system in Sarasota County which Petitioners fear will adversely impact the safe, quiet enjoyment of their property. The Department is the state agency responsible for the permitting of sewage transmission, collection, treatment and disposal in this state. The City currently owns and operates a domestic wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal system, including a wastewater treatment plant, which serves approximately 96% of the City's residents and which is authorized by a Construction Permit and Amended Consent Order issued by the Department. On or about November 30, 1990 the City applied to the Department for a permit to construct an additional collection and transmission system for wastewater. This permit, if issued, would provide for the City to construct several system extensions at various locations throughout the city and includes the construction of seven lift/pump stations and fourteen "tie-in" locations at which the existing system will be extended to the unserved areas. Upon completion, the system will serve approximately 99% of the City's residents. Accompanying the application was a set of engineering plans and specifications for the proposed project which had been signed and sealed by the City's engineers. Sometime after the application was filed, the Department requested additional information relating, inter alia, to the design of the lift stations in regard to flood conditions. On January 8, 1991, the City provided the requested information which was based in part on a flood insurance map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA). Thereafter, by Notice dated March 26, 1991, the Department indicated its intention to grant the permit application. The proposed permit specifically notes that it is for the construction of the line only and before it can be placed in service, the City must secure separate approval. Specifically, the permit conditions state: 2. This permit does not authorize the connection of these collection systems to the City of Sarasota WWTP [Wastewater Treatment Plant]. The permit shall not be construed to infer any assurance that the necessary authorization for connection shall be granted. Any such authorization shall be granted only when adequate treatment in accordance with rules, regulation, and issued permits of the Department is available for any flows transported by the systems. * * * 5. Upon completion of the system and prior to use, the permittee ... shall submit to this Department a written request ... to obtain Department approval to place the system into service, .... In addition to the terms of those specific conditions relating to the limited approval effect of this permit, the General Conditions provide: 3. ... This permit is not a waiver of or approval of any other Department permit that may be required for other aspects of the total project which are not addressed in this permit. It is clear from the language of the permit that as proposed, it does not include authorization to place the covered work into service or, for that matter, to even connect it to the existing plant. The Petitioners live within an eight block area through which one of the proposed extensions, with its lift stations, will run. Many have lived in the area for decades and have experienced periodic flooding which, for the most part, results from the inability of the drainage flow to adequately handle the large amounts of rainwater which come with storms that routinely hit the area. In addition, increased paving as a part of commercial and residential development in the area has resulted in a reduction of absorption which has contributed to the flooding. The flooding which occurs usually recedes within a couple of hours and leaves a residue. Many of the residents oppose the projected permit because they fear that if the system fails during a flood period, sewage would be ejected from the system, would mix with the flood waters, and spread across the area. When the waters receded, the residue would include waste as well. William Hartman, a resident of the areas for 35 years, who is not an expert in any pertinent field, prepared a map of the area and the watershed which drains it. In doing so, he didn't consult with anyone nor can he state the total acreage or the number of impervious or pervious areas. He does not know how much rainfall there is in either a 100 year or a 25 year storm and he cannot say if any of the photographs of flooding introduced by the Petitioners depicted a 100 year storm, the last of which occurred in 1968. Nonetheless, he is still concerned. Mr. Hartman tried to make this information available to City officials before the design of the system was started but they did not seem to be much interested in it. He also tried to present the information to the City Commission before the project was voted on, but, again, it was rejected. Another resident, Mr. Williams, built a home in the area several years ago, but before he could do so, he was required to bring in fill to build up an area on which to build. Whenever it rains, the water runs off his land and onto his neighbors' and floods their houses. Since his house is built up, he does not suffer water damage, but when it floods, he has trouble getting into and out of his property. Ms. Hartman, another neighbor, was caught outdoors in the 1971 flood which brought water up to her chest. In her opinion, if sewage were released into this kind of water, it would be revolting. The evidence of periodic flooding is also supported by Mr. Lawson, the mail carrier in the area for 10 years, whose vehicle has stalled in the high water, and Mr. Riddlemoser, a resident, who has, on occasion, been unable to drive into the area due to high water. The manager of the County's Stormwater Management Division confirms there is a flooding problem in the area. Several alternatives have been proposed to deal with it. One is emergency evacuation of the residents and another is channel modification to drain the water away. Additional development in the area can be expected and any such development is required to be designed to minimize impact downstream. Nonetheless, some additional problems might be expected. The County plans to study all the reports and come up with proposed solutions to the flooding problem. Though he cannot judge whether the Corps of Engineers' report or the FEMA report has the better flood information, he would use the Corps' figures. The County's utilities plans examiner, Mr. Cole, has visited the area and attended a residents' meeting about the flooding problem. His study of the problem generates two questions. The first is what caused the flooding, and the second is that given the existence of flooding, why allow the system to be built there? He determined that the problem is caused by the fact that the City's ditches are not cleaned out and the County's are. The solution to that is to clean the ditches. Mr. Cole reviewed the application and consulted with the Department about it. Based on the information he received, he recommended the permit be issued since the plans for the design of the system are within the guidelines established by the County Code. Therefore, the County has no objection to the line being constructed. Turning to the project proposed, those portions of the system extension which will relate to the eight block area inhabited by the Petitioners are identified in the permit application as tie in extension areas C and D, and include lift stations 75 and 76, neither of which will serve any residents outside the eight block area in question. Station 75 is to be placed to the east of Central Avenue near 42nd Street and Station 76 is to be placed east of Central Avenue near 38th Street. Petitioners are concerned that in the event of flooding as a result of heavy rains or for some other reason, the sewage line as designed is incapable of protecting them against a back-up of sewage and escape of that sewage into the flood waters in the area. Evidence presented by the City indicates that at the present time, the City's existing system wastewater treatment and disposal plant capacity is 13 million gallons per day, (MGD), and average existing wastewater flow received there is only 6.467 mgd. Even with the increase in flow created by the extension of the system to existing homes, the plant is well equipped to handle the additional flow as well as that additional flow anticipated as a result of future wastewater flow when the areas to be served by the extension are fully built up. It is clear then, that the available capacity of the plant is more than sufficient to properly treat and dispose of any additional waste water flows created when and if the proposed sewer extension is approved and placed into service even after accounting for increased residential building in the area. From a technical standpoint, the proposed system must be designed and constructed according to the technical standards contained in Water Pollution Control Federation's Manual of Practice No. 9, Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. The evidence of record clearly indicates that the proposal here, as evidenced by the plans and specifications drawn therefor, is in compliance with those technical standards and criteria. Further, the technical standards and criteria established by the Great Lakes/Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers' 1987 edition of Recommended Standard Sewage Works, also applies. The evidence of record indicates that the proposed system is in compliance with those standards as well. There is some concern as to whether privately owned property will be used for the construction of this project and the evidence indicates that this project extension for the eight block area in question will be located only on public rights of way, land owned by the City, or easements granted to the City. The evidence also demonstrates that the extension here is designed to insure the safety of the surrounding area as it pertains to runoff and other possible pollutants. In fact, the system is designed to preclude the deliberate introduction of stormwater runoff or certain other pollution such as condensate from air conditioning systems, closed system cooling water, and other sources of waste water. Specifically, both lift stations are designed to be equipped with standard receptacles for connecting portable power generating equipment to provide lift pumping capability in the event that commercial power to the area is interrupted. Both stations are also designed to discharge through the smallest possible pipes, (less than 6" in diameter), and both are designed to be equipped with risers and appropriate coupling devices at the discharge pipe so that portable pumps may be connected in the event that becomes necessary. The stations in question are designed so as to be protected from lightning and abnormal voltage surges through the affixation of lightning arresters and surge capacitors. They are designed to be equipped with phase protection and will incorporate a stand-by pumping capability to be utilized with off line power generation so that they will continue to operate even in the event of a shutdown of commercial power. The stations are equipped with locking components and barriers designed to discourage the intrusion into the station by unauthorized people or by animals, and are enclosed and designed so as to eliminate, as much as possible, any odor which might be offensive or harmful to the residents in the area. In addition, the stations are designed so as to minimize noise through the incorporation of submersible pumps. What is more, recognizing the fact that the locations of the stations have a high water table, the stations were designed so as to remain in place even when empty. In that regard, the bottom slab is designed to be broader than the overlying body of the station so that the weight of the dirt above the slab will hold the station in place. Taken together, then, the evidence indicates, and it is so found, that the proposed system extension has been designed consistent with sound engineering practices so that it will accomplish its purpose in an environmentally sound manner. A primary concern of the residents is that the City has failed to account for flooding conditions which occur in the eight block area. In support of their concerns, Petitioners introduced several photographs purporting to show flooding into evidence, yet the photographs were not specifically identified as to which flood and under what conditions the scenes represented thereon took place. The City presented expert testimony based on varying sources of information including FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. Both are sources that engineers would rely upon to determine flood elevations in the course of designing a sewer system. This evidence indicates that both lift stations would not be located in those areas depicted in the flooding photographs presented by the Petitioners. By way of background, floods are categorized in year configurations. For example, a "25 year flood", is one in which the water level is likely to occur at least once over a 25 year period. By the same token, a "100 year flood" is one in which the water level is likely to occur at least once over a 100 year period. A 25 year or 100 year flood incorporates conditions caused by "flash flooding", a term used to depict a very rapidly occurring flood which arises without warning. Use of the two flood elevation maps, that by FEMA and that by the Corps of Engineers, creates a discrepancy, however. The FEMA map indicates the stations are not located within either the 25 or 100 year flood zones. On the other hand, the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance report indicates they are. The Corps of Engineers report indicates that the 25 year flood elevation at station 75 is approximately 15.2 feet above sea level, and the 100 year elevation at that site is approximately 15.9 feet above sea level. The Mobilife engineering report, which describes actual water levels at particular locations in the eight block area during the 1962 flood, recognized as a 100 year flood, (and which considers stations 75 and 76 to be within the 100 year flood zone), shows the 100 year flood water at station 75 reached approximately 16.2 feet, the same as at station 76. Regardless of which flood level is considered accurate, however, the City's evidence shows that the electrical components in both stations, those components sensitive to water, are contained within a control panel which is sealed for protection from the weather. Further, it must be noted that the bottom of the electrical control panel is at an elevation of 18.3 feet at station 75 and at 17.7 feet at station 76. Consequently, whether one uses the FEMA/COE figures for water level or the Mobilife figures for a 100 year flood, the fact remains that the sensitive electrical components would be well above high water in either case. It is clear, then, that the design of both lift stations sufficiently addresses the potential for damage or interruption of operation because of flooding. The system is designed so that those components sensitive to flooding will be placed above the expected high water marks, and the mechanical components are designed for submerged use and are not generally affected by flood conditions. The lift stations are designed so that they will be protected from damage by wind or water and should remain fully accessible and operational during either a 25 or a 100 year flood. This evidence presented by the City was neither contradicted or rebutted by any evidence submitted by Petitioners. Even if, however, there should be a flood elevation higher than those predicted by either FEMA or the Corps or Engineers, it would be relatively easy and inexpensive, to raise the control panels even higher at those lift stations to correct any problem that might arise. There are, in addition, safeguards designed into the system which will alert the population to problems occurring in the pump function. Visual alarms are installed which will alert passersby or staff from the utility to the fact that the pumps are not operating properly. In addition, the design of both stations incorporates a reserve capacity which is sufficient to provide the City with sufficient time to correct any failures, electrical or mechanical, which might occur before damage can take place. Specifically, the design at station 75 will provide additional capacity of approximately 24 hours at maximum build-out before a back-up can be expected to occur. At station 76, this reserve capacity will permit 2.26 days of additional operation before a problem takes place and this also assumes maximum build-out. Under those circumstances, if a failure should occur at either station, there would be ample time for the City to utilize temporary electrical or pumping activities to prevent a back-up from occurring. The City contends that if flood conditions were to occur at either station that were not corrected and which resulted in the unlikely backup of sewage, the impact of such backup on residents in the area would be minimal. Its rationalization is based on the supposition that if flood conditions causing such a back-up were to occur, they would result in the Petitioners evacuating the area, and therefore, they would not be impacted. This would relate, of course, only to the impact on personal safety, but not to potential impacts such as loss of property or secondary safety consideration. This argument, which is not significant, is not considered pertinent and is rejected. Were a failure to occur at lift station 75 that resulted in sewage back-up, that back-up would occur at the lowest point in the system, the manhole at 40th Street. If a similar failure resulted in a backup in system 76, the back-up would be at 39th Street. In either case, the City claims, the back-up would not reach customers' homes. This argument, too, though not rebutted by the Petitioners, appears not to consider all the potential impacts such as odor, appearance, and the like which, while not necessarily accompanied by sewage entering the home, is, nonetheless, adverse in impact if located in the immediate area of those homes. Other factors are also pertinent to a study of the safety and propriety of the project include the fact that the system extension is designed in such a fashion as to adequately address the forces of water movement. It is also noted that the system does not include any intersection with force mains; it does not include any stub-outs on existing force mains since it is designed to accommodate the service area at full build-out. The City does not anticipate that the system will involve any sewage pipes intersections with water mains, but if such mains are encountered, the project plans contain instructions to the contractor to afford appropriate protection. The program does not envision any intersection between sewer lines, storm mains or water mains, and the project has been designed so that manhole settling and pipe settling should be minimized. In the event there is settling, however, the project proposes the use of flexible pipe and pipe connectors to minimize any damage that might result therefrom. In that regard, the project calls for the use of flexible, water-tight, wall-to-pipe joints which would compensate for any remaining differential or stress. Normal operation and maintenance will be enhanced by the use of standard size manholes in the system. Since the proposed system is not designed to cross any waterways or canals subject to maintenance dredging, there should be no damage by virtue of those activities. In addition, there is little likelihood that any part of the system could be damaged by boat anchors or by interface with underwater sewage lines. Taken together, the system appears to be well designed and compatible with accepted engineering standards. All foreseeable contingencies appear to have been provided for and the risk of back-up and resultant damage to the property or safety of residents in the area has been minimized.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered issuing Permit No. CS 58-189732, for the dry line construction of an expansion to the City's existing domestic wastewater collection/transmission system, as outlined in the Department's Notice of Intent dated March 27, 1991. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 26th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2470 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONERS: None submitted FOR THE CITY: 1.- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4.- 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Not a proper Finding of Fact. 12.- 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15.- 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17.- 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21.- 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29.- 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35.- 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38.- 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45.- 50. Accepted and incorporated herein. 51.- 55. Accepted and incorporated herein. 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted and incorporated herein. 58. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 59.- 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. 66.- 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70.- 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74.- 79. Accepted and incorporated herein. 80.- 87. Accepted and incorporated herein. 88.- 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90.- 95. Accepted and incorporated herein. 96. Rejected as not a appropriate Finding of Fact. 97.- 99. Accepted and incorporated herein. 100.-114. Accepted and incorporated herein. 115.-118. Accepted. 119. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 120.-123. Accepted. 124. Just a comment on the evidence. 125. Accepted. 126.-128. Merely a comment on the evidence. 129. Accepted. 130 -131. Merely a comment on the evidence. 132.-133. Accepted and incorporated herein. 134.-136. Accepted. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: 1.- 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7.- 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12.- 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20.- 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26.- 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38.- 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. 43.- 49. Accepted and incorporated herein. 50.- 54. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Becky Close 1380 42nd Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 William Hartman 1325 41st Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 Robert Rhoades 1335 40th Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 David M. Caldevilla, Esquire de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. P.O. Box 172537 Tampa, Florida 33672-0537 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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
Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1994, Respondent, Jeff Dyson, applied for a dredge and fill permit from the Department to place an unspecified volume of fill within an historically-existing drainage ditch which carries water to the St. Johns River. The proposed project would direct the drainage currently flowing through the ditch into a 15-inch culvert, which would be installed on the property identified as Lot 3 of Riverwood Subdivision. Swales and structures associated with the culvert are to be constructed during the project and are considered a part of the proposal. See Department's Exhibit 1. The proposed project would place fill in waters of the State, thereby necessitating the Department's approval of the permit. The proposed project, as stated above, is located on Lot 3 of Riverwood Subdivision. The Petitioner owns Lot 4 of Riverwood Subdivision which is located to the east and downstream of the proposed project. The proposed project is located in Riverwood Subdivision which is already developed and single- family residences have been built on both of the lots adjacent to Lot 3. Respondent, Jeff Dyson, seeks the permit in order to develop Lot 3 and build a house on it. The drainage ditch which would be filled runs west to east across the center of Lot 3 and is between four and six feet wide. The depth of this 4itch increases as it moves west to east, reaching a depth of four feet at the eastern edge of the property, where it adjoins the Petitioner's lot. The proposed project would re-route the storm water runoff, which flows into the drainage ditch, around the single-family residence which Respondent, Jeff Dyson, proposes to build. The storm water runoff would be routed through a buried 15-inch culvert from the point of intersection of the existing ditch on the western boundary of the property to the point of discharge at the intersection of the existing ditch and the eastern boundary of the property. Filling of the drainage ditch previously was permitted by the Department in 1984 as part of the subdivision's development plan which authorized Robert A. Weyand to fill the ditch and construct along the southern boundary of the subdivision a swale which would redirect the then-existing drainage through the swale. The swale was constructed; however, the ditch was never filled. The swale carries the majority of the drainage entering the subdivision under Pine Street down the southern boundary of the subdivision to the St. John's River, Two 24-inch culverts under Riverwood Avenue remain from the drainage system which predates Mr. Weyand's permit. According to Mr. Potter, this old drainage system carries peak loads into the drainage ditch which Respondent, Jeff Dyson, proposes to fill at Lot 3. The 24-inch culverts were installed when the subdivision was developed in 1981; however, one of the culverts is completely blocked and the other is only partially open. Contrary to Mr. Potter's assertions about peak loads, the ditch collects water in light rains, and storm water pools on the southwesterly side of Riverwood Avenue and overflows Riverwood Avenue into the ditch flowing easterly in the direction of the proposed project. Riverwood Avenue, the only street in the subdivision, was designed to direct storm water along its curb and gutter system from west to east. This water adds to the flow over Riverwood Avenue at the point of the culvert where it joins with water running in the old drainage system and flows into the drainage ditch. The project, as designed by Mr. Potter, would not adversely effect the quantity of water east of the project. The project was designed so that there would no increase in the rate of runoff with the construction of the proposed residence. The project should not create any flooding downstream because there would be no alteration to the quantity or direction of the existing flows. Mr. Potter used the Department of Transportation (DOT) rainfall intensity duration frequency curves to determine the rainfall amount from the 1.88 acres on the western end of the subdivision upstream of the project. The DOT rainfall intensity duration frequency curves are widely accepted criteria for determining runoff for residential developments. In computing the amount of drainage flow which the 15- inch culvert would have to handle, Mr. Potter considered (1) the rainfall for a ten-year storm on the 1.88 acres at the westerly end of the subdivision, and (2) the flow under Pine Street through the existing culvert, which constitutes a limit to the potential flow into the drainage system at the southwest corner of the subdivision. The 15-inch culvert designed by Mr. Potter would handle two times the amount of water generated based upon the stated assumptions in a ten-year storm event. The proposed project would not increase these existing flows; however, the quantity of water exceeds the flow from the western portion of the subdivisions computed by Mr. Potter which follows the natural slope of the terrain into the old existing ditch system. The Petitioner introduced a video of the storm water collection and flow in a light rain at the location of the culvert under Riverwood Avenue. This video shows that the existing culverts under Riverwood Avenue will not handle the flow of water in the ditch southwest of Riverwood Avenue; therefore, the storm water backs up and flows over Riverwood Avenue at this point into the ditch east of Riverwood Avenue. Other than the ditch under Pine Street and the runoff from the 1.88 acres at the western end of the subdivision, the only other source of storm water runoff is the runoff on Riverwood Avenue. Mr. Potter observed the video and indicated that the amount of water appeared to exceed his computations. The Petitioner testified regarding the water levels in the ditch underneath his foot bridge over the ditch. During significant storm events, the water level reaches the bottom of the foot bridge. The area underneath the foot bridge exceeds the area of a 15-inch culvert. Water flow during a significant storm is unrestricted downstream of the foot bridge, and is not dammed up. The proposed project will constitute a dam on the existing drainage ditch with a 15-inch outfall. Based upon the video of the storm water runoff generated by a light rain, the Petitioner's observations of storm water runoff in the ditch during a significant storm event, and the design of the storm water runoff on Riverwood Avenue, it can be reasonably anticipated that the proposed project will dam up water to the west of the project to the highest level of the swale in front of the proposed project. Although the proposed project will not adversely effect the quantity of water, the water impounded by the project would cause a significant flooding problem for the upstream property owner. The design of the culvert does not provide for protection against children being pulled into the culvert system. The water impounded by the proposed culvert system would be an attraction to children who would be at risk of being pulled into the culvert. It is particularly dangerous because the ditch is much shallower southwest of Riverwood Avenue, and when flooded, the depth of the ditch northeast of Riverwood Avenue is not apparent. The water quality standards are currently being met at the site of the proposed project. The proposed project, as constructed, is not expected to cause any water quality violations. The permit contains conditions designed to maintain water quality during actual construction. These conditions include General Conditions No. 4 and 5 and Special Conditions 5- 10. Reasonable assurances were provided that water-quality standards will not be violated by the proposed project if built in accordance with the designs submitted. The design of the 15-inch culvert includes a 90 degree change of direction before connecting to the outfall on Lot 4. This 90-degree change in direction will dissipate the energy of the water, reducing the likelihood of scouring or erosion at the outfall point. Although the project is designed to eliminate scouring, the Department has included a condition in the permit, which requires Respondent, Jeff Dyson, to correct scouring, shoaling, or other alterations of the downstream portion of the drainage way. The flooding to the upstream property owner can be minimized by lowering the level of the swale in the front of the project to create an emergency spillway. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the water quality will not be adversely effected, and the proposal will not increase the volume of water. The project will not adversely effect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The ditch does not contain any fish or wildlife. The subdivision in which the project is located is almost completely built out. Therefore, there are no endangered or threatened species living in the area. The project will not adversely effect navigation or the flow of waters and will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will not adversely effect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. There are no fishing or marine recreational values associated with drainage ditches. The project will be permanent in nature. The project will not adversely effect significant historical or archeological resources. The current function of the ditch is to convey storm water to the St. John's River. This function will be effected as indicated above because the proposed project constitutes a dam with a 15-inch outfall. If the 15-inch culvert is incapable of carrying the storm waters introduced into the ditch west of the proposed project, the storm water impounded by the proposed project will flood the property west of the project to the level of the highest point of the swale in the front of the project. By redesigning this swale to have a maximum elevation of ten feet or less feet, the flooding will be retained within the approximate elevations of the existing ditch. In addition, steps can be taken to minimize the potential hazzard to children caught in the ditch. There are no cumulative impacts associated with this project. Except as noted above, the applicant provided reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest, as defined by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. The Department uses a balancing test, which consists of taking the public-interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of a specific project. The ultimate question is whether the proposed project is contrary to the public interest. The Department believed that it was not contrary to the public interest. Based upon the evidence presented, the project has two adverse impacts, as indicated in Paragraphs 16 & 27. However, these can be eliminated or minimized to an acceptable level by the modifications recommended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department approve issuance of the permit with the added conditions that the swale and driveway at the front of the proposed project not exceed an elevation of ten feet and that the culvert be constructed to protect children from being pulled into the intake. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeff Dyson 395 Corporate Way Orange Park, Florida 32065 Michael S. McGurk 297 Riverwood Drive Orange Park, Florida 32073 Lynette Ciardulli, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Al Potter 905 North Street Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The subject application requests a permit from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District for the agricultural irrigation of 640 acres of grass-clover mixture, of which approximately 320 are planted annually to small grains and annual rye grass. The public notice of hearing appearing in The Orlando Sentinel Star, Orlando, Florida, and The Evening Herald, Sanford, Florida, which noticed the permit application submitted on behalf of Robert E. Lee, were received into evidence without objection. (A copy of The Orlando Sentinel Star exhibit, public notice of hearing, is attached to this report, because the original of the exhibit is contained with the report on docket no. 61, application 21423.) Mr. Lee and Mr. Wheeler on behalf of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District stipulated to the introduction of the application and the staff report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, without objection. It was further stipulated that the matters as contained in the application and staff report could be utilized as a basis for findings of fact and recommended order, without the necessity of putting on testimony in behalf of the applicant or the staff. Pursuant to that stipulation, oral testimony was not presented by the parties. The amount of water requested by the application is 398.9 acre/feet per year. The staff report recommended approval of 398.9 acre/feet per year, as requested by the applicant, based on the applicant's supplemental water use request. Mr. Lee did not offer any further evidence beyond the application and staff report, in support of the request for permit. The recommendation as contained in the staff report prepared by Mr. Nagendra Khanal, Hydrology Division, Resource Planning Department, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, was that the application #25642 for annual allocation of 398.9 acre/feet per year for purposes as applied for was acceptable. However, Mr. Khanal indicated that the permit should be subject to the following conditions: Recommendation of maximum monthly pumpage not to exceed 180.17 acre/feet or 4.70 inches/month. Pumpage in this amount is subject to availability of surplus water in the basin, consistent with and subject to specific basin rules including minimum flows and levels, all as determined by the District. Existing well and 10 inch deep well turbine pump with an installed capacity of 3,000 gpm be approved. This permit shall expire on October 15, 1978. The applicant shall install a measuring device on the well. Pumpage records shall be submitted to the District at the end of each irrigation season. There were no persons at the hearing who wished to act as intervenors in the capacity of proponents or opponents of the application, nor were there any members of the general public, not party to the proceedings, who wished to comment on the application.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance from the permitting rule requirements so as to authorize installation of an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") on his property in Columbia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns certain real property in Columbia County, Florida, in a subdivision known as "Three Rivers Estates, Unit 5, Lot 33". The property is at "River Mile 7" of the Santa Fe River, as measured by the Suwannee River Water Management District; and the subdivision was platted and recorded in 1962. The lot in question is 400 feet by 90 feet in dimensions and is located approximately 300 feet from the surface waters of the Santa Fe River. The applicant/Petitioner desires to install an OSDS merely for the purpose of serving his motor home when he vacations on the lot in question, because the Columbia County Ordinance involved requires that a residential-type septic system be installed and operating before a resident can obtain electric power to his lot, even for use with a motor home. The original permit application and the variance were denied because the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation for the pertinent river mile of the Santa Fe River, where the property in question is located, and because the site has only 27 inches of soil between the surface grade and a solid limerock stratum which lies under the area. Only 10 inches of that 27 inches of soil is suitable for use as part of an OSDS, being of a sandy quality. The remainder of the soil is of a dense, impervious, gray clay, which is not suitable as a treatment medium for OSDS's. It is undisputed that the property surface grade elevation at the proposed installation site is 22.66 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The ten-year flood elevation at the site is 31.0 feet above MSL. Therefore, the installation site is approximately 8.33 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. Thus, the proposed installation site cannot meet the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, with regard to the definitional standards in that provision, to the effect that the site in question cannot be subject to frequent flooding, as measured by ten-year flood elevations for the site. There was no showing by the Petitioner that installation of an OSDS at the site, given the above- mentioned soil depth and characteristics, the fact that the property in question is below the ten-year flood elevation, would not pose an adverse effect on the public health, the health of the applicant/Petitioner or his guests or invitees, nor that adverse impacts on the ground or surface waters in the vicinity of the site, in terms of pollution contamination, will not be occasioned by installation of an OSDS on the lot in question, in terms of a conventional, beneath-surface-grade-type system. The Petitioner proposes, however, the use of a "mounded system", which involves the installation of fill soil above the present grade level, so that a sufficient depth of appropriate treatment soil (42 inches) will exist between the bottom of the drain-field trenches and the water table, which in the instant case, means the limerock layer which lies just above the water table. The problem with such a mounded system, however, is that pertinent Department rules contained in Section 10D-6.043-.049, Florida Administrative Code, regarding the slope and basal area configuration of such mounded systems, reveal that the subject lot is too narrow to install a mound of sufficient height to raise the OSDS and the bottom surface of its drain-field trenches above the ten-year flood elevation. This is because, even though a lower mound of approximately 3 feet in height could be installed to raise the drain-field trenches the required 42 inches above the water table, the 3-foot mounded system would still be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. A mound approximately 10'2" high above surface grade would be required to raise the OSDS a sufficient amount to get it above the ten-year flood elevation. It might be said that the proposed 3-foot mound, which would give sufficient treatment soil beneath the drain-field trenches, would constitute only a "minor deviation" from the permitting requirements of Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, regarding the ten-year flood elevation parameter. Thus, in the instant situation, it might be an appropriate alternative system justifying the granting of a hardship variance based upon a minor deviation from the permitting rules. However, the Petitioner did not prove that such would amount to a minor deviation. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that the use of such a system would pose no threat or adverse impact on the ground or surface waters at the site involved nor to the public health. While the septic tank and drain fields in such a 3-foot-mounded system might work, the likelihood of frequent flooding would render the system unsafe from an environmental standpoint, as delineated in the rules, because it would be subject to frequent flooding. Because of the threat of frequent flooding by such a low-mounded system, it cannot be said to be a minor deviation justifying the granting of a hardship variance. Further, Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, requires that when a mounded system is to be constructed in a "regulatory flood-way", a certified engineer performing appropriate calculations and other-engineering techniques must establish that the installation of the mound in the regulatory flood-way will not raise the level of the "base flood". Evidence of such engineering calculations, which would show that the base flood level will not be altered by installation of any sort of mounded system, has not been offered in this record, however. This further militates against any finding that installation of even a 3-foot mounded system would constitute a minor deviation from the permitting rules contained in Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code. There is no dispute that the property and the site in question lies within the regulatory flood-way of the Santa Fe River. Thus, in terms of the proposed variance, there has been proof that use of a 3-foot mound beneath the ten-year flood elevation, or a mound which would raise the OSDS proposed above the ten-year flood elevation, would only be a "minor deviation" from the permitting rules, which are designed to protect public health and the ground or surface waters involved from pollution. In fact, it was not shown how such an alternative system would insure the protection of the ground or surface waters involved from any adverse impact caused by pollution from OSDS effluent nor how such an alternative system would operate and still safeguard the public health and the ground or surface waters involved.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the permitting statutes and rules at issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Michael S. Kochan 9360 Craven Road Unit 1401 Jacksonville, FL 32257 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an after-the-fact permit from Respondent for the garage and storage building erected by Petitioners within the floodway of the Suwannee River.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are the owners of real property located at Lot 15, Suwannee Bluffs as per Plat Book 4, page 18 of the public records of Lafayette County, Florida. Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, is an agency of the State of Florida with a responsibility for surface water management within the District. Petitioners live in a home on their Suwannee River property and, in 1999, completed a garage and storage structure on the property without obtaining a permit for construction of the structure. The structure measures 35 feet by 50 feet. It is a concrete block structure on a concrete slab with a metal roof. There are three doors on one side of the structure. The remainder of the structure is enclosed. On or about March 31, 1999, Petitioners, prior to construction of the garage and storage structure, applied for an environmental resource permit for a boat ramp, which permit was subsequently granted. The entire lot of Petitioners is within the floodway of the Suwannee River. The floodway is defined as a work of Respondent's district in Rule 40B-4.3000, Florida Administrative Code. The Suwannee River flows within the boundaries of the Suwannee River Management District. On or about April 18, 2000, Notice of Violation was sent to Petitioners by Respondent. On or about June 19, 2000, Petitioners executed a Notice of Intention to construct a surface water management system for the already completed garage structure. Basically, the surface water management system envisioned by Petitioners would have consisted of modifications to the already completed garage to permit flood waters to flow through the structure. Respondent did not send any responsive formal notice of denial to Petitioners regarding such proposed intention. Instead, Respondent filed a lawsuit in July of 2000, within the 90-day period required by Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, in circuit court against Petitioners to prevent the construction of the system. Such action by Respondent constituted denial of Petitioners' requested action. Petitioners' garage construction was in violation of Ordinance 1-87 of Lafayette County, Florida, and in fact, Petitioners received a Notice of Violation from Lafayette County, Florida, dated December 9, 1999, which has still not been resolved. Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the placing of a structure in the works of a District without a works of the District development permit. Petitioners' garage structure was not permitted and was in violation of the rules of the District in force and effect at the time of its construction, notwithstanding Respondent's informal delegation of enforcement of those rules to local county governments in Respondent's district prior to July 1999. Rule 40B-4.3030 Florida Administrative Code, proscribes the issuance of a works of the District's 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. Testimony of two experts offered by Respondent at the final hearing establishes that the structure in question will cumulatively reduce floodway conveyance and increase water surface elevations above the 100 year flood elevations and potentially increase soil erosion. Adverse impacts to the public interest include the following: increased flood levels; increased scouring by debris and erosion; and increased water surface elevations above the 100 year flood elevation. The cumulative impact of allowing Petitioners' structure and other structures would magnify the problems of increased erosion, debris damage, and floodway conveyance. The cumulative impact from such construction along the water could have significant cumulative adverse impact on the waters of the State of Florida and specifically, the Suwannee River.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Suwannee River Water Management District enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and denying the issuance of an after-the-fact works of the District permit to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 20th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce W. Robinson, Esquire Kris B. Robinson, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A. Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 John L. Scott, Esquire Post Office Box 475 Branford, Florida 32008 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District 9225 County Road 49 Live Oak, Florida 32060
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit concerning property they own located in the vicinity of the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida. A related issue concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to seek a variance from the permitting statute and rules at issue in view of Executive Order 90-14 issued by the Governor on January 1, 1990. The Department takes the position that this removes its discretion to consider variance requests for proposed OSDS installations for sites which lie beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. See Rules 10D-6.043 through 047, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.272, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners purchased real property approximately two miles downstream on the Suwannee River from the point where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida. They purchased the property on June 6, 1986. The property is located upon a canal which ultimately connects with the Suwannee River. The purchase price of the property was $15,000.00. The applicants paid $3500.00 as a down payment and thereafter have made payments on a Purchase Money First Mortgage in the amount of $255.83 per month. They purchased the property as an investment and as a place to construct a vacation home in the future. On or about February 1, 1990, the applicants filed an application to install an OSDS with the Dixie County Unit of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. An application for a variance from the permitting rules regarding installation and operation of OSDS's was also submitted. The applicant, Ricky R. Robson, applied for the variance apparently because his neighbor, the owner of the adjacent lot, had previously sought and obtained a variance the year before, authorizing him to construct a "mounded OSDS" on his property. The Petitioners, as required by the Department, obtained the services of a registered land surveyor, Herbert C. Parrish, Jr., to perform an elevation survey of the property and the installation site. That elevation survey was submitted with the application documents and showed the surface grade elevation of the installation site to be 11.8 feet above MSL. The Petitioners were also required by HRS to obtain a determination of the ten-year flood elevation for the property from the District. The initial report obtained from the District indicated that the elevation of the ten-year flood plain at the location of the Petitioners' property was 15 feet above MSL. On or about February 23, 1990, the Dixie County Environment Health Officer made an on-site inspection of the property. This inspection included soil borings and a general inspection of the property. The soil borings performed did not reveal the presence of any soil type which would preclude the installation of an OSDS. No vegetative species indicative of frequent flooding were noted. Nevertheless, the health officer determined that the property was subject to "frequent flooding" based upon the District's flood elevation report concerning the ten-year flood elevation. Therefore, the Petitioners' application for an OSDS permit was denied on that basis and on the health officer's belief that Executive Order 90-14 prohibited further construction of OSDS's, including mounded systems within the ten-year flood elevation. In his testimony at hearing, however, Mr. Fross acknowledged that his earlier reference to "frequent flooding" was in error and, indeed, the site is not subject to frequent flooding. The Petitioners elected not to pursue the application for variance after they were informed by the Environmental Health Officer that pursuing such a variance would be futile. This was because no further variances were to be considered or granted by the Department due to the perceived effect of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14 referenced above. That Executive Order adopted, by reference, the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation and precluded the installation of OSDS's below the ten-year flood elevation because of risk to health and to ground or surface waters. Subsequent to the initial denial of the application, the Petitioners supplied more detailed information regarding the location of their property to the District and the District issued an amended flood elevation determination indicating that the actual ten-year flood elevation at the location of their property is 14.64 feet above MSL. It has been established in this proceeding that that is the ten-year flood elevation at the Petitioners' property and installation site. There is, thus, a 2.84 foot difference between the surface elevation of the Petitioners' installation site and the ten-year flood elevation. The installation site is characterized by slight-limited soils, consisting of fine sand extending at least 72 inches below the surface grade of the installation site. Additionally, the wet season water table was found to be at least 72 inches beneath the surface grade of the property. Thus, in terms of soil characteristics and water table elevations, the site is certainly appropriate, under the guidelines contained in the rules cited herein, for installation of a conventional subterranean septic tank and drain field system, but for the deficiency under Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, concerning the bottom surface of the drain field or absorption beds being beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioners have proposed an alternative solution to the problem involving the surface elevation of the property. That solution would involve the installation of a mounded system which would raise the bottom surface of the drain field trenches or absorption beds above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioners, in essence, propose to accomplish this by compliance with Rule 10D- 6.049, Florida Administrative Code, which contains specifications and requirements concerning installation of a base filled area surrounding a mound and requirements concerning placement of the septic tank and drain field within that mound. Given the requirements of that rule which limits the mound to a 36- inch height, but allows a base pad of fill of appropriate soils to be placed beneath the mound before its construction, it is obvious, given the 2.84 foot differential between the surface grade of the installation site and the ten-year flood elevation, that installation of such a mounded system would amount to a feasible alternative OSDS which will raise the drain field trench bottoms above the ten-year flood elevation. In conjunction with the six feet of appropriate soil above the wet season water table, this will assure that public health and ground or surface waters are not harmed or degraded by the installation and operation of such a system. Rule 10D-6.047 clearly envisions that installation of such fill, including a mound for such a system, can be accomplished where it references the "final lot elevation at the site of the proposed system installation . . .", as does Rule 10D-6.049, Florida Administrative Code, where it provides detailed specifications regarding construction of mounded systems and references them as "alternative systems." It should be pointed out, however, that although such a system has been established to be a reasonable alternative OSDS within the meaning of the subject rules at issue, Rule 10D-6.047 proceeds to require that the installation of such a mounded system on property which lies within the regulatory flood way requires a certification of an engineer, registered in the State of Florida, to the effect that the installation of the fill and mound will not serve to alter the "base flood". That engineering evidence and certification has not been adduced in the proof in this proceeding, even though the District, as well as the Department, has approved the installation of such a system on the Larry Gilbert lot, immediately adjacent to the Petitioners' lot, without requiring a "works of the District permit" from the District. The approval of such a similar system on the property with similar elevation immediately adjacent to the subject property might indicate that the Department has a policy of interpreting its rules to allow such mounded systems on property within the ten- year flood elevation, provided that such mounds raise the drain fields above the ten-year flood elevation. It has not been proven, however, that the fact that the District did not require a "works of the District permit" should be and has been interpreted in the past to be equivalent to the engineer's certification required by Rule 10D-6.047. Consequently, a grant of an OSDS permit for such an alternative system for these Petitioners should be conditioned on the provision of such engineering certification, calculations and data to the Department. The Petitioners' property is designated as Lot 24 of Highpoint Suwannee River Front Estates, a platted subdivision. The adjacent lot is Lot 23, owned by Larry Gilbert. The ground elevation of the Gilbert lot is approximately identical to the elevation of the Petitioners' lot. On or about July 14, 1988, Mr. Gilbert made an application to the Department for installation of an OSDS upon his property. The District, in that same month, issued a letter finding that the Gilbert lot was not subject to frequent flooding. The District also indicated in that letter that the installation of 42 inches of suitable soil on the lot would be sufficient for the installation of a mounded in-ground OSDS and that installation of such a system would not violate District rules regarding construction of obstructions in the regulatory flood way. Based upon that information, Mr. Gilbert was able to obtain a variance from the Department's variance board permitting him to install what is known as a "National Sanitation Foundation class I aerobic treatment system" on the property. After obtaining that variance, Mr. Gilbert requested an informal hearing before a Department Hearing Officer regarding the variance board's denial of his request to construct a conventional, but mounded, in-ground OSDS. Following that informal hearing, the Hearing Officer recommended that Mr. Gilbert be permitted to construct a traditional in-ground OSDS utilizing only 36 inches of fill. That informal order was adopted by HRS in a Final Order; and the 36-inch mounded system was constructed upon the Gilbert property, adjacent to the subject property and passed the Department's final inspection.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered in this proceeding granting the Petitioner an OSDS permit authorizing construction of a mounded septic tank and drain-field system, in accordance with the requirements of Rules 10D-6.046, 10D- 6.047, 10D-6.049, Florida Administrative Code, and in accordance with the conditions discussed and found hereinabove. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-18. Adopted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-17. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert Moeller, Esq. P.O. Drawer 1419 Cross City, FL 32628 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
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
