The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should grant the application of Respondent, Leland Egland, for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), Number 44-01700257-001-ES, to fill an illegally-dredged trench or channel in mangrove wetlands between Florida Bay and what was a land-locked lake, to restore preexisting conditions.
Findings Of Fact Since 1988, Applicant, Leland Egland, has resided in a home built on property he purchased in Buccaneer Point Estates in Key Largo, Florida, in 1986--namely, Lots 14 and 15, Block 2, plus the "southerly contiguous 50 feet." A 1975 plat of Buccaneer Point shows this "southerly contiguous 50 feet" as a channel between Florida Bay to the west and a lake or pond to the east; it also shows a 800-foot linear canal extending from the lake or pond to the north. Egland's Lot 14 borders Florida Bay to the west; his lot 15 borders the lake or pond to the east; the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" is between Egland's lots 14 and 15 and property farther south owned by another developer. See Finding 10, infra. Buccaneer Point lots in Blocks 1 (to the east) and 2 (to the west) surround the lake or pond and canal. The developer of Buccaneer Point applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 for a permit to dredge a channel, characterized as a flushing channel for the lake or pond, which was characterized as a tidal pond with replanted red mangroves. (There was no evidence as to the character of this pond before the 1977 permit application or if it even existed.) DER denied the permit application because the: proposal . . . to open a pond to Florida Bay . . . will connect an 800 linear foot dead-end canal. The pond and canal will act as a sink for marl and organic debris which will increase Biological Oxygen Demand and lower Dissolved Oxygen. The project is expected to result in substances which settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits and floating debris, oil scum, and other materials, in amounts sufficient to be deleterious. Based on the above, degradation of local water quality is expected. * * * Furthermore, your project will result in the following effects to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest and the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes: Interference with the conservation of fish, marine life and wildlife, and other natural resources. Destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life. Reduction in the capability of habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population. Impairment of the management or feasibility of management of fish and wildlife resources. As a result, the proposed channel to Florida Bay was not dredged (although some of the lake side of the proposed channel apparently was dredged before the project was abandoned); the building lots surrounding the lake or pond (now known as South Lake) and canal were sold as waterfront lots on a land-locked lake without access to Florida Bay; and the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" was included with the conveyance to Egland, along with the Lots 14 and 15 of Block 2. The evidence was not clear as to the characteristics of the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" in 1977, or earlier. When Egland purchased his property in 1986, it was a mature mangrove slough with some tidal exchange between the lake and Florida Bay, especially during high tides and stormy weather. Some witnesses characterized the area of mangroves as a shallow creek in that general time frame (from about 1984 through 1988). According to Vince Easevoli, at least under certain conditions, a rowboat could be maneuvered between the lake and Florida Bay using a pole "like a gondola effect." But Egland testified to seeing Easevoli drag a shallow-draft boat through this area in this general time frame, and the greater weight of the evidence was that the mangrove slough was not regularly navigable channel at the time. During this general time frame (the mid-to-late 1980's) several Petitioners (namely, Stanley Dominick, John and Katherine Easevoli, and their son, Vince Easevoli) purchased property on South Lake. All but Vince built homes and resided there; Vince did not reside there until after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but he sometimes stayed at the residence on his parents' property during this general time frame. In the early 1990's, the slough or creek became somewhat deeper, making it increasingly more easily passable by boat. Large storms such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the "storm of the century" in 1993 may have contributed to these changes, but human intervention seems to have been primarily responsible. In 1994, Egland added a swimming pool south of the residence on his lots. During construction, some illegal filling took place. Several witnesses testified that the illegal fill occurred to the north of the creek, which was not affected. Vince Easevoli's lay interpretation of several surveys in evidence led him to maintain that illegal fill was placed in the mangrove slough and that the creek became narrower by approximately four feet and, eventually, deeper. But no surveyor testified to explain the surveys in evidence, which do not seem to clearly support Easevoli's position, and the greater weight of the evidence was that illegal fill was not added to the creek in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." At some point in time, hand tools were used to deepen the slough or creek and trim mangroves without a permit to enable a small boat to get through more easily. As boats were maneuvered through, the creek got deeper. Eventually, propeller-driven boats of increasing size were used to "prop- dredge" the creek even deeper. According to Petitioner, Tom Hodges, when he and his wife purchased their lot on the lake in 1994, it was possible to navigate the creek in a 22-foot Mako boat (at least under certain conditions), and their lot was sold to them as having limited access to Florida Bay. (There was evidence that access to Florida Bay could increase the price of these lots by a factor of three.) Petitioners Martha Scott and Marianne Delfino also purchased their property on the lake in 1994. Tom Hodges claimed to have seen manatees in the lake as early as 1994, but no other witnesses claimed sightings earlier than 1997, and the accuracy of this estimate is questionable. Even if manatees were in the lake during this time frame or earlier, it is possible that they used an access point other than the creek. At the southeast corner of South Lake in Buccaneer Point, there is a possible connection to a body of water farther south, which is part of a condominium development called Landings of Largo and leads still farther south to access to Florida Bay near a dock owned by Landings of Largo. While this connection is shallow, it may have been deep enough under certain conditions to allow manatees to pass through. Apparently not with manatees but rather with boaters from the lake in Buccaneer Point in mind, Landings of Largo has attempted to close this access point by placement of rebar; Landings of Largo also has placed rip-rap under its dock farther south to prevent boats from passing under the dock. However, there are gaps in the rip-rap, some possibly large enough for manatees to pass. In approximately 1995 or 1996, Egland observed Vince Easevoli and his father, John Easevoli, digging a trench through the mangrove slough with a shovel and cutting mangrove trees with a saw in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." Others were standing by, watching. Egland told them to stop and leave.6 These actions made the creek even deeper and more easily navigable by boat, which continued to further excavate the trench by such methods as "prop dredging." In 1997 Hany Haroun purchased property adjacent to South Lake where he lives with his wife, Christine. By this time, Florida Bay was easily accessible by boat from the lake, and Haroun paid $260,000 for the property. He estimated that his property would be worth about $150,000 less without boat access to Florida Bay. In approximately 1997, manatees began to appear in South Lake year round from time to time, especially in the winter months. In 1997, the Hodgeses saw one they thought may have been in distress and telephoned the Save Our Manatee Club and Dolphin Research for advice. Following the advice given, they used lettuce to coax the manatee over to their dock to check its condition and videotape the event. The manatee appeared healthy and eventually departed the lake. On subsequent visits, manatees have been seen and videotaped resting and cavorting with and without calves and possibly mating in the lake. Groups of as many as seven to eight manatees have been seen at one time in the lake. Tom Hodges, Vince Easevoli, and Hany Haroun testified that they have enjoyed watching manatees in the lake since 1997. It can be inferred from the evidence that Elaine Hodges also has enjoyed watching manatees in the lake. There was no evidence as to the extent to which other Petitioners enjoy watching manatees in the lake. In 1997, the ACOE began an investigation of the illegal dredging of Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." According to Egland, he was in communication with ACOE; presumably, he told ACOE what he knew about the illegal dredging on his property. According to Egland, ACOE advised him to place posts in the dredged channel to keep boats out. When he did so, Tom Hodges removed the posts. Egland replaced the posts, and Hodges removed them again. When Egland told ACOE what was happening, ACOE asked him to try reinstalling the posts and screwing plywood to the posts to achieve a stronger, fence-like barrier. Hodges also removed these barriers, and Egland did not replace the posts or plywood barrier again. In 1998, ACOE mailed Egland a Cease and Desist Order accusing him of illegal dredging in his "southerly contiguous 50 feet" and demanding that he restore the mangrove slough to its previous conditions. Egland was angry at being blamed for the dredging and initially disputed ACOE's charges and demands. But ACOE and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which accepted the role of lead federal enforcement agency on December 18, 1998, was seeking monetary civil penalties. In addition, Egland received legal advice that, if restoration were delayed, he could be sued for damages by someone purchasing property on the lake or canal in the meantime upon the mistaken belief that there was boat access to Florida Bay. For these reasons, Egland agreed to comply with the Cease and Desist Order. However, ACOE and EPA informed Egland that he might have to obtain a permit from DEP to fill the dredged channel in compliance with the Cease and Desist Order. On May 22, 2000, Egland applied to DEP for an ERP to restore a trench about 100 feet long varying from seven to ten feet in width that was illegally dredged on his property. He estimated that a total of 160 cubic yards of fill would be required, to be spread over approximately 900 square feet. He assured DEP that rip-rap would be used to contain the fill and that turbidity screens would be used during construction. During processing of Egland's application, DEP requested additional information, which Egland provided, and DEP's Environmental Manager, Edward Barham, visited the project site in October 2000. Based on all the evidence available to him at that point in time, Barham viewed Egland's proposed fill project as a simple restoration project to correct illegal dredging and return the mangrove slough to its preexisting condition. For that reason, Barham recommended that DEP process the application as a de minimis exemption and not charge a permit application fee. Subsequently, some Petitioners brought it to DEP's attention that manatees were accessing South Lake through the channel Egland wanted to fill. DEP saw no need to verify the accuracy of Petitioners' information or obtain additional information about the manatees use of the lake because DEP still viewed it as a restoration project. However, DEP decided that it would be necessary to include specific conditions in any ERP issued to Egland to ensure that no manatees would be trapped in the lake or otherwise injured as a result of filling the channel. Primarily due to the need for these conditions, and also because of anticipated opposition from Petitioners, DEP decided to charge Egland a permit application fee and not process the application as a de minimis exemption. DEP staff visited the mangrove slough on numerous occasions between October 2000, and final hearing and observed that the trench continued to get deeper over time as a result of continued prop-dredging and digging. In early August 2001, Tom Hodges observed a man walking back and forth with a wheel barrow between a storage shed on Egland's property and the channel. (Hodges was on his property across South Lake but use of binoculars enabled him to see this.) The next day, Hany Haroun discovered a poured- concrete slab forming a plug or dam in the channel on the lake side. Haroun reported his discovery to Tom Hodges, who investigated with his wife, who took photographs of the structure. At some point, the Hodgeses realized that a manatee was trapped in the lake. The manatee did not, and appeared unable to, use the other possible access point towards Landings of Largo to escape. See Finding 10, supra. The Hodgeses telephoned Barham at DEP to report the situation and complain. Tom Hodges then proceeded to break up the concrete, remove the resulting rubble, and place it on the path to the storage shed, freeing the manatee. The incident was reported in the newspaper the next day and prompted Petitioners to file their Motion to Dismiss and for Other Relief on August 9, 2001. See Preliminary Statement. The evidence was inconclusive as to who poured the concrete, or had it poured, and why. Egland testified that he was in Egypt on an extended trip at the time and denied any knowledge of the concrete plug until he saw the rubble on his property upon his return from Egypt. Egland testified that he saw no "aggregate" in the concrete, which would make it relatively easy to break up, and he suspected that Petitioners were responsible for pouring the concrete in order to publicly make false accusations against Egland. Petitioners denied Egland's accusation. Vince testified that the concrete contained rebar for strength. The evidence was inconclusive as to who was responsible for this incident. As pointed out by Petitioners, DEP did not investigate and does not know whether there is any freshwater upwelling in the lake, whether manatees have mated in the lake, or whether calves have been birthed in the lake. DEP also did not investigate and does not know whether South Lake is unlike other manatee habitat in the area. DEP did not investigate or obtain any information as to how many manatees use the lake, or what manatees use the lake for, in addition to the information provided by Petitioners. Carol Knox, an Environmental Specialist III with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, testified as a manatee expert based on her knowledge of manatees and manatee habitat in the area, as well as the information known to DEP. It was her opinion that, regardless what South Lake might offer manatees in the way of habitat, closing the channel (with the specific conditions required by DEP to protect manatees during the filling itself) would have no adverse impact on manatees because it did not appear that manatees made use of the lake before the channel was dug in 1996 or 1997, and ample other manatee habitat of various kinds continued to be available in the area.7 Based on the testimony of Knox and Barham, and the totality of the evidence in this case, it is found that Egland provided reasonable assurance that his proposed restoration project will not harm or adversely affect manatees or their habitats. Petitioners also questioned Egland's assurances as to water quality. Vince Easevoli, Stanley Dominick, and Hany Haroun testified to their concerns that water quality in the lake will decline if the channel is closed. As Petitioners point out, DEP did not require Egland to provide any water quality measurements. This was because the proposal is reasonably expected to reverse the effects of the illegal dredging on water quality and to return both the water in the lake and canal and the water in Florida Bay to the quality that existed prior to the illegal dredging. Without requiring any water quality measurements, it is reasonably expected that the water quality in Florida Bay would not decline in any respect; to the contrary, if anything, Florida Bay's water quality would be expected to improve by reduction of contributions from the lake and canal. Conversely, water quality in the lake and canal would be expected to decline but not below what it was before the illegal dredging. Petitioners also question DEP's failure to require Egland to provide a survey or stake the area to be filled, so as to ensure against filling too much of the mangrove slough. But the proposed ERP contains a specific condition: "The final fill elevation of the fill shall be at the elevation of the substrate within the adjacent mangrove wetlands." Barham testified persuasively that this specific condition is adequate to provide reasonable assurance. Compliance can be ascertained by simply viewing the site after completion of the restoration project, and compliance can be enforced by requiring removal of excess fill as necessary. The proposed ERP also contains a general condition that the permit does not convey or create any property right, or any interest in real property, or authorize any entrances upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by Egland.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order granting the application of Leland Egland and issuing ERP Number 44- 01700257-001-ES. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2002.
The Issue Whether Rules 40B-1.702(4); 40B-4.1020(12) and (30); 40B-4.1030; 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c); 40B-4.2030(4); 40B-4.3000(1)(a); 40B-4.3010; 40B-4.3020; 40B-4.3030; 40B- 4.3040; and 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, of the Suwannee River Water Management District, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for reasons described in the Second Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Rules.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. The District is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between the District and the Department (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the work of the district (WOD) impacts. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile. The Challenged Rules The rules or portions thereof which are challenged in this proceeding are as follows: Rule 40B-1.702(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) A works of the district permit under Chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to initiating any project as outlined in (3) above within a regulatory floodway as defined by the District. Rule 40B-4.1020(12) and (30), Florida Administrative Code, read as follows: (12) "Floodway" or 'regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river, stream, or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the 100-year flood elevation more than a designated height. Unless otherwise noted, all regulatory floodways in the Suwannee River Water Management District provide for no more then one-foot rise in surface water. * * * (30) "Work of the district" means those projects and works including, but not limited to, structures, impoundments, wells, streams, and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands, which have been officially adopted by the governing board as works of the district. Works of the district officially adopted by the board are adopted by rule in Rule 40B-4.3000 of this chapter. Rule 40B-4.1030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The implementation dates of this chapter are as follows: January 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(a) which requires persons to obtain surfacewater management permits. April 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(b) and Rule 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain works of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; The Aucilla River and its floodway in Jefferson, Madison, or Taylor counties, Florida; The Suwannee River or its floodway in Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, or Suwannee counties, Florida; or The Withlacoochee River and its floodway in Hamilton or Madison counties, Florida. (c) July 1, 1986 for Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) or 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain work of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Santa Fe River and its floodway in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, or Union counties, Florida; or The Suwannee River and its floodway in Dixie, Gilchrist, or Levy counties, Florida. Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) Permits are required as follows: * * * Works of the district development permit prior to connecting with, placing structures or works in or across, discharging to, or other development within a work of the district. When the need to obtain a works of the district development permit is in conjunction with the requirements for obtaining a surfacewater management permit, application shall be made and shall be considered by the district as part of the request for a surfacewater management permit application. Otherwise, a separate works of the district development permit must be obtained. Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) The new surfacewater management systems or individual works shall not facilitate development in a work of the district if such developments will have the potential of reducing floodway conveyance. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3000(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The governing board is authorized to adopt and prescribe the manner in which persons may connect with or make use of works of the district pursuant to Section 373.085, Florida Statutes. Further, Section 373.019(15) provides that works of the district may include streams and accompanying lands as adopted by the governing board. In order to implement the non-structural flood control policy of the district, the governing board finds it is necessary to prevent any obstruction of the free flow of water of rivers and streams within the district. Therefore, the governing board does hereby adopt the following rivers and their accompanying floodways as works of the district: The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; . . . . Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: A general works of the district development permit may be granted pursuant to the procedures in Rule 40B-1.703 to any person for the development described below: Construction of a structure for single-family residential or agricultural use including the leveling of land for the foundation and associated private water supply, wastewater disposal, and driveway access which is in compliance with all applicable ordinances or rules of local government, state, and federal agencies, and which meets the requirements of this chapter. A general permit issued pursuant to this rule shall be subject to the conditions in Rule 40B-4.3030. Rule 40B-4.3020, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Content of Works of the District Development Permit Applications. Applications for a general work of the district development permit shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-5, "Application for General Work of the District Development Permit," Suwannee River Water Management District, 4-1-86, hereby incorporated by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the applicant or owner; Copies of all permits received from local units of government, state, or federal agencies, specifically a copy of the building or development permit issued by the appropriate unit of local government, including any variances issued thereto, and a copy of the onsite sewage disposal system permit issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code; A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon; and Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable documents, which in the applicant's opinion, may support the application. Applications for individual or conceptual approval works of the district development permits shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-4, "Application for Surfacewater Management System Construction, Alteration, Operation, Maintenance, and/or Works of the District Development", Suwannee River Water Management District, 10-1-85, hereby adopted by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the owner. General project information including: The applicant's project name or identification number; The project location relative to county, section, township, and range, or a metes and bounds description; The total project area in acres; The total land area owned or controlled by the applicant or owner which is contiguous with the project area; A description of the scope of the proposed project including the land uses to be served; A description of the proposed surfacewater management system or work; A description of the water body or area which will receive any proposed discharges from the system; and Anticipated beginning and ending date of construction or alteration. Copies of all permits received from, or applications made to, local units of government, state, or federal agencies. A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon. Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable legal documents, which in the applicant's opinion, support the application. Copies of engineer or surveyor certifications required by this chapter. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Conditions for Issuance of Works of the District Development Permits. The district will not approve the issuance of separate permits for development in a work of the district for any proposed project that requires a district surfacewater management permit pursuant to Part II of this chapter. For such projects, development in a work of the district may be authorized as part of any surfacewater management permit issued. The district will not approve the issuance of a works of the district development permit for any work, structures, road, or other facilities which have the potential of individually or cumulatively reducing floodway conveyance or increasing water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation, or increasing soil erosion. The district will presume such a facility will not reduce conveyance or increase water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation or increase soil erosion if: Roads with public access are constructed and laid out in conformance with the minimum standards of local government. Where roads are not required to be paved, the applicant must provide design specifications for erosion and sediment control. Where roads are required to be paved, swales will generally be considered adequate for erosion and sediment control; Buildings in the floodway are elevated on piles without the use of fill such that the lowest structural member of the first floor of the building is at an elevation at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation; The area below the first floor of elevated buildings is left clear and unobstructed except for the piles or stairways; A permanent elevation monument is established on the property to be developed by a surveyor. The monument shall be adequate to establish land surface and minimum buildup elevations to the nearest 1/100 of a foot; No permanent fill or other obstructions are placed above the natural grade of the ground except for minor obstructions which are less than or equal to 100 square feet of the cross-sectional area of the floodway on any building or other similar structure provided that all such obstruction developed on any single parcel of land after the implementation date of this chapter is considered cumulatively; No activities are proposed which would result in the filling or conversion of wetlands. For any structure placed within a floodway which, because of its proposed design and method of construction, may, in the opinion of the district, result in obstruction of flows or increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, the district may require as a condition for issuance of a work of the district development permit that an engineer certify that such a structure will not obstruct flows or increase 100-year flood elevations. The following conditions shall apply to all works of the district development permits issued for development on lands subdivided after January 1, 1985: Clearing of land shall be limited [except as provided in (b) and (c) below] to that necessary to remove diseased vegetation, construct structures, associated water supply, wastewater disposal, and private driveway access facilities, and no construction, additions or reconstruction shall occur in the front 75 feet of an area immediately adjacent to a water. Clearing of vegetation within the front 75 feet immediately adjacent to a water shall be limited to that necessary to gain access or remove diseased vegetation. Harvest or regeneration of timber or agricultural crops shall not be limited provided the erosion of disturbed soils can be controlled through the use of appropriate best management practices, the seasonal scheduling of such activities will avoid work during times of high-flood hazard, and the 75 feet immediately adjacent to and including the normally recognized bank of a water is left in its natural state as a buffer strip. As to those lands subdivided prior to January 1, 1985, the governing board shall, in cases of extreme hardship, issue works of the district development permits with exceptions to the conditions listed in Rule 40B-4.3030(4)(a) through (c). The 75-foot setback in paragraphs (a) through (d) above shall be considered a minimum depth for an undisturbed buffer. The limitations on disturbance and clearing within the buffer as set out in paragraphs through (d) above shall apply, and any runoff through the buffer shall be maintained as unchannelized sheet flow. The actual depth of the setback and buffer for any land use other than single-family residential development, agriculture, or forestry shall be calculated in accordance with the methodology in: "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55, June 1986; and, "Buffer Zone Study for Suwannee River Water Management District", Dames and Moore, September 8, 1988, such that the post-development composite curve number for any one-acre area within the encroachment line does not exceed; a value of 46 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class A soils; a value of 65 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class B soils; a value of 77 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class C soils; or a value of 82 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class D soils. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Unlawful Use of Works of the District. It shall be unlawful to connect with, place a structure in or across, or otherwise cause development to occur in a work of the district without a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause an unpermitted development to be removed or permitted. It shall be unlawful for any permitted use to violate the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or this chapter, or the limiting conditions of a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause the unpermitted use to be removed or brought into compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and this chapter. Damage to works of the district resulting from violations specified in Rule 40B-4.3040(1) and (2) above shall be repaired by the violator to the satisfaction of the district. In lieu of making repairs, the violator may deposit with the district a sufficient sum to insure such repair. Rule 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * (h) Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to s. 373.086. . . . Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record History of the rules Mr. David Fisk is Assistant Director of the District. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed there for 26 and one-half years. He played a significant role in the rule adoption process of the rules that are the subject of this dispute. As part of that process, the District entered into a consulting contract with an engineering, planning, and consulting firm and consulted with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to conduct what are described as the FEMA flood studies. Additionally, the district commissioned an aerial photography consultant who provided a series of rectified ortho photographs of the entire floodplain of the rivers within the District, and a surveying subcontractor who provided vertical control and survey cross sections and hydrographic surveys of the rivers. The District also worked in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey to accumulate all of the hydrologic record available on flooding. The information was given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who, operating under FEMA guidelines for conducting flood insurance rate studies, performed the analytical and computer modeling work to identify the flood plains and floodway boundaries. The District used the amassed knowledge of maps, cross sections and surveys that were developed as part of the FEMA flood studies as technical evidence or support for the adoption of the works of the district rules. Following a series of public workshops and public hearings in 1985, the rules were adopted and became effective in 1986. None of the rules were challenged in their proposed state. The District adopted the floodways of the Suwannee, Santa Fe, Alapaha, Aucilla, and Withlacoochee Rivers as works of the district. According to Mr. Fisk, the District adopted the rules pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to the District to adopt district works and Section 373.085, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to regulate activities within those works. The Floodway Line Petitioner hired Mr. John Barnard, a professional civil engineer, with extensive environmental permitting experience, to look at the floodway and floodplain issues associated with Petitioner's site and project. Mr. Barnard conducted an engineering study entitled, "Floodplain Evaluation." It was Mr. Barnard's opinion that FEMA's determination of the floodway line was less than precise. Mr. Barnard used FEMA's data regarding the base flood elevation but manually changed the encroachment factor resulting in his placement of the floodway line in a different location than determined by FEMA. Mr. Barnard acknowledged that different engineers using different encroachment factors would reach different conclusions.1/ Respondent's expert in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, Brett Cunningham, noted that the definition of floodway in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is essentially the same definition that used is in the FEMA regulations and which also is commonly used across the country in environmental rules and regulations. Mr. Barnard also acknowledged that the District's definition of "floodway", as found in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is fairly commonly used by environmental regulatory agencies. Moreover, it was Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the Alapaha River is a stream or watercourse within the meaning of the rule and its floodway an accompanying land. In Mr. Cunningham's opinion, the FEMA flood insurance studies are widely used across the country for a variety of reasons and are typically relied upon by hydrologists and engineers to locate floodways. The definition of "works of the district" in Rule 40B-1020(30), Florida Administrative Code, is taken directly from the language found in Section 373.019(23), Florida Statutes. The statutory definition includes express references to streams and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands. Petitioner alleges that the phrase "will not cause adverse impact to a work of the SRWMD" as found in Rule 40B- 400.103(1)(h) is not clear because it does not identify what specific adverse impacts are being reviewed. While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Price, was not clear as to what the phrase means, Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase and noted that "adverse impact" is a phrase which is very commonplace in the rules and regulations of environmental agencies and is attributed a commonsense definition. The expert engineers differed in their opinions as to the meaning of the term "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" as used in Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code. According to Petitioner's expert engineer, Mr. Barnard, "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" is not a specific term that is open to interpretation as an engineer, and that he cannot quantify what constitutes "potential." Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase to be any increase in floodway conveyance. It was his opinion that there was nothing about that phrase to cause confusion. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, addresses conditions for issuance of works of the district development permits. Petitioner's expert Mr. Price testified that there is no quantification to what constitutes an "increase in soil erosion" as referenced in subsection (2) and linked the reference of soil erosion to a 100-year flood event referenced in the same subsection. Mr. Cunningham was of the opinion that there is no need to quantify an increase in soil erosion in the rule. He noted that soil erosion is used in a common sense manner and that attempting to put a numerical limit on it is not practical and "it's not something that's done anywhere throughout the country. It's just not something that lends itself to easy quantification like flood stages do". Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the words and phrases which Petitioner asserts are vague are words of common usage and understanding to persons in the field is the more persuasive testimony. This opinion is also consistent with statutory construction used by courts which will be addressed in the conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a multi-county water management district which was created by Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and which operates pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The District is the local sponsor for the federally-authorized "Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control" and as such, operates and maintains various water control facilities and impoundments in South Florida, as authorized and constructed by the Federal Government. The jurisdiction of the District encompasses 16 counties in southern and central Florida, from Marion County in the north to Monroe County in the south. Water Conservation Area 2A is one of several water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction and is a part of the federally-authorized Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control. On April 13, June 2, August 10, September 26, October 19, and October 20, 1978, the Governing Board of the District held public hearings and workshop meetings to receive comments from the District staff and the general public concerning the proposed "draw down" or alteration of water levels in Water Conservation Area 2A. Notice of the September 26, 1978 public hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume No. 4, No. 36, on September 8, 1978. By the terms of the notice, the purpose of the September 26th public hearing was: To provide interested citizens with an opportunity to express their opinions and hear testimony regarding the District's proposal to lower the water level in Conservation Area 2A, located in western Palm Beach and Broward counties. The purpose of the draw down is to con- solidate the bottom sediments so that a more flexible water schedule can be begun to preserve the natural Everglades ecology . . . . After considering information received from staff and the general public, the Governing Board entered its "Order" No. 78-12 dated October 20, 1978 containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. This "order" provided, in pertinent part: That the staff take appropriate measures to accomplish the following: A draw down from current high water levels will be initiated October 31, 1978, with the goal of reducing water levels in the central portion of the marsh to ground level by December 31 (about 11.2 feet msl). From this point, water levels shall be allowed to continue to recede to a minimum level of 9.5' by the end of May, 1979. Water levels will be allowed to rise to about 12.5' msl by October 31, 1979. That the staff take appropriate measures to regulate water levels in Conservation Area 2A between 12.5' and 9.5' msl as provided in Paragraph 1. until November of 1981. That the regulation of Conservation Area 2A be carried out in a flexible manner to insure maximum environmental benefits and that adjustments in water level fluctuations and stages may be made predicated upon the environmental response of the Conservation Area 2A ecosystem resulting from the previous year's hydroperiod. That the staff pursue such research and data collection as is necessary to fully document the conditions of the marsh throughout the three year duration of the project. No formal hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, were requested as a result of the aforementioned workshop, public hearings or agency action embodied in the "order" of October 20, 1978. It is undisputed that Respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, relating to rule making in issuing its Order of October 20, 1978. Petitioner, Joe Burgess, is the owner of Hinckle's Bait and Tackle Shop on State Road 84 in Broward County, approximately 12 miles from Conservation Area 2A. Petitioner Burgess derives approximately 60 to 70 percent of his business from customers who use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. In addition, Petitioner Burgess personally uses Conservation Area 2A for hunting and fishing. Petitioner, Keith Finlayson, is an environmentalist who uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes, including fishing, bird watching, observing animals in their natural habitats and flora identification. Petitioner Finalyson uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes approximately two to three times per week. Petitioner, Concerned Citizens for the Everglades, Inc., is a not-for- profit Florida corporation, some of whose members presently use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Other members of the organization derive their living from businesses supported by revenues obtained from the general public directly attributable to "use" of Conservation Area 2A. One of the effects of the "draw down" will be to make certain portions of Conservation Area 2A inaccessible by boat during some periods of the year, thereby curtailing recreational and other use of the those areas. Water Conservation Area 2A, and other such areas within the jurisdiction of Respondent, is surrounded by levies and various water control structures and is operated independently of other water conservation areas, which are also surrounded by levies and water control structures. All of the water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction are subject to different and independent water regulation schedules. The evidence establishes that it is not feasible to apply the same regulation schedule to all water conservation areas due to differences in topography. In fact, it is anticipated that a different regulation schedule for Water Conservation Area 2A will be developed after the current three-year draw down period is concluded. Although originally scheduled to commence on November 1, 1978, the "draw down" of water levels in Conservation Area 2A was delayed as a result of legal actions taken in state courts. As a result, the District did not actually begin the "draw down" until August, 1980.
The Issue The matters here presented concern the challenges by the named Petitioners to Rule Sections 17-3.061(2)(b), 17-3.111 (11), 17-3.121(14), 17-4.02(17),(19), and 17-4.28(2), Florida Administrative Code, related to definitions of "submerged lands" and "transitional zone of a submerged land" and the requirements set forth by rule provisions for permits related to dredge and fill activities in "submerged lands" and in the "transitional zone of submerged land" and water quality in Florida. The rule challenges are in keeping with the provisions of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioners claim that the rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners do not, by the challenges, question the procedures utilized in the promulgation of the subject rule provisions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Baker Cut Point Company, is a corporation which owns real estate in Key Largo, Florida, and James C. Dougherty owns the company. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is a governmental body which has been granted certain regulatory powers, to include the responsibility for requiring environmental permits for certain activities over which the Respondent has jurisdiction. In furtherance of that responsibility, the Respondent has promulgated the aforementioned rules which are the subject of this rules challenge case. The Petitioners have been subjected to the terms and conditions of the aforementioned rule provisions in the course of their application for environmental permits for developments in property in Key Largo, Florida, under DER File Nos. 44-21381 and 44-14356. Those matters were the subject of a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing in Division of Administrative Hearings' Cases Nos. 80-760 and 80-1055. The hearings in those cases were conducted on the dates described in this order and were held in view of the disputed material facts between the parties occasioned by the Respondent's stated intention to deny the permits based upon the Respondent's belief that the activities contemplated within the permit process would be in violation of certain regulatory provisions, to include those rule provisions which are the subject of this action. Throughout the process of permit review and the hearing de novo, and in response to the revisions to the original permit requests, the Respondent has continued to claim jurisdiction in keeping with the rule provisions at issue. The Baker Cut Point Company DER File No. 44-14356 letter of intent to deny dates from April 3, 1980, and the corresponding letter of intent to deny related to DER File No. 44-21381, James C. Dougherty, dates from May 27, 1980.
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Permit This case involves a 65-acre site in north Lee County owned by the City of Ft. Myers. At all material times, the land has been zoned under industrial- equivalent designations. By leases that are not part of this record, Ft. Myers has leased 21.4 acres of the 65 acres to various governmental agencies, including Lee County, Lee County Sheriff's Office, and possibly the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). The following facilities are presently located on the 21.4 acres: Juvenile Detention Center, Lee County Stockade, Price Halfway House, Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and Emergency Operations Center. By lease dated September 20, 1993, Ft. Myers leased the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres to Lee County for a term of 50 years. This lease allows Lee County to use the 43.6 acres for $1 per year, but only for the operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Under Paragraph 20 of the lease, Ft. Myers may terminate the lease if Lee County ceases to operate the facility. Likewise, Lee County may terminate the lease if the Department of Juvenile Justice ceases to fund the County's operation of the facility. Under the lease, preference is given to juvenile residents of Ft. Myers. Paragraph 22 of the lease allocates liability to Lee County for claims or damages arising from released fuels, including from pipelines. The lease is not assignable without Ft. Myer's consent. By agreement dated December 17, 1993, Ft. Myers consented to the sublease of the entire 43.6- acre parcel to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of the construction of a juvenile residential commitment facility. Lee County receives no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice. In Paragraph 10 of the agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice agrees to maintain, at its expense, "all improvements of every kind . . .." Lee County must make any repairs to improvements if the Department of Juvenile Justice fails to do so. By subsequent agreement, Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS) became the agent for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the design, permitting, and construction of the juvenile justice facility. By Application for a surface water management permit executed June 16, 1994, DMS applied for a surface water management permit for the construction and operation of a 10.9- acre project known as the Lee County Juvenile Commitment Facility. This 10.9-acre project is part of the 43.6 acres leased to Lee County and subleased to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The application states that the existing 21.4 acres of developed sites, which are leased under separate agreements to different governmental entities, "will be permitted as is." The Staff Review Summary of Respondent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) describes the purpose of the application as follows: This application is a request for Authorization for Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve a 10.9 acre Institutional project discharging to Six Mile [Cypress] Slough via onsite wetlands and road- side swales. The application also requests Authorization for Operation of a surface water management system serving a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Staff recommends approval of both authorizations with conditions. The Staff Review Summary accurately states that the owner of the land is Ft. Myers. Of questionable accuracy is the statement that Ft. Myers leases to Lee County the 21.4 acres devoted to the five existing facilities. Although Lee County probably is a lessee of some of these parcels, the Lee County Sheriff's Office is the lessee (or perhaps sublessee) of at least two parcels. One of the other parcels may involve a state agency, again under either a lease or a sublease. The Staff Review Summary inaccurately states that the project developer is Lee County. The project developer is DMS or its principal, the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Staff Review Summary reviews the existing development on the 21.4 acres. The improvements consist of the 4.8-acre Juvenile Detention Center, 2.9- acre Price Halfway House, 4.7-acre Lee County Stockade, 5.1-acre Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and 3.9-acre Emergency Operations Center. The Staff Review Summary states that the footer of the Juvenile Detention Center was inspected in February 1980. The site drains into a 1.2- acre retention pond, which was a natural pond dug out to accept the drainage from the Juvenile Detention Center. A small amount of surface flow drains from the Juvenile Detention Center to a perimeter swale that drains west into a ditch running along Ortiz Avenue. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Price Halfway House was issued in October 1982. The site drains into the 1.2-acre retention pond, which was apparently enlarged a second time to accept the additional flow. A small amount of the flow from the Price Halfway House also drains to the perimeter swale and west into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Lee County Stockade was issued on May 25, 1976. SFWMD issued an exemption and a determination that no permit was required for two additions to the stockade in 1988 and 1989. For the additional impervious surface added by these additions, one inch of water quality treatment was provided. After the abandonment of a pumping system, drainage of the stockade site consists of water building up in existing onsite ditches and sheet flowing into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary adds that a small retention area constructed at the southeast corner of the site treats stormwater from the stockade and the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. The summary adds that a small amount of stormwater drains north into an exterior swale that drains into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department in August 1977. Stormwater from the site sheetflows to exterior swales north and south of the building. When the swales fill up, the water flows into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Emergency Operations Center on October 11, 1977. Drainage from the center flows directly into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. Under "Water Quality," the Staff Review Summary reports that SFWMD "did not require compliance with discharge rate or criteria" based on Section 1.6, Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the [SFWMD] March 1994 (Basis of Review), which contains guidelines issued by SFWMD for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. The summary adds that there have been no "water quality or quantity complaints associated with this site over the past 18 years since its initial construction." Noting that a surface water management permit is requested for the entire 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary states that the above-described drainage systems for the five existing facilities are "operational and will remain as they now exist." Turning to the proposed development, the Staff Review Summary states that the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres "will also be leased to Lee County by the City for the proposed commitment facilities." The facilities are accurately described as a 5.2-acre halfway house and a 5.7-acre bootcamp, both of which will be drained by internal drainage swales and culverts flowing into detention areas, which will discharge through a control structure into onsite wetlands leading to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Addressing designed discharge rates, the Staff Review Summary acknowledges that the bootcamp's discharge rate will exceed the allowable rate for a 25-year, three-day storm event. The allowable rate is .33 cfs, and the design rate is .37 cfs. The Staff Review Summary explains that this discrepancy results from the use of the minimum size orifice (three inches) in the control structure. Addressing water quality, the Staff Review Summary reports that commercially zoned sites are required to provide one-half inch dry pretreatment for water quality unless reasonable assurance can be provided that hazardous material will not enter the surface water management system. Determining that no hazardous material will be stored or generated on the site, SFWMD did not require the one-half inch dry pretreatment of runoff. Noting that no surface water management permits have ever been issued for any part of the 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary recommends that, subject to the customary Limiting Conditions, SFWMD issue: Authorization for Construction and Operation of a 10.9 acre Institutional Project discharging to Six Mile Cypress Slough via onsite wetlands and roadside swales, Operation of a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Limiting Condition 4 states that the permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the "responsible operational entity accepted by [SFWMD], if different from the permittee." Limiting Condition 8 adds: A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirements in section 9.0, "Basis of Review . . .," has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. Special Condition 11 states: "Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of Lee County." The Permittee and the Entity Responsible for Maintenance The proposed permit consists of two authorizations. The first authorization is for the construction and operation of the surface water management system on the 10.9-acre parcel on which will be constructed the bootcamp and halfway house. The second authorization is for the operation of the existing surface water management system on the already-developed 21.4 acres and the unimproved surface water management system on the remaining 32.7 acres. There are two problems with the designation of Lee County as the entity responsible for maintaining the permitted surface water management systems. Basis of Review 9.1.B states: To satisfy [P]ermit [L]imiting [C]ondition [8], the Permittee must supply appropriate written proof, such as either by letter or resolution from the governmental entity that the governmental entity will accept the oper- ation and maintenance of all the surface water management system components . . .. The authorization for operation of the systems on the 21.4-acre and 32.7-acre parcels does not await any construction. Once the permit is issued, the authorization is effective. Therefore, all prerequisites to the designation must have been satisfied before the operation permit issues. For the 21.4-acre parcel, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County is the lessee or sublessee of all of the parcels underlying the five existing facilities. In fact, it appears that Lee County is not the lessee or sublessee of all of these parcels. Even if Lee County were the lessee or sublessee of these five parcels, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water management system for the five parcels. Contrary to Basis of Review 9.1.B, there is no written agreement by Lee County to assume operational responsibility, nor is there even an actual agreement to this effect. SFWMD's rules sensibly require that written consent be obtained before the operation permit is issued. Likewise, DMS has failed to show that Lee County has agreed to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the surface water management system for the 32.7-acre parcel. Again, SFWMD must obtain written consent before issuing the permit because no construction will precede operation for the surface water management system on this parcel. Unlike the situation as to the 21.4-acre parcel, the 32.7-acre parcel is leased to Lee County as part of the 43.6- acre parcel. But in the December 17, 1993, agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, assumes responsibility for maintaining all improvements, which arguably includes drainage improvements. As between Ft. Myers and Lee County, Lee County assumes secondary liability for the maintenance of all improvements. But the failure of the Department of Juvenile Justice to do so would likely represent a default under the agreement. In such a case, the lease and separate agreement probably would either be in litigation or Lee County would have terminated its obligations under the contracts. In either case, it is unlikely that Lee County would perform its secondary responsibility to maintain the drainage improvements, especially where it is receiving no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice and priority is given to Ft. Myers juveniles in admission decisions. Construction will precede operation as to the 10.9- acre parcel so the parties have an opportunity, even after the construction and operation permit is issued, to secure the necessary written consent before the operation permit goes into effect. But similar deficiencies exist with respect to the 10.9- acre parcel because the same agreement imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, the obligation to maintain improvements. An additional complication arises as to the 10.9-acre parcel. The Department of Juvenile Justice intends to contract with one or more private entities to operate the bootcamp and halfway house, so there is at least one more party that Lee County could claim was responsible for maintenance of the surface water management system. The question of who is responsible for maintaining the surface water management systems is important. Drainage quantities and directions can change if swales clog up with vegetation or other matter. In this case, one roadside swale in the area of the 21.4-acre parcel is blocked with vegetation. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the designated entity has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the existing systems or will assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the proposed system following its construction. Permit for Existing Development Section 1.6, Basis of Review, states: [SFWMD] issues construction and operation permits for proposed surface water management activities and operation permits for existing systems. The criteria herein are specifically designed to apply to proposed activities (construction and operation permits). Therefore, some of the criteria may not be applicable to the permitting of existing systems (operation permits). For example, in some cases, existing systems may not meet flood protection criteria. Criteria deviation for existing systems will be identified in staff reports. SFWMD has produced no evidence explicating the extent to which existing systems, such as the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, are entitled to operating permits without meeting some of the criteria applicable to proposed systems, such as the system on the 10.9-acre parcel. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to explain why certain existing systems might not have to meet certain criteria, such as flood protection criteria. Except for the quantity deviation discussed below, there is nothing in the record disclosing the extent to which SFWMD has waived, or even considered the applicability of, certain or all criteria prior to the issuance of operation permits for the existing systems. In practice, SFWMD does not adhere even to the vague standards implied in 1.6. According to the SFWMD witness, the practice of SFWMD, as reflected in this case as to the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, is to permit existing systems "as is, where is," as long as they have had no reported problems. There are numerous deficiencies in the "as is, where is" unwritten policy, apart from the obvious one that it conflicts with the assurance of 1.6 that only "some of the criteria may not be applicable" to existing systems. First, the record does not define what a "problem" is. Second, the record discloses no means by which reported problems are collected and later accessed, such as by a parcel index. The "as is, where is" policy is an abdication of the limited responsibilities that SFWMD imposes upon itself in 1.6, especially when applied to the present facts. The facts are straightforward. Neither Ft. Myers, Lee County, nor any other party has ever obtained a permit for any surface water management system, despite numerous improvements in the past 20 years requiring such permits, including the construction of a heliport, at which maintenance and refueling of helicopters takes place. In two relatively minor cases, discussed below, SFWMD erroneously determined that no permit was required. In one of those cases, the applicant, Lee County, candidly admitted the existence of a flooding problem. Based on the present record, neither DMS nor SFWMD has justified the issuance of an operation permit for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels based either on Basis of Review 1.6 or on the "as is, where is" unwritten policy. Construction of the five improvements on the 21.4 acres began between 1975 and December 1977 with construction of a portion of the Lee County Stockade building and parking, Emergency Operations Center building and parking, and a now- removed barn for the Lee County Sheriff's Office. At the same time, a lake was dug, probably for fill purposes. By the end of 1977, about 2.39 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface. From 1978 to March 1980, another 0.96 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface by the construction of a perimeter dike and road. During this period, construction commenced on the Juvenile Detention Center, adding another 1.63 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1980 and December 1981, additions were made to the Lee County Stockade building and the lake for an additional 0.45 acres of impervious area. Between December 1981 and March 1984, the Price Halfway House building and parking were constructed, adding another 0.79 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1984 and February 1986, a heliport facility and landing area were constructed for the Lee County Sheriff's Office, adding another 1.01 acres of impervious surface. Between February 1986 and February 1990, an additional 2.31 acres of impervious surface were added through additions to the Lee County Stockade and parking area, juvenile detention center, and Emergency Operations Center parking area. Between February 1990 and April 1993, another addition to the Lee County Stockade added 0.62 acres of impervious surface. An additional 0.17 acres of lake was excavated. During this time, applicable rules and statutes required permits for the construction of "works" affecting surface water, including ditches, culverts, and other construction that connects to, or draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state. The buildings, parking, other impervious surfaces, ditches, swales, dikes, lake excavations, and, at one point, addition of a now- abandoned pump all constituted "works" for which surface water management permits were required. In 1988, Lee County or Ft. Myers applied for an exemption for an addition to the Lee County Stockade. The basis for the claim of exemption was that the parcel consisted of less than 10 acres and the total impervious surface did not exceed two acres. Although rules in effect at the time required consideration of the contiguous 65 acres under common ownership and the total impervious surface for the 9.7-acre "parcel" exceeded two acres, SFWMD erroneously issued an exemption letter. The second instance involving a claim of exemption took place in 1989 when Lee County submitted plans for another addition to the Lee County Stockade, adding 0.51 acres of impervious surface. The submittal acknowledged a "flooding" problem, but promised a master drainage plan for the "entire site." SFWMD determined that no permit would be required due to the promise of a master drainage plan. No master drainage plan was ever prepared. The flooding problem precluded issuance of the operation permit on an "as is, where is" basis for the already-developed 21.4-acre parcel, even assuming that SFWMD adequately justified the use of this unwritten permitting procedure. In fact, SFWMD has not explained adequately its "as is, where is" permitting procedure or even the undelineated permitting criteria referenced in 1.6, Basis of Review. The 65- acre parcel is a poor candidate for preferential permitting of existing systems. The owner and developer constructed the existing systems in near total disregard of the law. The two times that the owner and developer complied with the permitting process involved small additions for which exemptions should not have been granted. In one case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity due to its error calculating minimum thresholds as to the areas of the parcel and the impervious surface. In the other case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity partly in reliance on a promised master drainage plan that was not later prepared. To issue operation permits for the existing systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels would reward the owner and developer of the 65-acre parcel for noncompliance with the law and provide an incentive for similarly situated landowners and developers likewise to ignore the law. Before issuing operation permits on systems that have received no comprehensive review and that have been added piecemeal over the years, SFWMD must evaluate the surface water systems on the entire 65-acre parcel to determine whether they meet all applicable criteria. The "as is, where is" unwritten policy has no applicability where there have been reports of flooding. If SFWMD chooses to dispense with criteria in reliance upon Basis of Review 1.6, it must be prepared to identify and explain which criteria are waived and why. Water Quality Basis of Review 5.2.2 provides that projects that are zoned commercial or industrial, such as the present one, must provide one-half inch of "dry" detention or retention pretreatment, unless reasonable assurances are provided "that hazardous materials will not enter the project's surface water management system." There is no existing or proposed dry detention on the 65 acres. The existing development includes the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, which serves as a heliport. The fueling and maintenance of helicopters means that contaminants may enter the stormwater draining off the site. The functioning of the surface water system on this site is therefore of particular importance. There also may be more reason to question the functioning of the surface water system on this site. It is south of the Lee County Stockade, where flooding has been reported. The heliport site has also been the subject of more elaborate drainage improvements, such as the location of a small retention pond near the Stockade boundary and a pump, the latter of which has since been abandoned. The existing system on the 21.4-acre parcel, as well as the existing and proposed systems on the remainder of the 65 acres, require dry pretreatment for reasons apart from the presence of the heliport. The materials likely to be used with the existing and proposed developments are similar to those found on residential sites. SFWMD and DMS contend that there is therefore no need to require dry pretreatment as to these areas. However, the existing and intended institutional uses, such as jails and bootcamps, represent an intensity of use that exceeds the use typical in areas zoned residential. This increased intensity implies the presence of typical residential contaminants, such as petroleum-based products or cleaning solvents, but in greater volumes or concentrations, if not also, in the case of solvents, different compositions. The lease addresses potential liability for released petroleum. In the absence of a showing that such hazardous materials are prevented from entering the runoff, SFWMD must require dry pretreatment for the systems occupying the entire 65-acre parcel. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quality criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quality criteria. Water Quantity The 65-acre parcel adjoins Ortiz Avenue on the west and property owned by Petitioners on the east and south that is undeveloped except for a borrow pit some distance from the 65- acre parcel. The parcel is roughly 1000 feet east- west and 2700 feet north-south. The proposed halfway house is at the north end of the parcel. The halfway house is situated between a proposed detention pond on the west and a recreation field on the east. A paved road divides the halfway house from the rest of the 65- acre parcel. South of the road are the Lee County Stockade on the west, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, and the Juvenile Detention Center on the east. A berm separates these two sites. The berm runs from the road along the west shore of the twice- enlarged 1.2- acre retention pond and the west boundary of the Price Halfway House, which is south of the Juvenile Detention Center. To the west of the berm, south of the Lee County Stockade, is the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department or heliport facility, which abuts Ortiz Avenue. South of the Aviation Department is an outparcel used by the Florida Department of Corrections that also abuts Ortiz Avenue. East of the outparcel is the proposed halfway house with a proposed detention pond west of the halfway house and south of the outparcel. The Emergency Operations Center, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, is south of the detention pond and surrounded on three sides by the 32.7 acres to be left undisturbed at this time. There are perimeter berms around all of the parcels except for the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, which are served by a single berm, and the Emergency Operations Center, which appears not to be bermed. The prevailing natural drainage is not pronounced either by direction or volume because the land is nearly level. The natural direction of drainage is to the south and west and remains so on Petitioners' land to the east and south and the undisturbed 32.7 acres to the south. The variety of drainage directions within the remainder of the 65- acre parcel reflects the extent to which berms, swales, ponds, pumps, roads, buildings, parking areas, and other works have been added to the northerly parcels. Runoff reaching the northern boundary of the 65 acres will be diverted due west around the proposed detention pond to the swale running along the east side of Ortiz Avenue. Runoff from the recreation field and halfway house building and parking area drain into the proposed detention pond, which releases water through a gravity control device to the Ortiz Avenue swale. There appears to be a connection routing some runoff from the south side of the recreation field to the Juvenile Detention Center, where it travels west in a roadside swale to the Ortiz Avenue swale. A little less than half of the area of the Juvenile Detention Center site drains into perimeter swales along the north and east borders and then to the west before emptying into the Ortiz Avenue swale. The remainder of the Juvenile Detention Center drains into the retention pond. The same is true of the Price Halfway House. The Lee County Stockade drains to each of its borders where the water then runs west along the north or south border to the Ortiz Avenue swale. The southern half of the Lee County Stockade site drains into the small retention pond at the northwest corner of the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. Most of the runoff from the heliport facility runs to the southwest corner of the parcel, which is the location of the abandoned pump. From there, the runoff continues to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Very little if any of the runoff from the heliport enters the small retention pond on the northwest corner of the parcel. The bootcamp drains into the detention pond, which then releases water by a gravity control structure into a portion of the undisturbed 32.7-acres before entering the Ortiz Avenue swale. The Emergency Operations Center site drains in all directions away from the building and parking area, eventually draining into the Ortiz Avenue swale. Stormwater discharge rates from the proposed halfway house and bootcamp are 0.28 cfs and 0.37 cfs. Under SFWMD rules, the allowable maximums in the Six Mile Cypress drainage basin are 0.30 cfs and 0.33 cfs, respectively. SFWMD and DMS contend that the excessive discharge from the bootcamp is acceptable because the gravity control device for the proposed detention pond is of the smallest size allowable, given the indisputable need to avoid clogging and ensuing upstream flooding. Initially, SFWMD approved the discharge rates for the halfway house and bootcamp because, when combined, they did not exceed the total allowable value. However, this approach was invalid for two reasons. First, the two sites contain entirely independent drainage systems separated by several hundred feet. Second, after correcting an initial understatement for the value for the halfway house, the actual total exceeds the maximum allowable total. SFWMD contends that the slight excess is acceptable because of the inability to use a smaller orifice in the gravity control structure. However, the discharge quantity easily could have been reduced by design alternatives, such as enlarging the detention pond, which is mostly surrounded by land that is to be left undisturbed. The ease with which the minimum-orifice problem could have been avoided rebuts the presumption contained in Basis of Review 7.2.A that excessive discharge quantities are presumably acceptable if due to the inability to use a smaller orifice. Also, SFWMD and DMS have failed to show that the effect of the excessive discharge quantities is negligible, so the exception in the SFWMD manual for negligible impacts is unavailable. Neither SFWMD nor DMS provided any reasonable assurance as to the quantity of discharge from the 21.4 acres. Rough estimates suggest it is more likely that the quantity of discharge may greatly exceed the allowable maximum. SFWMD must evaluate the water-quantity issues before issuing operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels and a construction and operation permit for the 10.9-acre parcel. Obviously, if SFWMD determines that all water quantity criteria are met as to the existing systems, it may issue operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels. Otherwise, SFWMD must quantify the extent of the deviation and, if it seeks to waive compliance with any or all quantity standards in reliance on Basis of Review 1.6, evaluate the effect of the waiver and explain the basis for the waiver. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quantity criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quantity criteria. Impacts on Adjacent Lands Petitioners' property is impacted by the above- described drainage in two ways. First, Petitioners' property abutting the east side of Ortiz Avenue, south of the 65 acres, is especially vulnerable to flooding because the Ortiz Avenue swale is not a V-notch, but a half-V. The closed side of the swale prevents the water from running onto Ortiz Avenue. The open side of swale abuts Petitioners' property, so, if the swale's capacity is exceeded, stormwater will be released onto Petitioners' land. Second, perimeter berming along the east side of the 10.9- and 21.4- acre parcels will impede flow off the part of Petitioners' property located to the east of the 65 acres. A swale between the proposed halfway house and the Juvenile Detention Center will receive runoff from a small portion of Petitioners' property to the east and mostly north of the 65 acres. But there is no indication how much runoff from Petitioners' property can be so accommodated, how much runoff is impeded by the existing berm along the east side of the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, and how much runoff will be impeded by the addition of new berms along the east side of the proposed halfway house and bootcamp. Basis of Review 6.8 requires that swales and dikes allow the passage of drainage from off-site areas to downstream areas. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality or quantity impacts on adjacent lands. Neither SFWMD nor DMS obtained topographical information for Petitioners' property, as required by the Basis of Review. Rough estimates suggest that the proposed project may require Petitioners' property to retain considerably more stormwater from the design storm event of 25 years, three days. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact on Petitioners' upstream and downstream land.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of the Department of Management Services for all permits for the operation and construction and operation of surface water management systems on the 65-acre parcel. ENTERED on June 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 19, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Petitioners 1-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-24 (first sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 24 (remainder)-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-53: rejected as subordinate. 54-64 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 64 (second sentence)-66: rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent SFWMD 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as unnecessary. 13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (except for last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-32 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 32 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that the proposed ponds are wet detention. 35 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 35 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-47: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 48-50 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 50 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 51-52, 55-57 (first sentence), and 58: adopted or adopted in substance, although insufficient water quality treatment. 53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance, except after "therefore." None of remainder logically follows from what is said in 1.6. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 62-64: rejected as subordinate, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. 65: rejected as subordinate. 66: rejected as irrelevant. The burden is on the applicant and SFWMD, if it wishes to issue the permits, to provide reasonable assurances as to the adverse impact of the drainage systems. 67-68: rejected as subordinate. 69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 71: rejected as repetitious. 72: rejected as irrelevant, except for past report of flooding, which is rejected as repetitious. 73: rejected as repetitious. 74: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 75 (first three sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 75 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 1 and 2: rejected as irrelevant insofar as the same result is reached with or without the permit modifications. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent DMS 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the excessive discharge was not "caused" by the minimum-sized orifice, only defended on that basis. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that no flooding problems existed. 16: rejected as recitation of evidence. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as irrelevant. 19: adopted or adopted in substance, to the extent that separateness of systems is relevant. 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23-30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, based on the present record. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and relevance. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Russell P. Schropp Harold N. Hume, Jr. Henderson Franklin P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, Fl 33902 O. Earl Black, Jr. Stephen S. Mathues Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Vincent J. Chen Toni M. Leidy South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water requested in the application should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500137 seeks an average daily withdrawal of 2.4 million gallons of water with maximum daily withdrawal not more than 2.88 million gallons from an existing well in order to process phosphate and reclaim land. This is an existing use for mining operations located southwest of Lakeland, Florida, on land consisting of 1531 acres. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Lakeland Ledger, on November 11 & 18, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit of publication were admitted into evidence without objection as Composite Exhibit 1, together with correspondence from James R. Brown, Vice President, Dagus Engineers, Inc., dated November 19, 1975 to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. No objections were received by the Water Management District as to the application. Mr. George Szell, hydrologist of the Water Management District testified that the application met the conditions for a consumptive use permit as set forth in Chapter 16J-2.11, Florida Administrative Code, except that the quantity of water requested to be withdrawn is 41.06 per cent over the maximum average daily withdrawal permitted under the water crop theory as set forth in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. However, the Water Management District witness recommended waiver of that provision since the mining operations will be concluded in several years and thereafter the water table and hydrologic conditions will return to normal. The Water District staff recommended approval of the application with the condition that a meter be installed on the well and that the applicant be required to take monthly readings thereof and submit quarterly reports of the readings to the District. The applicant's representative agreed to these conditions at the hearing.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500137 submitted by Poseidon Mines, Inc., for a consumptive water use permit be granted on the condition that a meter be installed on the applicant's well and that monthly readings be taken and submitted quarterly by the applicant to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It is further recommended that the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Rule 16J-2.11(5), for good cause, grant an exception to the provisions of Rule 16J-2.11(3), as being consistent with the public interest. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J.T. Ahern, Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Poseidon Mines, Inc. P.O. Box 5172 Bartow, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent Sarasota County Public Utilities Department (Sarasota County) has provided reasonable assurances pursuant to Rule 17- 555.530(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, that its proposed water treatment plant will comply with each applicable water quality standard contained in Part III, Chapter 17-550, Florida Administrative Code. Whether Respondent Sarasota County has provided reasonable assurance pursuant to Rule 17-555.530(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that its proposed water treatment plant meets adequate engineering design complying with the applicable engineering principles established in Rules 17-555.310 through 17-555.160, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: STIPULATED FACTS Sarasota County Utilities Department is a department established by Sarasota County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and operates a public utility department which is charged with meeting, among other things, potable water needs of the residents of Sarasota County. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, HRS was responsible for receiving applications and issuing permits for the construction of water treatment plants and the accompanying well field. Petitioner, Charles P. Page, is a resident of Sarasota County and resides at 259 Glen Oak Road, Venice, Florida. Sarasota County filed an Application for a Water Treatment Plant Construction Permit with HRS seeking to construct a well water collection system and a 12 mgd - electrodialysis treatment plant having an auxiliary power system to provide power for the well field and water treatment plant. Sarasota County has previously obtained a water use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) #208836.00, restricting Sarasota County to feed water for the water treatment plant to 7,303,000.00 gallons average daily withdrawal and 9,625,000.00 gallons peak monthly withdrawal. Sarasota County has received permits for the eleven (11) production wells from HRS. It was the duty of HRS to review the plans and specifications and all supporting documentation to assure that they address and meet every requirement listed in Rule 17-555, Florida Administrative Code, for the issuance of a construction permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permit No. PATS No. 204307 & WC No. 1591-91-036 to Respondent Sarasota County, as set forth in the Notice of Intent To Issue dated February 20, 1992, provided that the grant of the subject permit shall include the general and specific conditions in the Intent To Issue with the further recommendation that the third required specific condition found on page 1 of the Specific Conditions be modified as follows: Construction of the electrodialysis reversal water treatment plant covered by this permit shall not begin prior to the issuance of a permit as required by State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the EDR concentrate discharge facility. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 21st day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2002 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statute, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 22(47); 23(48); 24(19-20) 29(49); 38(5); 39(19); 42-43(19,20); and 51(49). 2. Proposed finding(s) of fact 2,3,5,6,7,11,14,15,16,18, 19,20,21,25,26,30,31,35,40,45,46,47,49,and 50 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding or the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order. Proposed finding(s) of fact 4,8,9,10,12,13,17,27,28,and 41 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed finding(s) of fact 32,33,34,36,37, and 48 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 44 is rejected as not being the "opinion" of the Hearing Officer. The transcript will show that the Hearing Officer was only restating the testimony of Judith Richtar. But see Finding of Fact 49. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Sarasota County The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified if the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1 - 20(1) - 20, respectively); 21(27); 22 - 26(22 - 26, respectively); 27(28); 28(29); 29(31); and 30 - 44(32 - 46, respectively). For proposed findings of fact 45 through 65 see Findings of Fact 51 and 52. Proposed findings of fact 66 through 68 are unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation adopted Sarasota County's proposed findings of fact 1 through 44, 63 and 64, and 66 with modification. Therefore, the rulings on the Department's proposed findings of fact would be the same as the previous rulings on Sarasota County's proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Wheeler Pitzer, Esquire 546 47th Street Sarasota, FL 34234 William A. Dooley, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, et al. 2070 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, FL 33237 Joseph W. Landers, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 W. College Avenue, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Save the Manatee Club has standing in this proceeding? Whether the exemptions in paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, (the Exemptions) are "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority" as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes? Whether the Exemptions violate the prohibitions and restrictions on agency rulemaking contained in the last four sentences of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc., is a not-for- profit corporation dedicated to protecting the manatee. Respondent, The Southwest Florida Water Management District, is one of five water management districts in the State of Florida. A public corporation created pursuant to Chapter 61- 691, Laws of Florida, the District's geographic boundaries encompass a number of counties or some part of them including the three counties on the shores of Tampa Bay: Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee. See Section 373.069(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Within this boundary, the District is generally charged with the protection of water resources and with the management and storage of surface waters of the State pursuant to Part IV, Section 373.403 et seq., Florida Statutes. Intervenor, South Shores Properties Partners, Ltd., is a limited partnership composed of a subsidiary of Tampa Electric Company (TECO) and another business organization, Shimberg Cross Company, referred to by its President Glen Cross as "actually SCSS" (Tr. 133), apparently an acronym for Shimberg Cross Company. Mr. Cross' company is the general partner in the South Shores partnership. South Shores was formed in anticipation of closing on a contract entered by Shimberg Cross to purchase a parcel of real estate in Hillsborough County. The closing proceeded in January of 1998. On January 23, 1998, eight days or so before the closing, South Shores was formed as "a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Florida." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 15). It succeeded to the contract rights of Shimberg Cross and then, pursuant to the closing, became the owner of the real estate subject to the contract. South Shores hopes to sell the property to Atlantic Gulf Communities, an organization that will actually develop it. If the arrangement with Atlantic Gulf Communities is not consummated, South Shores will look for another developer or develop the property itself. No matter what party (if any) is the actual developer, South Shores, as the present owner, now seeks the benefit of the Exemptions in support of a District- issued conceptual permit for development of the parcel in Hillsborough County (the Parcel). The Parcel and Its Proposed Development The Parcel is 720 acres in southwestern Hillsborough County. South Shores proposes to use it for a multi-phase, mixed-use project. The development project is denominated "Apollo Beach aka (sic) Bay Side" (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) on the draft of the conceptual permit attached to the District's Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Atlantic Gulf Communities calls it "Harbor Bay". (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4). (It will be referred to in this order as Apollo Beach/Bay Side). If all goes as planned by South Shores, the Parcel's developer (whether South Shores, Atlantic Gulf Communities, or some other party) will be able to provide the residential portion of Apollo Beach/Bay Side with direct access by boat to Tampa Bay through an existing canal system on the Parcel. For now access to the bay is blocked by an earthen berm or "plug." With the plug in place, boat access to the bay from the canals can only be achieved by means of a boat lift. A lagoon is also part of South Shores' development plans for Apollo Beach/Bayside. Not yet excavated, the lagoon will allow residents to harbor boats close to their residences. If the lagoon is dug, a boat lift (different from the one necessary to allow boats to cross the plug if left in place) will be constructed to give the boats access to the canal system. With access to the canal system established, once the plug is removed, the boats will have unrestricted access to Tampa Bay. In the "Abstract" section of the conceptual permit proposed for issuance by the District, the project was described as follows: Apollo Beach (a.k.a. Bay Side) is a proposed multi-phase, mixed use development on approximately 720.0 acres in . . . Southwestern Hillsborough County. The project will include single-family and multi- family residential areas and commercial sites. The property is in close proximity to Tampa Bay, West of U.S. Highway 41 and immediately south of the existing Apollo Beach development. The site is presently undeveloped but does contain an existing manmade canal system that is tidally connected to Tampa Bay. The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project has an Environmental Resource Permit exemption pursuant to Chapters 40D-4.051(3)(5) and (6), F.A.C. and will only require Standard General Permits for Minor Surface Water Management Systems for the future construction in accordance with Chapter 40D-4.041(4), F.A.C. Because of this exemption, this Conceptual Permit will only review the storm water quality aspects of the project in accordance with 40D-301(2) and will not address storm water quantity issues or impacts to wetland/fish and wildlife habitats. The project will include the realignment of existing Leisley Road and the construction of a roadway system to serve the proposed residential and commercial areas. The project will also include the excavation of a "fresh water Lagoon" approximately 136 acres in size. Most of the proposed single-family residential lots will be constructed on the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. Surface water runoff from the upland portions of the project will be treated in 25 proposed ponds or isolated wetlands prior to discharge to the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13.) The ultimate effects to manatees of the proposed development project, if completed, were described by Ms. Thompson, the Club's witness: A typical project such as this one will introduce a good number of powerboats into the system, in this case, Tampa Bay. And manatees are impacted by powerboats either through propeller injuries or through collision with the hull of a fast-moving boat and the results are either death or in some cases sublethal injuries that may have other consequences such as inability to reproduce, et cetera. . . . [T]he very same boats can affect manatee habitat by prop scarring, boats going over sea grass beds and destroying the grasses. They also, in shallow water, kick up . . . turbidity which can affect light attenuation reaching the sea grass beds. And then there are the water quality issues which have secondary impacts to the sea grass beds . . . (Tr. 96). The Exemptions preliminarily afforded South Shore by the District will allow the removal of the plug in the canal system. Because removal of the plug will facilitate access to Tampa Bay by power boats harbored in the lagoon, it is the issue about the development of the Parcel that most concerns the Club in its efforts to protect manatees in Tampa Bay and elsewhere. Standing of Save the Manatee Club (i). The Manatee The manatee is the "Florida State marine mammal." Section 370.12(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Designated an endangered species under both federal and state law, 50 CFR s. 17.11 and Rule 39-27.003, Florida Administrative Code, the manatee is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. In Florida, the manatee enjoys, too, the protection of the Florida Endangered Species Act and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. The State of Florida has been declared to be "a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee." Id. The Club's Purpose and Activities The Club's primary purpose is to protect the manatee and its habitat through public awareness, research support and advocacy. Long active in efforts to protect the manatee, the Club has achieved special status in manatee protection in Florida. In 1996, it was the recipient of a resolution by the Florida Legislature's House of Representative recognizing its endeavors on behalf of the manatee. The Club has been designated a member of the Manatee Technical Advisory Council provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. See sub-sections (2)(p) and (4)(a) of section 370.12(2)(p) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department of Environmental Protection annually solicits recommendations from the Club regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies. In furtherance of its efforts, the Club has frequently participated before the Division of Administrative Hearings in administrative litigation involving manatees and manatee habitat on behalf of itself and its members. (iii). The Club's Membership The Club has approximately 40,000 members. The number of individual persons who are members of the Club, however, is far in excess of this number because many members are groups that receive membership at discounted fees. For example, a family may be one member or, as is quite common, an entire elementary school classroom may be one member. One-quarter of the Club's membership resides in Florida. Approximately 2,200 of the members are on the west coast of Florida with 439 in Hillsborough County, 584 in Pinellas and 165 in Manatee. The total number of members is therefore about 1,188 in the three counties whose shores are washed by Tampa Bay. (iv). Tampa Bay Tampa Bay is "prime essential manatee habitat." (Tr. 65). At least two factors make this so: the Bay's sea grass beds (manatee feeding areas) and warm water sources, particularly in winter, three of which are "power plant effluence." (Tr. 77). Not surprisingly, therefore, the Club has funded long- term research on the manatee in Tampa Bay. It has "provided about ten years of financial support for aerial surveys to count manatees in Tampa Bay and determine their distribution and the health of the sea grass beds . . ." (Tr. 75), a research project which finished last year. This research has contributed to other manatee research in the Bay leading the Club's witness at hearing to conclude, "[t]here's no other place in the state of Florida that has as long a term, as comprehensive a [manatee] database as Tampa Bay." (Tr. 76). Other activities in Tampa Bay conducted by the Club include the placement of manatee awareness signs. And the Club's staff biologist sits on the Tampa Bay Manatee Awareness Coalition established by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. In sum, the quality of manatee habitat in Tampa Bay is enough to make it especially important to the Club. But, its importance to the Club takes on added significance because it is the site of one of only three adoption programs the Club sponsors in Florida. The Tampa Bay Adoption Program The Tampa Bay Adopt-a-Manatee Program was established in April of 1999. The six manatees subject to the Tampa Bay Manatee Adoption Program (as of October 7, 1999) have been adopted by 1,229 members, 284 of which have been schools. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). Those adopting receive a photo of the manatee, a biography, a scar pattern sheet, and a map showing their manatees' favorite habitat areas along the west coast of Florida. Of the six "Tampa Bay Adoption" program manatees, five have been seen in Tampa Bay and one south of Tampa Bay in the Marco Island area. Of the five seen in the bay, four "winter at the warm water discharge area of Tampa Electric Company's power plant" (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, Tr. 67) where they can be observed by members of the Club and the Tampa Bay adoption program as well as by the public. The TECO Power Plant The TECO power plant area is the major warm water refuge for manatees known to frequent Tampa Bay, particularly during the winter. The waters near the plant have been observed to be the host of more than 100 manatees at one time, following the movement of cold fronts through the area. The plant has a manatee-viewing center, one of the two principal places in the state for viewing manatees in the wild. The Club's membership handbook gives detailed information about how to see manatees at the TECO viewing center. During the winter months, the Club frequently directs its members to the TECO viewing center. Precisely how many individuals, either as members of the Club through a group membership or as members, themselves, actually have viewed manatees at the TECO viewing center or elsewhere in Tampa Bay was not established. Nor was any competent estimate made of how many might visit the TECO viewing center in the future. The viewing center and the power plant are in the vicinity of Apollo Beach/Bay Side, the development project South Shores seeks to have approved for an Environmental Resource Permit (the ERP). The SWFWMD ERP Program Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, governs water resources in the state and sets out the powers and duties of the water management districts, including their permitting powers. Part IV of the chapter covers the management and storage of surface waters. According to SWFWMD rules, "'Environmental Resource Permit' means a conceptual, individual, or general permit for a surface water management system issued pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes." Rule 40D-4.021, Florida Administrative Code. The permit issued to South Shores in this case through the application of the challenged Exemptions, is a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit. See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13 and Rule 40D-4.021(2), Florida Administrative Code. The conceptual permit preliminarily issued South Shores is one that was reviewed by the Club's staff, just as it reviews many permit applications for potential effects to manatees. Because of use of the Exemptions as proposed by the District to South Shores, however, any review the Club conducted to assure that the permit met all general permitting criteria was of no use. Much of those criteria were not applied by the District to the application. If the Exemptions were not available to South Shores, the District would have to employ ERP permitting criteria to the surface water management activities associated with the development project, including removal of the plug, lagoon construction, and boat lift installation. The Exemptions, therefore, keep the Club from participating in what otherwise would be the process for the District's administrative decision on the application of those criteria. In sum, the Exemptions preempt the Club's participation in the state mechanism provided by ERP permitting criteria for assessing, inter alia, threats to the manatee and its habitat from harms associated with the proposed development project. The District recognized this effect of the permit in the draft of the permit. The draft states: "Because of this Exemption, this Conceptual Permit will . . . not address . . . impacts to . . . wildlife habitat." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13). The Exemptions, therefore, prevent the Club from carrying out functions useful to protection of manatee habitat, that is, participation in the District's application of wildlife habitat protection criteria. The non-application by the District of permit criteria related to wildlife habitat protection and the Club's inability to assure itself that the criteria are correctly applied poses the danger that manatee habitat will be lost, diminished or damaged. If the Club is ultimately proved right in its assertion that the manatee and its habitat will be damaged by the South Shores development without application of permitting criteria related to wildlife habitat, then the approved application increases the threat that Club members will encounter greater difficulty in observing, studying and enjoying manatees in the wild and in Tampa Bay in particular. Standing of South Shores to Intervene The District has no opposition to South Shores' intervention. As for the Club's position with regard to South Shores intervention, the Club stipulated to South Shores' standing to intervene in a notice filed with its proposed order. South Shores benefits, moreover, from the application of the Exemptions to its proposed project. In light of not having to show compliance with permitting criteria otherwise applicable, South Shores will escape some permitting costs and therefore, enjoys economic benefit. Furthermore, by allowing South Shores to avoid the requirements of compliance with ERP permitting criteria, the Exemptions facilitate fulfillment of the obligation of South Shores to obtain a permit to develop. The District's Rule-making Authority The District governing board has been granted general authority by the Legislature to adopt rules to implement the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972: The governing board of the district is authorized to adopt rules . . . to implement the provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. The Legislature has framed this authority in relationship to the District's power to administer the Chapter and its Part IV: In administering the provisions of this chapter the governing board has authority to adopt rules . . . to implement provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. In another provision in Chapter 373, the district has been given rule-making authority that exceeds the authority to implement specific provisions granted typically to most administrative agencies in Florida. This authority is broad indeed. Tied to water use in general, it is bound only by unspecified conditions as warranted: . . . governing boards, . . . may: Adopt rules . . . affecting the use of water, as conditions warrant, . . . Section 373.171, Florida Statutes. The Exemptions; Specific Authority and Laws Implemented The Exemptions are as follows: 40D-4.051 Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from [ERP] permitting under this chapter: * * * (3) Any project, work or activity which has received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction and is under construction prior to October 1, 1984. *(4) Any project, work or activity which received a surface water management permit from the District prior to October 1, 1984. * * * Any phased or long term buildout project, including a development of regional impact, planned unit development, development with a master plan or master site plan, or similar project, which has received local or regional approval prior to October 1, 1984, if: The approval process requires a specific site plan and provides for a master drainage plan approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, and The Developer has notified the District of its intention to rely upon this exemption prior to April 1, 1985. Projects exempt under this subsection shall continue to be subject to the District's surface water management rules in effect prior to October 1, 1984. As specific authority, the Rule containing the Exemptions references 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171, and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. For "Law Implemented", the Rule lists Sections 373.406, 373.413 and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. Section 373.414(9) is cited by the Rule both as specific authority and as one of the laws implemented. The first of the statutory provisions cited by the Rule as a law implemented is Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. It reads: 373.406 Exemptions.- The following exemptions shall apply: Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any natural person to capture, discharge, and use water for purposes permitted by law. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture to alter the topography of any tract of land for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to be applicable to construction, operation, or maintenance of any agricultural closed system. However, part II of this chapter shall be applicable as to the taking and discharging of water for filling, replenishing, and maintaining the water level in any such agricultural closed system. This subsection shall not be construed to eliminate the necessity to meet generally accepted engineering practices for construction, operation, and maintenance of dams, dikes, or levees. All rights and restrictions set forth in this section shall be enforced by the governing board or the Department of Environmental Protection or its successor agency, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to establish a basis for a cause of action for private litigants. The department or the governing board may by rule establish general permits for stormwater management systems which have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. The department or the governing board also may establish by rule exemptions or general permits that implement interagency agreements entered into pursuant to s. 373.046, s. 378.202, s. 378.205, or s. 378.402. Any district or the department may exempt from regulation under this part those activities that the district or department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district. The district and the department are authorized to determine, on a case-by- case basis, whether a specific activity comes within this exemption. Requests to qualify for this exemption shall be submitted in writing to the district or department, and such activities shall not be commenced without a written determination from the district or department confirming that the activity qualifies for the exemption. Nothing in this part, or in any rule or order adopted under this part, may be construed to require a permit for mining activities for which an operator receives a life-of-the-mine permit under s. 378.901. Certified aquaculture activities which apply appropriate best management practices adopted pursuant to s. 597.004 are exempt from this part. For the most part, this section sets out general classes of exemptions. And it allows the District to consider whether an activity comes within an exemption on a "case-by-case" basis. See Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. But, none of these "exemptions" appear to have anything to do with the grandfather protections provided by the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. See paragraphs 93-96, below. Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, in pertinent part, reads: (1) Except for the exemptions set forth herein, the governing board or the department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the construction or alteration of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. The department or the governing board may delineate areas within the district wherein permits may be required. Other than to make reference in subsection (1)to the existence of exemptions under Part IV of Chapter 373: "Except for the exemptions set forth herein . . .", Section 373.413 does not deal at all with exemptions. Certainly, it does not make reference with any specificity to the subject matter of the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. Cited both as "specific authority" and "law implemented" is paragraph (9) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Unlike Sections 373.406 and 373.413, it has a connection to the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding as is seen from perusal of the underscored language, below: (9) The department and the governing boards, on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provision of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. Such rules shall seek to achieve a statewide, coordinated and consistent permitting approach to activities regulated under this part. Variations in permitting criteria in the rules of individual water management districts or the department shall only be provided to address differing physical or natural characteristics. Such rules adopted pursuant to this subsection shall include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(29) and may include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(35). Such rules shall include a provision requiring that a notice of intent to deny or a permit denial based upon this section shall contain an explanation of the reasons for such denial and an explanation, in general terms, of what changes, if any, are necessary to address such reasons for denial. Such rules may establish exemptions and general permits, if such exemptions and general permits do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively . . . (emphasis supplied.) History of the Exemptions The Exemptions have been adopted twice and amended several times. One of the amendments and the second adoption followed omnibus legislation in the environmental permitting arena: the amendment in the wake of the passage of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, and the second adoption in the aftermath of the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (i). Amendment after the Henderson Act The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, (the "Henderson Act", later codified as Part VII of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes) was enacted through Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida. Approved by the Governor on June 1, 1984 and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on the same day, (see Laws of Florida, 1984, General Acts, Vol.1, Part One, p. 224) the Act had an effective date of October 1, 1984. The Henderson Act does not amend any provision in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the part of the Water Resources Act which delineates water management district authority over the program for permitting related to the management and storage of surface waters ("MSSW"). Nonetheless, between the adoption of the Henderson Act and its effective date, the District amended and adopted rules in Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40 of the Florida Administrative Code because of the Act's passage. Rule 40D-4.011 set out the policy for the amendments and adoptions: (2) The rules in this chapter implement the comprehensive surface water management permit system contemplated in part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. As a result of the passage of Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida, the Warren G. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, the District has adopted the rules in this Chapter and Chapter 40D-40 to ensure continued protection of the water resources of the District including wetlands and other natural resources. (Exhibit OR 4, See the page containing paragraph (2) of Rule 40D- 4.011 in the exhibit.) /1 Exhibit OR 4, a document officially recognized during this proceeding, is denominated "SWFWMD's Rule Amendment No. 116." The exhibit contains a letter on SWFWMD letterhead, signed by Dianne M. Lee for "J. Edward Curren, Attorney - Regulation" dated September 5, 1984. Under cover of the letter is a rule package filed by the District with the Secretary of State on September 11, 1984. Included in the package is the newly amended Rule 40D-4.051. The amended 40D-4.051 contains subparagraphs (3), (5) and (6), the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. They are worded precisely as they remain worded today. Consistent with the policy expressed in Rule 40D-4.011, Florida Administrative Code as filed in September of 1984, the effective date of the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions was the effective date of the Henderson Act: October 1, 1984. The Exemptions contained in the amendment filed in September of 1984 are "grandfather provisions." The first two are designed to protect certain projects, work or activities from the requirements of the Henderson Act if they had governmental approvals on October 1, 1984. The third is designed to protect from the Act "phased or long term buildout project[s]" that meet certain requirements, among them receipt of governmental approvals by October 1, 1984. At the time of the 1984 amendments, the Rule cited to Sections 373.044, 373.113, 373.149 and 373.171 for "Specific Authority," that is, the statutory source for the district's authority to make rules. For "Law Implemented" the Rule cited to Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. At that time, Section 373.406 contained only four subsections. These four are worded substantially the same as the first four subsections of the section today. Although Section 373.406 was the only law implemented by the Rule in 1984, the section is neither mentioned in nor part of the Henderson Act. The section, itself, does not make mention of the Henderson Act or of protection from it based on government approvals obtained by October 1, 1984. Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in its form both immediately before and after the Henderson Act provided exemptions that appear to have nothing to do with the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. The only connection between Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in 1984 and the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding when amended into the Rule in 1984 appears to be the use of the term "exemptions." The exemptions set out in the Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, as it existed in 1984, are not related to grandfather protection from the effects the Henderson Act had on the District's permitting considerations. Following the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions, the Rule was amended further. It was amended on October 1, 1986, March 1, 1988, and January 24, 1990. None of these amendments appear to have affected the Exemptions under consideration in this proceeding. The Rule became the subject of rule promulgation by the District again, however, as a result of a second omnibus act of the Legislature in the environmental permitting arena, the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (ii). The Reorganization Act of 1993 Nine years after the passage of the Henderson Act, the Legislature enacted the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993 (the "Reorganization Act"). Passed as Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, the Session Law declares its underlying policy: Declaration of Policy.-- The protection, preservation, and restoration of air, water, and other natural resources of this state are vital to the social and economic well-being and the quality of life of the citizens of this state and visitors to this state. It is the policy of the Legislature: To develop a consistent state policy for the protection and management of the environment and natural resources. To provide efficient governmental services to the public. To protect the functions of entire ecological systems through enhanced co- ordination of public land acquisition, regulatory, and planning programs. To maintain and enhance the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the environmental agencies of the state in the most efficient and effective manner. To streamline governmental services, providing for delivery of such services to the public in a timely, cost-efficient manner. Section 2., Ch. 93-213, Laws of Florida. The Reorganization Act carried out this policy in a number of ways. Among these, it merged the Departments of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Natural Resources into the Department of Environmental Protection. In so doing and at the same time, it incorporated DER's dredge and fill permitting program instituted by the Henderson Act into the programs of the water management districts for the Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW). The permitting program that resulted from the consolidation of DER's dredge and fill permitting program with the District's MSSW permitting program is what has been referred to in this order as the Environmental Resource Permitting or ERP program. With regard to rules under the new ERP program, the Reorganization Act amended Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Two sentences in subsection (9) of the amended section bear repeating: The department and the governing boards [of the water management districts], on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provisions of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. * * * Such rules may establish exemptions . . . if such exemptions . . . do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively. . . . As discussed earlier in this order, the Henderson Act did not directly create exemptions in the District's MSSW permitting program. Nonetheless, the District through the Exemptions of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, provided "grandfather" protections in the wake of the Act effective October 1, 1984. Whereas grandfather concerns were raised in front of the District after the Henderson Act, grandfather concerns and concerns about other situation that should be entitled to exemptions were raised to the Legislature during the advent of the Reorganization Act. These concerns were addressed in the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act, itself. The Act provided specific exemptions that were self- executing. Included were ones providing grandfather protection for certain activities approved under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, (DER's dredge and fill program) from imposition of new ERP permitting criteria expected to be promulgated in the wake of the Reorganization Act. The are contained in subsections (11) through (16) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. None of these exemptions make reference to the Exemptions at issue in this case. Of these provisions, only one addresses activities subject to rules adopted pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373 prior to the anticipated ERP permitting criteria: An application under this part for dredging and filling or other activity, which is submitted and complete prior to the effective date of [the anticipated ERP rules] shall be reviewed under the rules adopted pursuant to this part [including the Exemptions in Rule 40D-4.051] and part VIII of chapter 403 in existence prior to the effective date of the [anticipated ERP rules] and shall be acted upon by the agency which received the application, unless the applicant elects to have such activities reviewed under the [anticipated ERP rules]. Chapter 93-213, Section 30, p. 2149 of Laws of Florida, 1993, General Acts, Vol. 1, Part Two, now Section 373.414(14), Florida Statutes. 2/ Rule Activity in 1995 In observance of the mandate in the first section of Section 373.414(9), Florida Statutes, the District undertook adoption of rules "to incorporate the provisions of [Section 373.414] . . . into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters." These rules were the ERP rules anticipated by the Reorganization Act. They included the rules necessary for the District to administer under its ERP program its newfound authority over much of the dredge and fill permitting program formerly administered by DER and now consolidated with its permitting authority in its MSSW rules. Among the rules passed under the authority of the Reorganization Act's Section 373.414(9) is Rule 40D-4.051, the Rule containing the Exemptions subject to this proceeding. Filed with the Secretary of State on September 13, 1995, the adoption package for the new readopted states the following, in pertinent part: 40D-4.051 Exemptions The following activities are exempt from permitting under this chapter [Individual ERPs]: (1) - (7) - No change. (Exhibit OR 6, p. 14). The result of this adoption is that the Exemptions became part of the District's ERP Rules. They now apply to both the MSSW authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, which existed prior to the Reorganization Act, and, in a consolidated fashion, the District's authority conferred by the Reorganization Act to regulate certain dredge and fill activity formerly regulated by DER.
