The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent violated Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes, specifically Sections 386.041, 381.0061, 381.065, and 386.03, and Rules 10D-6.043(2) and 10D-6.0571. If the Respondent committed the charged violations, it must be determined whether a fine should be imposed and the amount of any such fine.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the installation and continued maintenance of OSDS's, within the guidelines of the statutes and rules cited below. In the event violations of the rules regarding the safe operation and maintenance of OSDS's are detected, HRS has the authority to require correction of the unsafe, human-health conditions involving such systems and to impose penalties for the failure to adequately correct such unsafe health situations. In order to secure enforcement of the statutes and rules concerning the installation and operation of OSDS's, HRS has the authority to issue Administrative Complaints initiating formal enforcement proceedings such as the one at bar. The Respondent is a citizen of the State of Florida and owns the property located at 835 N.W. 109th Drive in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The Respondent owns and operates an OSDS on that property which serves her personal residence for the on-site containment, disposal and treatment of sewage generated by that residence. In the spring of 1992, the Respondent detected problems with the OSDS on her property. The problems were noticed because of a difficulty in flushing the toilets in her home and the unusual greening of the grass in a pattern of rows above the septic tank's drain field. The abnormal greening of grass in this pattern indicates that the OSDS is malfunctioning by allowing incompletely treated sewage effluent (waste water) to escape upward towards the surface of the ground instead of percolating in a downward direction into the underlying soil, for appropriate filtration and treatment, which is the pattern of effluent disposal if such a system is operating correctly. Mr. Ron Meyers of Meyers Septic Tank Company was contacted for correction of the problem by the Respondent. On April 15, 1992, he applied for an OSDS repair permit to the Alachua County Public Health Unit of HRS on behalf of the Respondent. The permit application described that the repairs for which authority was requested would be to the existing system which was a below-ground-level septic tank and drain-field system (conventional system) in the Respondent's front yard. Mr. Dennis Chesky is an environmental specialist with the HRS Health Unit for Alachua County. He conducted a site inspection of the OSDS site on April 16, 1992 and determined that a repair of the existing system would not result in compliance with the applicable standards of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code cited below. He made a determination that a mounded drain- field system would be required in order to comply with HRS rules. HRS rules require that when repairs are made to an existing OSDS and inspection reveals that proper percolation and other indicia of soil-borne treatment of the effluent will not be adequately performed in accordance with HRS rules, then alterations to the OSDS, including the requirement of a mounded drain-field system, so as to acquire a sufficient treatment zone of appropriate fill soil, can be imposed. Mr. Chesky had noted that a sanitary nuisance existed due to insufficiently treated effluent escaping to the ground surface and pooling on the surface of the ground, rather than percolating downward below the drain field, as a properly operating system would perform. In accordance with the permit application and the results of Mr. Chesky's inspection, a repair permit with specifications requiring a mounded septic tank and drain-field system was issued by Mr. Chesky on April 16, 1992. The permit required the system to be installed in the Respondent's front yard. Because such a mound in the Respondent's front yard would destroy the aesthetic character of the Respondent's property and landscaping, Mr. Meyers requested, on the Respondent's behalf, that the permit be modified to allow installation of the mounded system in the backyard of the Respondent's property. On April 22, 1992, this request was granted by Terry Shipley, Mr. Chesky's supervisor, and the relocation was duly noted on the permit. The permit issued was valid for a period of ninety (90) days. The letter transmitting the permit to the Respondent informed the Respondent, as permittee, that she had ninety (90) days to correct the problem which caused the need for the repair permit. The letter also advised the Respondent that if a sanitary nuisance was present on the property, the problem should be rectified as expeditiously as possible. The permit expired without the repairs having been performed. Mr. Shipley, therefore, directed that a member of his staff visit the Respondent's home to inspect the situation. Mr. Paul Meyers visited the Respondent's home on July 22, 1992 and noted that raw sewage was still existing on the surface of the ground in the form of waste water from the septic tank. Mr. Meyers took photographs of that condition. The photographs were introduced into evidence. One photograph depicted that an area of the ground at the end of the drain field had collapsed or subsided, leaving a hole through which waste water was seeping to the ground surface. Mr. Meyers thereupon issued a notice to abate a sanitary nuisance on July 23, 1992. It was received by the Respondent on August 1, 1992. On August 3, 1992, the problem still existed with effluent being observed on the surface of the site by Mr. Chesky. On August 25, 1992, he returned to the site and observed evidence that a large area of the front yard, over the drain-field location, had been disturbed. He determined that the ground and the grass had been disturbed in such a way that repairs had obviously been made to the existing drain field. This was contrary to the permit that had been issued, which had required that a mounded system be installed as a means of effecting necessary repairs. The repaired area had been covered without notification of the repair to HRS. A notice of intended action was issued on September 16, 1992 and received by the Respondent on September 19, 1992. This notice gave the Respondent three (3) days to take action toward correcting the problem. The Respondent was thus advised that if the problems and violations were not corrected, then an Administrative Complaint seeking imposition of a fine would be issued. Within several days of receipt of that notice, the Respondent's husband called Mr. Shipley and Ms. Wilson of HRS to advise them that repairs had been delayed by the necessity of removing some trees in the backyard of his property where the mounded system would have to be placed. The Petersons were also having difficulty securing the necessary financing to pay for the installation of the mounded system required by HRS during the summer and early fall of 1992. Although Mr. Peterson advised HRS of the delay caused by the necessity to remove some trees with attendant expense, apparently HRS was not advised of the financing problem at that time, although the Respondent's testimony shows it to be the case. During this period of time, on September 22, October 1, and October 22, 1992, inspections by HRS revealed that the problem of effluent escaping on the surface of the ground had not yet been corrected. Since repairs had not been visibly commenced by the time of the last inspection on October 22, 1992, HRS elected to seek imposition of a fine and issued an Administrative Complaint to the Respondent, which was received by the Respondent on November 5, 1992. The Complaint sought a fine in the amount of $200.00 per day dating from the receipt of the Administrative Complaint until the date the violation was corrected. The Respondent obtained a second contractor to begin construction of the required mounded system which was completed on November 10, 1992. The contractor on that day called for an inspection by HRS. The inspection was conducted on November 12, 1992, but final approval could not be issued although all essential work was completed because the required sodding and stabilization measures had not yet been completed on the surface of the mound. Final approval was granted on November 17, 1992 by HRS. Installation of a new below-ground, drain-field system, as originally requested, similar to the one which was already installed and malfunctioning, would have cost approximately $1,000.00. The mounded system required by HRS' permit, pursuant to the relevant rules cited below, cost approximately $5,000.00. In addition to the approximate $5,000.00 expended for the installation of the mounded system, the Respondent had to expend approximately $7,000.00 related to tree removal and re-landscaping of their yard to repair damage caused by installation and the requirement to install a facility to pump sewage from the front yard outlet to the mounded system in the backyard. The Respondent apparently attempted to repair the existing below-ground system after receiving the notice regarding sanitary nuisance in August of 1992 in order to avoid the high costs related to the mounded system. The effluent pooling on the ground surface, as it was on the Respondent's property at times pertinent hereto, can pose a threat to public health. In order to adequately treat sewage effluent, it must filter in a downward direction through at least 24 inches of suitable soil medium in order to be sufficiently decontaminated. Improperly treated effluent on the surface of the ground can cause the transmission of human pathogens to persons who come into contact with the effluent in and near the area of the discharge. There is no evidence to indicate that any such harm came to any specific persons or to the public's health generally, in the subject situation. Ms. Wilson, the supervisor responsible for issuance of the Administrative Complaint, decided to seek a fine of $200.00 per day after considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the statutory authority cited herein, contained in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. HRS has fining authority in the amount of up to $500.00 per day for each of the claimed violations. The unrefuted evidence establishes that the violations occurred and persisted over the period time described in the above Findings of Fact. In fairness to the Respondent, however, it should be pointed out that the Respondent and her husband were not in Florida for most of the summer of 1992 because their work required them to be in Dallas, Texas. Even so, they had secured the services of an OSDS contractor to attempt to alleviate the problem. Due no doubt to the high cost and their reluctance to be encumbered by it, they delayed actual installation of the mounded system, however. It is also true that they had difficulties obtaining financing for such a costly system but ultimately did so and satisfactorily completed the work. They ultimately expended approximately $14,000.00 for all phases of the work involved, including site preparation, re-landscaping and related expenses. They have thus have undergone a severe cost burden to alleviate the inoperable condition of the previous OSDS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by HRS imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7376 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted. 16. Rejected, as immaterial in this de novo proceeding. 17-25. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, although the evidence does not reveal the bank's posture with regard to ownership of the property. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as to its material import because the repairs and installation were not effected until after the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not materially dispositive of the issues presented. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Robert Peterson 835 Northwest 109th Drive Gainesville, Florida 32606
Findings Of Fact On or about April 5, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for a variance to replace an existing four foot fence extending to the seawall on his property at 643 Harbor Island, Lot 12 Island Estates, Clearwater, Florida. The subject property is zoned RS-6. Petitioner had already replaced his previous fencing prior to the filing of this application with wooden fencing which extends on the north and south side of his property through the setback to the seawall. The Development Code Adjustment Board considered Petitioner's application at its meeting on May 12, 1988, and based upon the Petitioner's explanation that the variance was sought simply to replace an existing fence that had termite damage, the Board approved his application on a 3 to 2 vote. The variance approval was conditioned upon the Petitioner obtaining a building permit within one month of the approval. Petitioner failed to obtain the required building permit, and no excuse was offered for this failure. Therefore, he had to reapply for the variance. On or about July 21, 1988, Petitioner filed his variance reapplication. The Development Code Adjustment Board considered this reapplication on August 25, 1988, at which time Petitioner again stated that he was simply replacing an existing fence. Due to a tie vote, consideration of the reapplication was continued to the Board's meeting of September 8, 1988. At the meeting on September 8, he explained for the first time that while the fencing on the south side of his property was simply the replacement of a previous fence which had extended to the seawall, the fencing on the north side was not. The previous fence on the north side of his property had stopped prior to the fifteen foot setback. With this clarification, the Board approved his variance reapplication for the south side of his property, but denied the variance for the north side. Petitioner has timely appealed the denial of his variance reapplication as it relates to the north side of his property. Petitioner testified at hearing that prior to the construction of his current wooden fence, he had a wood fence all the way to the seawall on the south side of his property. Since he had to replace that fencing due to termite damage, he took the opportunity to also replace and extend the wooden fencing on the northern side of his property through the setback. This action was not based on any hardship, but simply because he and his family felt it would look better if he had the same fencing on both sides of his property. It is clear and undisputed that Petitioner constructed a new fence on the north side of his property through the setback without obtaining a variance or permit. He did this simply for aesthetic reasons, and not due to any hardship. He failed to disclose this in his applications, or when the Board met on May 12 and August 25, 1988 to consider this matter.
The Issue Should Respondent be fined $500.00 for initiating repairs to an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system before obtaining a permit?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is engaged in the septic tank contracting business as a contractor licensed under Chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes. He does business as "Alpha." In association with his business Respondent provided services to residents at 224 North Orange Avenue, Orange City, Florida. This was related to a failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at that residence. To assist in providing repair service to the residence in Orange City, Florida, Respondent engaged Andy Trapp. Mr. Trapp's business is to assist septic tank contractors in obtaining necessary permits to perform septic tank contracting services. Mr. Trapp's occupation includes field work involving soil testing, measurements, and completion of necessary paperwork to assist the septic tank contractor in obtaining necessary permits. As permitting agency, usually Petitioner would accept applications submitted by Mr. Trapp in relation to the application for a permit to repair on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems, in that Mr. Trapp is recognized by Petitioner as being sufficiently qualified to submit information in support of an application for permit. On March 27, 1998, Mr. Trapp submitted an application for a permit to repair the on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida, address, to include supporting information concerning the results of soil testing. That application was accompanied by the necessary fee to obtain a permit. The application was delivered to Petitioner's Daytona Beach, Florida, office as a matter of convenience to Mr. Trapp. Mr. Trapp realized that the actual processing of the permit application would be conducted by Petitioner's Deland, Florida, office. In that connection, Mr. Trapp realized that the application that he had submitted to the Daytona Beach office would be forwarded by interoffice transmittal to the Deland office, which would cause a delay in the processing of the application. In his experience Mr. Trapp has filed applications with the Daytona Beach office to be subsequently transmitted to the New Smyrna Beach office of the Petitioner, which ordinarily can be done late on the same day that the application was presented or by the next day. James McRae is an environmental supervisor for the Volusia Health Department, Environmental Health Office in Deland, Florida. It is his office that had ultimate responsibility for considering, and if appropriate, issuing a permit allowing Respondent to conduct necessary repairs of the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida address. Mr. McRae confirmed that the permit application, as submitted by Mr. Trapp for the repairs, had been received by the Deland office on March 30, 1998. In addition, the accompanying $57.00 fee had been transferred from the Daytona Beach office to the Deland office, as was customary, the custom being that the funds in support of an application would ultimately be received in the office from which the application would be processed and a permit number assigned, as applicable. Upon receipt of the application in the Deland office, a receipt was generated. Information concerning the permit application was placed in the computer. Assessment of the application was assigned to William Vander Lugt, Environmental Specialists II, who is part of the field staff for the Petitioner's Deland office. Beyond Mr. Vander Lugt's assignment to consider the application for the permit for the Orange City, Florida project, it was expected that he would do any necessary field work involving an inspection and any necessary soil analysis. If satisfied that the site was appropriate to effect repairs to the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system, Mr. Vander Lugt would issue a permit subject to approval by Mr. McRae. Mr. McRae identified that the usual turn around time for issuing permits is two to three days, assuming that the permit was applied for at Petitioner's office which would be responsible for assessing the application. In this instance the permit had been applied for at another office which delayed consideration of the permit application by the Deland office. The permit was approved on April 2, 1998, within three days of its receipt by the Deland office. Before the permit was issued, Respondent, through his employees, had commenced the repairs at the Orange City, Florida, address. The commencement of repairs was verified by an on-site inspection performed by Mr. Vander Lugt, on March 31, 1998. Although the supporting information presented by Mr. Trapp was in order and the fee had been paid, and there was no indication that any other problems existed which would prohibit the repairs from being conducted, Respondent was premature in commencing the work before the permit issued, and was unjustified in that choice.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued which imposes a $500.00 fine against Respondent for initiating a repair of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system without first obtaining a permit to do the work. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Michael J. Jedware Post Office Box 390073 Deltona, Florida 32739-0073 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether the applicants own the property in question? Whether the project would comply with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District contained in Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Systems, specifically Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2? Whether flood protection would be inadequate or septic tanks unsuitable or whether the public health and safety would be compromised or the ultimate purchasers be deprived of usage of the property due to inundation in violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (1981), or Rule 40E-4.301(1), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Williamson and Messrs. Leggett and Collins hold in fee simple a triangular 117.24-acre parcel in Okeechobee County as tenants in common under a warranty deed executed in their favor by one W. C. Sherman. They propose to develop the property as a trailer park (complete with airstrip) large enough to accommodate 109 trailers. To this end, soil would be dug up from the center of the property and used to raise the elevation of the surrounding land above the 100-year floodplain. (T. 47) The applicants have a dredging permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation authorizing them to excavate 629,889 cubic yards. They are proposing to dig to a depth of 76 feet below ground. This would create an 18-acre body of water ("Poe's Lake") which would overflow a V-notched weir into a county canal. The county canal would take the water to C- 38, one of the large canals to which the Kissimmee River has been relegated, at a point about 18 miles upstream from Lake Okeechobee. Runoff would wash over residential lots and roadways; the site would be graded to assure drainage into Poe's Lake. The minimum road crest elevation would be 30 feet NGVD ("[a]round twenty-nine feet" T.52), as compared to the control elevation for surface waters of 28.5 feet NGVD. WATER QUALITY The developers plan septic tanks for wastewater treatment. At the close of all the evidence, counsel for the applicants stated that sanitary sewers could be installed instead. Respondents' Proposed Recommended Order, p. With all the housing units in use, at least 10,900 gallons of effluent would seep into the ground from the tanks daily. There would be some evapotranspiration, but all the chemicals dissolved in the effluent would eventually end up in the groundwater. During the dry season, septic tank effluent would cause mounding of the groundwater and some groundwater movement toward, and eventual seepage into, Poe's Lake. The eventual result would be eutrophication and the growth of algae or macrophytes on the surface of Poe's Lake. This would cause dissolved oxygen violations in Poe's Lake. Discharges from the lake would inevitably occur, aggravating the situation in C-38, which already experiences dissolved oxygen levels below 5.0 milligrams per liter in the rainy summer months. Some fraction of the nutrients in the effluent from the septic tanks would ultimately reach Lake Okeechobee itself. The sheer depth of the excavation would create another water quality problem. Under the anaerobic conditions that would obtain at the bottom of Poe's Lake, bacteria acting on naturally occurring sulfates would produce hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and various other reduced organic nitrogen compounds. These substances are toxic to human beings and would, in some indeterminate quantity, enter the groundwater from Poe's Lake. This would affect the taste and perhaps the potability of water from any well nearby. It would be "possible to design a better system where there would be nutrient removal and a greatly reduced probability of violation of the dissolved oxygen criterion and obviation of the potential for ground water contamination." (T. 200) Installation of a baffle on the weir would serve to prevent buoyant debris from entering surface waters of the state. BASIS OF REVIEW Official recognition was taken of the "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within the South Florid Water Management District," parts of which all parties agree pertain in the present proceedings. Among the criteria stated in this document are: 3.1.3 Waste and Wastewater Service - Potable water and wastewater facilities must be identified. The Applicant for a Surface Water Management Permit must provide information on how these services are to be provided. If wastewater disposal is accomplished on-site, additional information will normally be requested regarding separation of waste and storm systems. 3.2.1.4 Flood protection - Building floors shall be above the 100 year flood elevations, as determined from the most appropriate information, including Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Both tidal flooding and the 100 year, 3 day storm event shall be considered in determining elevations. b. Commercial and industrial projects to be subdivided for sale are required to have installed by the permittee, as a minimum, the required water quality system for one inch of runoff detention or one half inch of runoff retention from the total developed site. State standards - Projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet State water quality standards, as set forth in Chapter 17-3, Retention/detention criteria - Retention and/or detention in the overall system, including swales, lakes, canals, greenways, etc., shall be provided for one of the three following criteria or equivalent combinations thereof . . . Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff from a 3-year, 1-hour rainfall event, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. 3.2.4.1 Discharge structures should include gratings for safety and maintenance purposes. The use of trash collection screens is desirable. Discharge structures shall include a "baffle" system to encourage discharge from the center of the water column rather than the top or bottom. 3.2.4.4.2 b. Control elevations should be no higher than 2 feet below the minimum road centerline elevation in the area served by the control device in order to protect the road subgrade. Simply detaining runoff before discharging it offsite will not insure that the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3 will be met. Whether the standards are met depends on, among other things, the composition of the runoff. FWF'S INTEREST Among the purposes of the FWF, as stated in its charter, Shall be to further advance the cause of conservation in environmental protection, to perpetuate and conserve fish and wildlife, oil, water, clean air, other resources of the State and so manage the use of all natural resources, that this generation and posterity will receive the maximum benefit from the same. (T. 248-9) Four or five thousand Floridians belong to FWF. FWF members "make use" (T. 250) of the waters of Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River and specifically of the waters in C-38. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED The applicants and FWF filed post hearing memoranda and proposed recommended orders including proposed findings of fact which have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. They have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny the pending application for surface water management permit. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis J. Powers, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Criser & Stewart 400 South County Road Palm Beach 33480 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 325-C Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Irene Kennedy Quincey, Esquire 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Charles P. Houston, Esquire 324 Datura Street, Suite 106 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) should exempt Petitioner's alleged maintenance-dredging from wetland resource permitting under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a maintenance-dredging exemption from wetland resource permitting for two channels in Goose Bayou on the two ends of a U-shaped upland cut canal adjacent to Goose Bayou. Rule 62-312 provides in pertinent part: No permit shall be required under this chapter for dredging or filling . . . for the projects listed below. * * * (e) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into surface waters of the state, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters of the state. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. There was no evidence of any dredging or application for dredging in the vicinity of the proposed alleged "maintenance- dredging" prior to 1971. There was evidence and a stipulation that Heritage Homes of Fort Walton, Inc. (Heritage Homes), applied to the State of Florida in or around 1971 to dredge two navigation channels in Goose Bayou for a project known as Venetian Villas and to remove two plugs separating a land-locked U-shaped canal from Goose Bayou. The navigation channels were to be 50 feet wide by five feet deep. The southern channel was to be 640 feet long, while the northern channel was to be 450 feet long. This proposal did not receive any governmental authorization. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that in 1973, based on the proposed project modifications, the State of Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC), a predecessor of DEP, issued water quality certification, and the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) issued a permit for the project, as modified. It appears that the issuance of the water qualify certification and BOT permit was part of some kind of settlement reached between Heritage Homes and the State of Florida for dredge-and-fill violations. It appears that the settlement also involved the conveyance of ten acres of land to the State of Florida in lieu of payment for the spoil used in filling the marsh lands between Goose Bayou and the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, at some point in time, the DPC certification and a BOT permit were transferred from Heritage Homes to West Florida Construction Company (West Florida). There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, as of July 13, 1973, neither Heritage Homes nor West Florida had applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, over time and after receiving comments from various governmental agencies, West Florida's proposed project changed to involve a yacht basin/marina, a proposed southern channel, elimination of the proposal for a northern channel, and plugging the U-shaped canal to keep it separate from Goose Bayou. The location of the single, southern channel under this proposal was different from the proposed location of the southern channel under the Heritage Homes proposal, which was to start at the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. Instead, under West Florida's proposal, the single, southern channel was to be located directly north of the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, by August 21, 1974, West Florida applied to the Corps for a permit to dredge the single, southern channel (50 feet wide, 565 feet long, and four feet deep), to keep the northern canal plugged, and to construct a yacht basin/marina. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended several changes to the project before they could recommend that the Corps issue a permit for the 1974 application; however, it does not appear that the recommended changes were ever made or that the Corps ever took any action on the 1974 application or issued any permit for the proposed project. At some point in time after 1974, the two plugs were removed, which connected the U-shaped canal to Goose Bayou. There is now a wide, shallow channel from the waterward ends of the U-shaped canal into Goose Bayou. The evidence did not prove that these channels, which Petitioner now seeks to maintenance- dredge, were ever dredged by man. Their width and shallow depth are more consistent with natural scouring from surface water runoff leaving the canal system at low and extreme low tides than with dredging. There was no evidence of soil borings, which could have verified whether the channels had been dredged by man. Even if originally dredged, there was no evidence that a dredged channel had been maintained over the years. Mr. Stoutamire testified that DEP does not consider maintenance- dredging to include the restoration or rebuilding of a channel that has not been maintained and no longer exists. This interpretation of the maintenance-dredging exemption is reasonable. Mr. Stoutamire also testified that DEP interprets the last sentence of Rule 62-312.050(1)(e), limiting maintenance- dredging to no more than five feet below mean low water where no previous permit has been issued, to refer to canals constructed before April 3, 1970, since maintenance-dredging of canals constructed after that date would not be exempt if not previously permitted. This interpretation is reasonable.2 Petitioner's application did not state that control devices would be used to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during dredging.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner a maintenance-dredging exemption under Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner Highway 60 and 301 Center, Inc., has standing to challenge the proposed Environmental Resource Permit issued to Respondent Big Bend Center, LLC, by Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District ("District"), and, if so, whether Big Bend Center is entitled to issuance of the proposed permit.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner owns real property located at 105 U.S. Highway 301 South, in Tampa, which Petitioner leases to commercial businesses. Respondent Big Bend Center owns real property located at 110 U.S. Highway 301 South, which is across Highway 301 from Petitioner's property. Big Bend Center is named in the District's agency action and is the permittee. The site affected by the proposed permit modification is about 2.5 acres in size. It is part of a larger development owned by Big Bend Center, encompassing about 30 acres. The 30-acre site was the subject of a permit issued by the District in 1988. The 1988 permit approved a master drainage plan applicable to all 30 acres. The permit modifications discussed herein are modifications to this initial permit. Respondent Enterprise Holdings leases the 2.5-acre site at 110 U.S. Highway 301 South, which Enterprise uses for the operation of a car and truck rental business. When Petitioner filed its petition with the District, it named Enterprise Holdings, Inc., as a Respondent, even though Enterprise Holdings was not named in the permit. Neither Petitioner nor the District ever questioned the right of Enterprise Holdings to participate as a party. Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. The Permit The petition for hearing challenged the District's approval of a proposed permit designated 44003983.007. The permit authorized the construction of a building over existing pavement and the addition of a dumpster pad. After the petition for hearing was filed, Big Bend Center requested and the District approved a modification, designated .008, which included the .007 changes and, in addition, authorized the construction of a section of sidewalk and landscape islands in the parking lot. Enterprise then requested and the District approved another modification, .009, which authorized all the changes addressed in .008 and, in addition, authorized changes to the paved parking lot. Standing Petitioner contends that proposed permit, modification .009, would injure Petitioner because the authorized changes would result in flooding of Highway 301 that could reach Petitioner's property or, even if it did not reach that far, would interfere with traffic on Highway 301 in a manner that would disrupt Petitioner's business. The sole factual allegation upon which Petitioner bases its claim of flooding is that the previously-installed pipes that convey runoff to a retention pond may be too small; smaller than was required by Big Bend Center's 1988 permit. Petitioner's expert, Clifford Laubstein, stated that a boundary survey in the permit file shows two 18-inch diameter pipes connected to a 24-inch diameter pipe. Big Bend Center's 1988 permit required these pipes to be 24 inches and 30 inches, respectively. Laubstein admitted that the "as built" construction drawings that were submitted to the District by Big Bend Center after the construction of the master drainage system certifies that the pipes are the required, larger size. Laubstein did not have firsthand knowledge of the size of the pipes. He did not know which document was correct, the survey or the as built drawings. His position was simply that if the survey information was correct, Big Bend Center's stormwater system would fail to function properly and flooding could occur. Laubstein did not know whether the system had failed to function properly in the past or had ever caused flooding. Laubstein did not determine what storm event or volume of runoff would result in flooding of Highway 301, or the extent of flooding that would occur under various storm events. Because as built constructions drawings are prepared by an engineer and submitted to the District for the very purpose of certifying that a system has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the permit, information in the as built drawings about components of the system would generally be more reliable than such information in a survey that was prepared for another purpose. Furthermore, Enterprise's expert witness, Steve Boggs, measured the pipes and determined they were 24 and 30 inches, as required by the permit. By refuting Petitioner's claim that the pipes "may" be undersized, Respondents refuted Petitioner's claim that Highway 301 or Petitioner's property "may" be flooded if the proposed permit modification is issued by the District. The stormwater system for the proposed project is properly sized to handle the stormwater runoff. Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it could be injured by the proposed permit modification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District dismiss the petition and issue Environmental Resource Permit 44003983.009. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner SFWMD is a public corporation of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility of issuing permits and enforcing orders relating to surface water management within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondents Hubschman, as trustees, have full rights of ownership in 1,280 contiguous acres located in Sections 17 and 20, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. These lands are known as Bonita Farms I and II. They are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SFWMD. In their pre- developed state, these lands could generally be categorized as marsh and wetlands with cypress forest and some uplands in the northern half of the project area. After deciding to develop the acreage for use as pasture and farmland for small vegetable crops, Respondents Hubschman applied for a surface water management permit from SFWMD. The purpose of the permit was to allow the construction and operation of a water management system that would serve both farms. A system was designed to drain water off both parcels through a 62-acre retention area into a natural slough system which runs water into Kehl Canal. In order to create the system, the Respondents Hubschman had the following facilities designed for the site: internal ditches, dikes, pumps, a retention area and control structures. On April 15, 1982, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 36- 00315-S, and Respondents Hubschman were allowed to proceed with their proposed construction plan. A modification to the permit was issued on April 14, 1983. The retention area was enlarged from 62 acres to 88 acres by relocating the perimeter dike. The outfall structure was revised in that the two pumps and the weir were to be replaced by three 18" CMP culverts that would discharge the drained water by gravity flow from the retention area through the slough into Kehl Canal. The duration of the construction phase of its permit was a three-year period, unless the construction of the permitted project discharge structure or equivalent had been completed prior to that date. After the close of the three-year period, there was a dispute between the Respondents and SFWMD as to whether the permit had expired. The controversy was resolved through a compromise agreement. An application for the reissuance of Permit No. 36-00315-S was filed on October 13, 1986. Instead of reissuing Permit No. 36-00315-S, as requested by Respondents Hubschman, SFWMD decided to issue a new permit on May 14, 1987. As part of the processing procedures, SFWMD again reviewed and approved the entire surface water management system designed to serve the 1,280 acres of land proposed by Respondents. Because the additional work proposed for Section 17, the northern section was limited at this stage of development to the selective clearing of additional upland areas to create more improved pasture, the new permit directed attention to Section 20, the southern section of the land. The new permit advised the Respondents that if they wanted to propose additional development to Section 17, they were required to seek a modification of this new permit, Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S, to include those changes. The Respondents applied for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S on July 30, 1987. The proposed modification sought to change the status of the development of Section 17 from improved pasture to small vegetable farmland on 639 acres. The surface water management system plan was modified to drain water in Section 17 to the reservoir on Section 20. The water would be directed via a series of lateral ditches and swales. A six foot high dike and one 27,000 GPM pump were also required. Two additional 18" CMP culverts were required at the discharge facilities to accommodate the increased outflow. The Modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S was approved and issued on June 16, 1988. The original Permit NO. 36-00764-S and its modification are similar to a contract novation because the new permits substituted new obligations between the parties for the old ones under Permit No. 36-00315-S. Based upon this approach to the situation, SFWMD allowed the construction work completed under Permit No. 36-00315-S prior to the Stop Work Order of August 27, 1986, to vest. The completion of the berm around the reservoir in Section 20, as set forth in the letter from Elizabeth D. Ross, attorney for SFWMD, on September 19, 1986, was also allowed to vest. However, if the vested matters were changed in the subsequent permits, they became revisions. The revisions take precedence over the vested matters. Otherwise, completed construction under Permit No. 36- 00764-S as modified, and post Stop Work Order construction remains in effect perpetually for the operation portion of the permit. In order to determine with certainty what was permitted when the Notice of Violation was issued on December 20, 1988, the parties would have to look to the project work actually completed on August 27, 1986, the specific construction approved by SFWMD after that date, the subsequent Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S issued May 14, 1987, and its Modification issued June 16, 1988. The substantial compliance determination issued by Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Resource Control Department dated September 24, 1987, should also be considered as authorized activity. The Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, was issued to Respondent Samuel Hubschman, Trustee. He was advised that recent routine inspections indicate that current on-site activity was in violation of Special Conditions 2,3,4,7,14, 17 & 23 of Permit No. 36-00764-S (issued 5/14/87) and Special Conditions 5,16 & 22 of 36-00315-S (modified 6/16/88). A meeting to resolve these issued was suggested by SFWMD. Respondent Hubschman agreed to attend the meeting through his consultants. Both parties elected to attempt resolution of the Notice of Violation controversy through negotiations in a meeting scheduled for January 5, 1989. To demonstrate their sincerity, the parties agreed not to bring attorneys to the meeting. During the meeting, the parties resolved the controversy by agreeing to the following: SFWMD would no longer consider the project to be in violation of Florida law if the Respondents submitted certain items that would cause SFWMD to issue certain permits and modify others. The Respondents would promptly file an application for a dewatering permit so that the governing board could issue the permit at its March 9, 1989 meeting. The Respondent's contractor would make no field changes in the mitigation or excavation areas without first obtaining appropriate permit modification from SFWMD. Small jockey pumps were to be installed to pump water from the internal water management system into certain cypress and/or mitigation areas for the sole purpose of establishing wetland vegetation within the areas. Respondents were to apply for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, to allow a single phase of mining for the entire affected area. The perimeter dike was to be made structurally adequate. Respondents were to submit an alternative proposal for the disposal of cap rock within ninety days. In the meantime, the contractor could continue to bury the cap rock within the mitigation areas. Both parties demonstrated their reliance on the settlement reached in the meeting by their subsequent actions towards completing and processing the applications for permit modifications and additional permits. Although the noted violations were not cured by these actions, the parties intended to reach a cure or to mitigate for present permit violations through new permit conditions. The preliminary staff review of the Respondents' application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, was completed by March 31, 1989. The following information was requested by SFWMD staff: Revised engineering calculations which reflect that the permitted discharge structure is five 18" CMP culverts. An explanation as to why the 6.3 acre maidencane/juncus marsh designated as a preserve area and the adjacent western preserve area were excavated and otherwise disturbed by project activities. The scrapedown methodology for the replanting of mitigation areas. The Respondents' plans for the area delineated on the plans as pine, which is currently permitted as part of a cypress preservation area. Dike certification and reservoir certification. The above-listed information was required to be returned to the SFWMD within ninety days from the date of the written request. At the close of the ninety days, the information was not received. A second request for a response within thirty days was submitted by SFWMD on August 4, 1989. In September 1989, the Respondents attempted to comply with SFWMD's second request for information. Communications continued in regard to the filed application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, into December 1989. After the thirty days expired for the response to the second request for information dated August 4, 1989, SFWMD filed the Administrative Complaint in these proceedings. After the second request for information, a partial response was received from Respondent Hubschman's consultants. The application continues to go through the review process. It has not yet been deemed complete by SFWMD. As part of the resolution of the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, SFWMD issued permit No. 36-01023-W to Respondent Hubschman for construction dewatering, excavation of an irrigation pond, and water storage at the site. The permit was issued on March 9, 1989. Special condition No. 20 of this permit requires a 200-feet setback from the cypress mitigation area and the irrigation pond being dewatered. The setback is shown on Exhibit 10 of the Bonita Farms Dewatering Application which was made part of the permit. A copy of the permit was attached to the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was submitted by SFWMD regarding alleged violations of Special condition No. 20 which were allegedly observed and documented after the permit was issued, before the filing of the Administrative Complaint Respondent Bob Cadenhead is the contractor hired by Respondents Hubschman to construct the surface water management system. There was no evidence presented to show the connection of another party, Respondent, Cadenhead & Sons Construction, to the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S be deemed to have vested as to all construction activity completed under the permit which was not addressed in the subsequent permit issued by SFWMD. The completion of the berm, as set forth in Attorney Ross' September 19, 1986 letter, should also be allowed to vest. That Permit No. 36-00764-S and its later modification be ordered to supercede the prior permit in all matters specifically addressed. That the parties be held to their prior agreements to resolve pending permit violations through the permit modification process. That the alleged dewatering violation in paragraph 19 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. That a specific deadline be set to reasonably complete pending application modifications. That all future enforcement action specifically comply with Rule 40E- 1.612, Florida Administrative Code, and remain separate from any permit or permit modification applications. That the parties create a new, active permit file with current drawings and a specific construction schedule. That the Administrative Complaint and Order filed in these proceedings be dismissed. That future agreements be reduced to writing and signed by the proper parties before they are relied upon by either party. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5737 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. See HO number 6. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Argumentative. Rejected. Legal argument. Accepted. See HO number 5. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. The argument presented in this paragraph is overly punctilious. It ignores the detrimental reliance of opposing parties to the agreement. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Legal argument and improper opinion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Matters presented were either not ripe for these proceedings or not proved at hearing. See HO number 16-number 20 and HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings as separate from the Notice of Violation. Irrelevant. Accepted as fact, resolved by agreement. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO number 11-number 12. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Resolved through agreement. See HO number 15. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16- number 20. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Not in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 21. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 13. Rejected. See HO number 23. Contrary to fact and pleadings. Accepted. See HO number 14. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 4-number 7. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The permit modifica- tion specifically required replacement of a pump with 3 culverts. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 7 and number 11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 11. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Additional matters were agreed upon which were not reflected in the letter. This is an incomplete summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 8 and number 9. Rejected. See HO number 8 and number 9. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Fumero, Esquire Office of General Counsel South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Russell Schropp, Esquire HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John R. Wodraska, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue The first issue is whether Petitioner, Jacqueline M. Lane (Lane) has standing. The second issue is whether International Paper Company (IP) provided reasonable assurances it has the ability to meet the conditions of the existing industrial wastewater permit for the wastewater treatment facility at the paper mill in Cantonment, Florida, pursuant to Rule 62- 620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code. A final issue is whether Lane litigated this matter for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: The Parties The Department is charged with the responsibility for determining whether to approve the Application for transfer of permit number FL0002562-002-IWF/MT from Champion to IP. IP is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. IP operates a bleach kraft fine paper mill in Cantonment, Florida, formerly operated by Champion. Lane is a citizen of the State of Florida who lives on Perdido Bay. Application for Transfer of Industrial Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT In June 2000, IP notified the Department it was acquiring Champion as a wholly owned subsidiary. IP took over operation of the facility in Cantonment on January 1, 2001. At that time, the companies had fully merged. On January 19, 2001, IP timely submitted an Application for Transfer of a Wastewater Facility or Activity Permit (Application) and advised the Department that "the permittee name for the pulp and paper mill in Cantonment, Florida[,] has been changed from 'Champion International Corporation, Inc.' to 'International Paper Company.'" Several wastewater permit- related documents were submitted to the Department as part of this name change. The Department processed IP's Application to transfer the facility's permit pursuant to Rule 62-620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code. "The parties agree that this matter is controlled by Rules 62-4.120 and 62-620.340, F.A.C., regarding the transfer of the permit. The parties [did not agree] upon what conditions of the combined permits are applicable to determine whether the Department has received 'reasonable assurances that the conditions of the permit will be met.' Rule 62-620.340(3), F.A.C." Rule 62-620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides: "The Department shall allow the transfer under subsection (2) of this section unless it determines that the proposed permittee cannot provide reasonable assurance that conditions of the permit will be met. The determination shall be limited solely to the ability of the proposed permittee to comply with the conditions of the existing permit, and it shall not consider the adequacy of these permit conditions." (Emphasis added). This proceeding does not involve an enforcement action or consideration of whether the wastewater permit, and related documents, should be renewed. Champion's renewal application is under consideration by the Department. The parties agree that the documents described in Findings of Fact 10-19, infra, set forth the conditions of the permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT at this time. These documents are listed below: November 15, 1995, DEP Order (combining the NPDES permit and the State- issued wastewater permit) April 22, 1996, DEP Letter (clarifying November 15, 1995, Order regarding 1983 NPDES Permit) January 3,1983, EPA NPDES Permit December 13, 1989, DER Temporary Operating Permit December 1, 1989, DER Consent Order December 12, 1989, DER Variance The Permit(s), Consent Order, Variances, and Related Permit Documents Before May 1, 1995, in order to operate the wastewater treatment facility at the mill in Cantonment, both state and federal permits were required. The Department or its predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), issued state permits pursuant to Sections 403.08 and 403.088, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulation Section 124.15. As a result of EPA's delegation of its NPDES authority to the Department in 1995, only one permit is now required. The 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department does not allow the Department to modify a permit that has been administratively continued. Modifications to permit limits have to be made through the permit renewal process. On or about January 3, 1983, the EPA issued a NPDES permit to St. Regis Paper Company, authorizing discharge from the facility, located at the paper mill in Cantonment to the receiving waters named Eleven Mile Creek (creek). This NPDES permit contains the federal permit conditions applicable at this time. (EPA has since used the facility as a benchmark model to develop effluent guidelines for its new cluster rule.) On December 1, 1989, the DER entered into a Consent Order with Champion International Corporation. This Consent Order was issued as a result of Recommended and Final Orders issued in Perdido Bay Environmental Association, Inc. et al. v. Champion International Corporation and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 F.A.L.R. 126 (DER Nov. 14, 1989). This Consent Order allowed the continued operation of the facility. As a compliance requirement, a study report was required to include "an evaluation of technologies and treatment alternatives . . . to determine the most environmentally sound and practicable means to correct identified water quality violations caused by Champion." The studies required by the Consent Order are needed to pinpoint sources of pollutants in the creek and Perdido Bay (bay). The Consent Order has no expiration date although it is tied to the temporary operating permit (TOP) which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Extensive studies have been submitted to the Department pursuant to paragraph 14.A. of the Consent Order, which are necessary to trigger "the final compliance plan." This has been an ongoing process since the Consent Order and TOP were issued. The conditions in the Consent Order and TOP apply at this time. Various discharge limitations and monitoring requirements are set forth in the TOP. On December 13, 1989, DER issued a TOP, Number IT17- 156163, to the facility, which was issued in conjunction with the Consent Order. The TOP expressly relies on the Consent Order for authorization. It contains the effective state permit conditions at this time. On December 8, 1989, DER issued a Variance from water quality standards for color (transparency), iron, zinc, and the general water quality criterion for specific conductance. The standards in the Variance are part of the TOP and are effective at this time. The mill no longer needs the Variance for iron and zinc. As to those parameters, it currently operates at lower levels than under the Variance. On November 15, 1995, the Department combined the state and federal operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT. The TOP and NPDES permit were administratively continued when renewal applications were filed. The Department will transfer to IP the permit documents described in Finding of Fact 9, supra. The Department will also transfer the pending permit renewal applications filed by Champion. Wastewater Treatment Facility at the Paper Mill in Cantonment, Florida In the past, Champion owned and operated a 1400-ton per day bleach and kraft pulp and paper mill in Cantonment. The operation is now conducted by IP. The paper mill treats its effluent from industrial activities at an on-site wastewater treatment facility (facility). Stormwater that falls on the industrial portion of the mill is also processed through the facility. The mill is required to and takes monthly samples from the creek for a few parameters, e.g., DO and pH, to provide data to the Department for use in developing possible changes to effluent limitations in a final compliance plan. There is an installed structure that continuously measures the flow of the effluent at the end of the facility's treatment system. This point, i.e., where the flow is measured, is called the Parshall Flume which is the compliance point for the facility. The effluent at Parshall Flume is automatically sampled each day, analyzed, and reported on a monthly basis to the Department. The analyses are reviewed and compared to the effluent limitations for a particular permit. The treated effluent is discharged from the Parshall Flume through a pipe to natural wetlands. In this wetland area, the treated effluent combines with several streams, non- processed stormwater, and runoff from land south and west of the facility. Runoff from residential areas and areas west of the mill, including the City of Cantonment, also flows into this area. The IP mill is not the only source of discharge into this area. After passing through the natural wetlands, the treated effluent runs through a pipe that discharges into the creek from below the surface. This point is about a half-mile from the facility. It is called the "boil" because the water from the pipe boils up into the creek. The "boil" is not a compliance point. On occasion, a Department inspector has taken water samples at the boil. Each time, his sampling has shown water quality standards were met at the boil. At the boil, the water flowing into the creek from the pipe contains treated effluent and drainage from areas not associated with the mill. From the boil, the creek flows a distance of fourteen miles to Perdido Bay (the bay). At the boil, there is also stormwater runoff and drainage from residential areas flowing into the creek in addition to the water from the pipe. Along the sides of the creek to the bay is a large drainage basin, which includes agricultural and residential runoff that flows into the creek. The boil, which is non-processed stormwater of the creek, could be contaminated from non-IP sources. Sources of pollutants in the bay include residential and agricultural stormwater runoff, Perdido River, and the creek. The Escambia County Utility Authority (ECUA) also has a treatment plant that has a discharge into the bay. Saltwater intrusion and runoff from development are additional sources of pollutants in the bay. Lane takes samples at the boil and most recently in May and June of 2001. Her measurement of dissolved oxygen (DO) was approximately 2.6 and for specific conductance, between 1600 and 2000. Lane also samples the water at a bridge (279A) two miles down the creek from the boil. Lane testified regarding bacteriological quality at the boil or further down stream, that fecal coliforms, including the bacteria Klebsiella, were present. Lane is not a certified sampler. She does not have the required quality control/quality assurance program. Lane does not know the Department requirements to sample dissolved oxygen. She could not describe an approved standard for such sampling. Surface Water Quality Standards Unless otherwise provided through relief mechanisms, discharges into surface waters must meet the minimum water quality standards set forth in Rules 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. Relief mechanisms include variances, consent orders, and temporary operating permits. The Department has issued variances, consent orders, and temporary operating permits to allow permit holders time to respond to changes in water quality standards and related regulations that reflect changes in understanding of environmental impacts to water bodies. Permit Conditions The permit conditions do not require compliance with all the water quality criteria in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, for water quality parameters. The Department has not yet agreed on "final treatment solutions" it can require under the Consent Order. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 49. Specific deviations from the surface water quality standards in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, are authorized by the Consent Order, TOP, variance, and NPDES permit. The specific effluent discharge limitations in the TOP and NPDES permit, are for BOD5, TSS, iron, specific conductance, pH, and zinc. (The reference to condition 12 in paragraph 25 of the TOP has not been amended.) Several of the effluent limitations (e.g., specific conductance) were granted by the Variance. Paragraph 26 of the TOP specifies the monitoring and frequency requirements for the monitoring at the Parshall Flume. This monitoring information can be used by the Department to pinpoint sources of pollutants in the creek and in order to establish numerical, water-quality based effluent limitations for those sources. General Condition 5 of the TOP does not per se impose on the mill the duty to meet all water quality standards in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. The TOP authorizes "a certain amount of pollution" and "certain relief." The TOP further established a "compliance schedule" for Champion to study the impacts of the discharge. However, the Department rules allow for reopening of the TOP and changing the permit conditions to reflect new evidence causing a concern regarding pollution. Here, the Department has not reopened the TOP. The permit, including the TOP and Consent Order, allows the mill a period of time to come into compliance with all minimum water quality standards. When a final permit is eventually issued, the facility will have to meet these standards absent some express relief mechanism at that time. IP Provided Reasonable Assurances of Its Ability to Meet Permit Conditions The Department employee who reviewed IP's Application to transfer the permit is an expert in environmental engineering. At the time he reviewed the Application, he was familiar with the existing permit conditions. As part of his review, he ascertained whether IP was satisfying the conditions of the permit and determined it was. The Department reviewed IP's annual report and other corporate brochures as part of its processing of the transfer Application. Information in these documents revealed IP has obtained other Federal-type NPDES permits for other companies at several other facilities. The Department was familiar with IP's local management at the Cantonment facility when it processed the transfer Application. IP brings considerable "capability and talent" to the mill. The Department performed inspections during the last six (6) months and was familiar with the facility and wastewater system. IP is an international company with greater financial resources than Champion. It has approximately $30 billion in annual sales. Champion, in comparison, generated about $5 billion a year. It is clear that that the operation of the mill and the facility would have less capital and financial support without IP. Since June 2000, IP has worked with the Department in a continuation of the Department's concept of relocating the facility's discharge to wetlands. The plan considers removal of the facility's treated effluent from the creek to wetlands on IP's land and effectively eliminates it as a point source discharge and removes the discharge from the creek. IP will have a greater ability than Champion to meet permit conditions due to greater financial sources, technical staff, and resources. IP's management is committed to resolving water quality issues like specific conductance and is willing to resolve outstanding water quality issues in the bay and creek. In the view of the former Northwest District Director who worked on water quality issues at the facility for twelve years ending March 31, 2001, the current plan to discharge to wetlands will be implemented and allow compliance with all water quality standards. He also opines that IP has the ability to comply with water quality standards under the plan to discharge to wetlands. In the Department's view, IP has provided reasonable assurances that it has the ability to meet the existing conditions of the permit sought to be transferred. IP Complies with Permit Conditions as Evidence of Ability According to the Department's expert, Mr. William A. Evans, a professional engineer with a Master's degree in civil engineering and an expert in environmental engineering, there have been no verifiable violations of permit conditions and no exceedances since January 2000, before IP took over operations of the mill. On the other hand, Mr. Evans, in reviewing a discharge monitoring report for IP for April 2001, advised, during cross-examination, that there appeared to be "an apparent violation, exceedance of the permit" for specific conductance pursuant to the 1500 micromhons per centimeter limit in the EPA's version of the permit. However, the Variance, which is part of the Application, was granted "because there is no practicable means known or available for the adequate control of the pollution involved," i.e., specific conductance. The Department applies the limit of 2500 micromhos per centimeter set forth in the Variance for specific conductance, which is a reasonable interpretation of the permit documents. When the permit documents, including the Variance are read in this light, IP is in compliance with this limit. IP is in compliance with the Consent Order, NPDES permit, and Variance. In making this finding, the undersigned is mindful of Lane's arguments and facts presented. The issue here is not black or white; violation or no violation. As noted by Mr. Evans: This permit is recognized since '89 is [sic] not meeting water quality standards. It has all these documents because it doesn't. And they're still working under those. And the Department agrees with Ms. Lane that they are not meeting water quality standards in the creek. And we're working under these documents to make improvements. And so is Champion and so is IP. But they are not, in our opinion, violating the conditions of the permit. There [sic] are complying with studying it, meeting the interim limits that are set forth in the permit. And that is what the Statutes require when a facility can not meet all the standards of a permit. The Department, while considering the renewal application, has not approved it yet because they have not received reasonable assurances that new permit conditions can be met. Champion, and now IP, are facing the continuing challenge of satisfying, among other requirements, water quality standards, which takes time, money, and know-how. The Department rightly believes that IP can best meet this challenge. The Department's review of the monthly monitoring reports submitted by the mill since Champion was purchased reveals the facility has complied with permit conditions. The most recent monthly report was submitted May 23, 2001, and includes data through April 2001. During inspections at the facility since June 2000, the Department found no violations of permit conditions. The mill, under IP's operation, has not exceeded the fecal coliform conditions of its permit. The mill has no significant contribution to fecal coliform in the creek because it treats its own domestic sewage and meets the fecal coliform limit at the compliance point. Runoff along the creek from agricultural and domestic sources could contribute to fecal and total coliform in the creek. The Department enforces the "more stringent" pH condition in the 1989 TOP and Variance which is controlling over the less stringent standard in the 1983 NPDES permit. The pH limit in the NPDES permit is 6.0-9.0. The Department reasonably interprets the freshwater stream pH rule to mean enforcement is not required if the permittee meets the range in the rule (6.0-8.5), more stringent than the 9.0 limit in the NPDES permit. The facility's pH data satisfies this range. If the Department were to enforce a limit of 6.5, instead of 8.5, IP has the ability to meet the lower limit by installing one of several available technologies to control the pH levels. IP's current proposal includes one of these technologies. The biological integrity provision in the Consent Order requires studies on biological components of the creek and pH impacts this condition. Permit Conditions Affecting the Creek and Bay The permit does not require the facility to meet all the minimum surface water quality standards of Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, in the creek and bay. That is because of the relief mechanisms in the Consent Order, TOP, NPDES permit, and Variance. The Consent Order provides a time frame for the facility to come into compliance with water quality standards in the creek and bay. In terms of the Consent Order, the Department considers IP to be at the paragraph 14.A. step of the compliance schedule since the Department has not yet "resolved or agreed on the final corrective action required under this [C]onsent [O]rder." The Department considers the facility to be in compliance with permit conditions because it is "working under a complying [sic] schedule and an order or a temporary operating permit." See Finding of Fact 49. As long as IP is meeting the "interim limits that are set forth in the permit," it is not violating conditions of the permit. The Department is aware of water quality exceedances from the standards in the creek and bay caused by the mill. This data was reported in the "fifth year surveys." This information serves as a basis for making improvements and finding "a new solution for the effluent as required by the consent order." See Finding of Fact 49. Proposal for Joint Project with ECUA IP and the ECUA are working with the Department on a plan than would result in the discharge of IP's treated effluent to wetlands, thereby removing the effluent from the creek. IP's financial capability, size, and technical human resources make this plan feasible. IP will propose a plan to satisfy the Consent Order which consists of three parts: upgrading IP's industrial wastewater treatment facility; allowing ECUA to locate an advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant on its land; and disposing the treated effluent from both facilities to wetlands on IP's land through a pipeline. The proposed plan to discharge the facility's treated effluent to wetlands is a suitable solution that will allow the mill to meet minimum water quality standards. Lane has no objection to the plan to discharge to wetlands. It will resolve all her water quality issues. She believes the plan, similar to a prior plan, is "feasible." Standing and Improper Purpose Lane admits the Department is not making any changes to existing permit conditions before transferring it to IP. Lane agrees that changing the name on the permit from Champion to IP has no adverse affect on her. Lane brought this proceeding because she is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Department is enforcing conditions in the facility's permit. According to Lane, "They haven't done their duty." Her main complaints are with the Department's failure to enforce the permit conditions and the lack of a permit that makes the permit holder comply with Florida law. Lane feels that Champion violated permit conditions in the past, and IP is currently violating permit conditions and, as a result, the permit should not be transferred because a decision to transfer is an implicit finding of compliance. In this light, Lane argues that past performance can be an indication of future ability or lack thereof. Lane acknowledges that in order to add conditions to the existing permit, the Department must provide notice to the mill and give it a chance to meet the proposed conditions. She further admits the Department has not provided such notice. Lane proved that the environmental situation attending Champion's, and now IP's, operation of the mill and the wastewater facility has been and is less than optimum and in need of positive changes. The Department agrees and so does IP. Lane's personal observations of the condition of the creek and bay are documented. However, Lane did not prove that she will suffer an "injury in fact" if the permit and related documents are transferred to IP. Lane is not otherwise substantially affected by the Department's decision to approve the transfer. Lane's evidence did not rebut IP and the Department's proof that IP has the ability to comply with the permit conditions. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the environment in and around the mill and the facility has a better opportunity for improvement if IP takes control of the mill and facility. On the other hand, based on this record, Lane did not bring this case for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: Lane lacks standing to challenge the transfer of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT to IP because Lane did not prove that her substantial interests were being determined by the Department's transfer of the permit from Champion to IP; IP provided reasonable assurances it has the ability to comply with the conditions of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT; IP has complied with the conditions of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT, as the Department construes those conditions, since assuming control of the mill on January 1, 2001; and Lane did not participate in this administrative proceeding for an improper purpose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline M. Lane 10738 Lillian Highway Pensacola, Florida 32506 Terry Cole, Esquire Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 301 S. Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a variance to permit an onsite treatment and disposal system should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The lot of land for which the Bank seeks a variance for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is located at 341 Compass Lake Drive in Jackson County, Florida. The lot is approximately 40 feet wide and 300 feet deep, with approximately 40 feet of frontage on Compass Lake. Prior to its severance in 2010, the lot was part of a larger parcel of land with an address of 343 Compass Drive in Jackson County. The larger parcel was owned by Charles Paulk and had substantial improvements consisting of a house, boathouse, and dock. In 2004, Mr. Paulk borrowed money from the Bank and gave the Bank a mortgage lien on the entire larger parcel to secure the loan. At some point, a survey was prepared which subdivided the larger parcel into two lots -- the first containing the substantial improvements, and the other consisting of the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot lot at issue, which is .28 acres in size, with no improvements. There is no indication that the survey was ever recorded in the public records. Later, in 2010, Mr. Paulk decided to sell the lot with the substantial improvements for $330,000. Because the Bank had a lien on the entire larger parcel, Mr. Paulk requested that the Bank release its lien on the lot with the substantial improvements. The Bank agreed to release its lien on the lot with substantial improvements and, after receiving what the Bank felt was a “sufficient pay-down” on the loan, shifted its lien to the smaller, unimproved lot that is at issue in this case. The sale and release of lien transaction “substantially reduced the loan versus the collateral value” that the Bank previously had. According to the Bank’s Senior Vice President, James Goodson, after the sale transaction, there was “not a lot of money left on the loan ” Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot and shift its lien to the remaining unimproved lot, it was unaware that a variance would be required for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system (septic tank) on the unimproved lot. The facts as outlined above, however, demonstrate that the Bank was an active participant and beneficiary of the transaction that ultimately resulted in the creation of the two lots, one of which was the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot unimproved lot at issue in this case. In 2012, Mr. Paulk experienced financial problems and was having difficulty paying back the loan to the Bank secured by the unimproved lot. Because it was easier than foreclosure, the Bank agreed to take a deed to the unimproved lot in lieu of foreclosure.1/ At the time of the Bank’s release of lien in 2010, as well as at the time of the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the 40- foot by 300-foot lot size of the unimproved lot was too small to meet the statutory requirements for a septic permit. Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank accepted the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Bank was aware that the lot was too small and would need a variance for a septic tank. He did not explain, however, why the Bank had earlier been unaware of the need for a variance when it agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot in 2010. After the Bank acquired title to the unimproved lot, a third party offered to purchase it on the condition that the Bank could obtain a permit. The Bank went to Jackson County to request a permit, knowing that its request would be denied because the lot size was insufficient for a septic tank without a variance. Nevertheless, the Bank believed that it would qualify for a variance on hardship grounds because it did not “intentionally” create the hardship. The Bank commenced the permitting process by submitting an application with the Jackson County Health Department on October 4, 2012. The County denied the application on the grounds that the lot was deficient in width and total area. Next, the Bank submitted a request to the Department for a variance. The request was considered by the Department’s Variance Review and Advisory Committee (Committee) on December 6, 2012. The Committee has only recommending authority to the State Health Officer. In a four to three vote, the Committee recommended approval of a variance. The members voting against a recommendation for approval were representatives of the State Health Office, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the County Health Department. Eight objections from adjacent property owners were provided to the Committee’s review and consideration. After considering the facts, including the decision of the County Health Department, objections filed by adjacent property owners, actions taken by the Bank, and the recommendations of all the members of the Committee, Gerald Briggs, Bureau Chief for Onsite Sewage Programs for the Department of Health, made the Department’s preliminary decision that the Bank’s variance request should be denied, concluding, among other things, that “[a]ny perceived hardship that [the Bank] might experience as a result of the obligation to meet established standards comes about as a direct result of your own proposed action.” Likewise, considering the facts and evidence as presented in this case, the undersigned finds, as a matter of fact, that the Bank intentionally participated in and benefitted from the transaction that resulted in the hardship posed by the small lot size that it now owns and for which it seeks a variance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying SunSouth Bank’s application for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own property located in Section 6, Township 9, Range 16 East, Gilchrist County, Florida (the "Moore property"). Mrs. Linda Bridges owns property adjacent to and south of the Moore property (the "Bridges property"). Respondent, Bridges ("Bridges"), is in possession and control of the Bridges property. Mr. Glenn Miller owns property adjacent to and south of the Bridges property (the "Miller property"). ITT-Rayonier owns property west of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "ITT property"). A dirt road runs north and south in front of and along the western border of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "road"). The road separates the ITT property, to the west, from the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties, to the east. Prior to 1989, surfacewater historically flowed in a northeasterly direction. It flowed northeasterly from the ITT property through a 24 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property. It then flowed north through a 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of the Moore property, across the Moore property, and into Weeks Lake to the north of the Moore property. In 1989, with the consent of Bridges but without a permit from the District, Petitioners began a construction plan that included the installation of two 62 inch culverts to enhance the northeasterly flow of surfacewater from the ITT property to Weeks Lake. One 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 24 inch culvert under the road forming the westerly boundary between the ITT property and the Moore and Bridges properties. The second 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 36 inch culvert on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. The second 62 inch culvert was needed so the same volume of surfacewater flowing from the ITT property through the 62 inch road culvert could continue its northerly flow from the Bridges property to the Moore property and on to Weeks Lake. Petitioners replaced the 24 inch road culvert with a 62 inch culvert but left intact the 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of their property. Thus, a greater volume of surfacewater can flow from the ITT property through the 62 inch culvert onto the Bridges property but a lesser volume of surfacewater can flow from the Bridges property through the 36 inch culvert onto the Moore property. Petitioners removed fill material from the ITT property to widen and increase the height of the road bed on the westerly boundary between the ITT and Moore properties. The heightened road bed impounds a greater volume of surfacewater on the ITT property before it flows over the road onto the Moore property. This can increase the rate of flow of surfacewater through the 62 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property under certain circumstances. Petitioners increased the depth and width of existing ditches, and added new ditches along a portion of the road bed onto the Bridges property. The increased ditch capacity further increases the volume of surfacewater that can flow onto the Bridges property. Petitioners constructed a berm running east and west on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. This increases the volume of surfacewater that can be impounded on the Bridges property without flowing onto the Moore property through areas other than the 36 inch culvert that Petitioners left intact on the southerly portion of their property. The 62 inch road culvert, increased ditch capacity, heightened road bed between the ITT and Moore properties, the berm on the southerly portion of the Moore property, and the 36 inch culvert increase the volume of surfacewater that is impounded on the Bridges property before continuing its historic northeasterly flow. Surfacewater impounded on the Bridges property floods the Bridges property and properties to the south of the Bridges property. Although flooding occurred on the Bridges property prior to the 1989 construction, flooding on the Bridges property and properties south of the Bridges property is greater since Petitioners completed construction. In addition, the ITT property drains more readily. On or about October 13, 1993, Bridges applied to the District for a General Surfacewater Management Permit to replace the 62 inch road culvert with a 24 inch culvert pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-4.2010(1)(a). A General Surfacewater Management Permit is issued for activities that have little or no potential adverse impact to surfacewater resources for the District. The application satisfied all of the criteria for the permit at issue. ITT does not object to the proposed permit even though more surfacewater will be impounded on the ITT property. Issuance of the proposed permit will approximate the flow of surfacewater that existed prior to Petitioners' installation of a 62 inch road culvert without a permit in 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Respondent, Paul Bridges', Application For Agriculture Or Forestry General Surfacewater Management Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY 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 2nd day of March 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6656 Petitioners' Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-4. Rejected as immaterial 5. Rejected as recited testimony 6.-7. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 9.-13. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 14.-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 16.-19. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as recited testimony 23.-24. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Respondent, Paul Bridges, Proposed Findings Of Fact. Respondent, Bridges, did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, Proposed Findings Of Fact. All of the District's proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. and Jerrilyn Moore, pro se Route 2, Box 120-E Trenton, FL 32693 Paul Bridges, pro se Route 2, Box 120K-1 Trenton, FL 32693 Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Cole Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
