The Issue Live Oak Plantation No. 1, Ltd. (Live Oak) through Stanford Development Group filed application number 4-117-0464AC-ERP with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) in April 1997, seeking a conceptual approval environmental resource permit. After SJRWMD issued its notice of intent to grant the permit, the Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the intended agency action. The central issue in this proceeding is whether the permit should be issued pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 40C-4, 40C-41 and 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code, including specific provisions of the Applicant's Handbook adopted by rule and identified in the parties' prehearing stipulation filed July 8, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Michael D. Rich is a former resident of Seminole County who lived on the property contiguous to the Live Oak site. He is the legal representative of his mother who still resides on the property and he is president of C-RED. C-RED is a Florida non-for-profit corporation with members from the City of Oviedo and unincorporated areas of Seminole County who are interested in assuring that development is done without improper impact on the taxpayers and the rural character of the area. Mr. Griffin is a resident of Seminole County living on Horseshoe Lake, which adjoins the Live Oak site. Live Oak is a Florida Limited Partnership which intends to develop the project that is the subject of this proceeding. SJRWMD is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and charged with responsibility for various permitting programs, including the one at issue here. The Project Live Oak proposes to develop a large multi-phased single family project with two small commercial sites. The project, to be known as "Live Oak Reserve," will be on approximately 1,041 acres on the south side of county road 419 in southeastern Seminole County in the City of Oviedo. The project site is located near the confluence of the Econlockhatchee River (Econ River) and Little Econlockhatchee River. The Live Oak Reserve property includes approximately half of Horseshoe Lake, as well as a small creek, Brister Creek, which flows from Horseshoe Lake across the property to the Econ River. The Econ River, a class III water and designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), crosses the southwestern corner of the Live Oak Reserve property. The Econ River is the receiving water body of Live Oak Reserve. The Live Oak Reserve property is located within the Econlockhatchee River Hydrologic Basin. A portion of the Live Oak Reserve property lies within the Econlockhatchee River Riparian Habitat Protection Zone (RHPZ). The Live Oak property lies within a 1,500 acre drainage basin; approximately 450 acres off-site drain through Live Oak Reserve. Horseshoe Lake has approximately 500 acres that drain through it, then through the wetlands and into the Econ River. Historically, the Live Oak Reserve property has been used for agricultural practices, including siliviculture and cattle production. Some areas of the property have been logged and some areas have been converted to pasture. Cattle have grazed in wetlands, thereby decreasing the amount and diversity of groundcover vegetation on portions of the property. Additionally, on-site drainage ditches have had a major impact on the hydrological characteristics of the wetlands on the property, including the reduction of surface water elevations. The Live Oak Reserve property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Application Process In April 1997, Live Oak submitted to the SJRWMD an Environmental Resource Permit Application, N4-117-0464AC-ERP, for conceptual approval of a master stormwater and floodplain management system for the development of Live Oak Reserve. A conceptual permit is utilized in complex multi-phased projects which are expected to have a longer build-out period than a single phase project. A conceptual permit does not allow any construction activity, but provides the outline for final engineering calculations and construction drawings. Further permits are required before any sitework or construction is undertaken. In conjunction with its permit application Live Oak submitted detailed technical information, including but not limited to charts, maps, calculations, studies, analyses and reports necessary to show that the conceptual development plan was consistent with the permitting criteria of the SJRWMD found in Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Applicant's Handbook. The master plan for the Live Oak project was designed by Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc.(McIntosh) using input from: (a) land planners who were required to consider issues related to the comprehensive plans, open space requirements and related issues; (b) landscape architects who were responsible for the proposed park systems and landscape treatments throughout the project; (c) geotechnical engineers responsible for evaluating the soil and groundwater conditions; and (d) environmental consultants, Modica and Associates, who were responsible for wetland delineation and flagging and wildlife surveys. The first version of the Live Oak Reserve site plan prepared for the project by McIntosh included development of all upland areas and filling several portions of the mixed forested wetlands to maximize lot yield. This included development of the upland adjacent to the Econ River and development of an upland parcel on the west side of the river. After much consideration and revision by the developer and its consultants, a site plan was developed which minimizes impacts to wetlands and other surface water functions, particularly as it relates to the Econ river, and maximizes the benefits to wildlife by establishing a series of wildfire corridors across the site. The final plan submitted to the SJRWMD at the time of the application includes the preservation of the entire Econ River floodplain and two adjacent developable upland areas, a large mixed hardwood forested wetland which traverses the site from the northeast to the southwest, and upland and wetland areas in the southern portion of the site that provide a corridor between a large undeveloped parcel to the east and the Econ River to the west. After submission of its application, Live Oak participated in a review process with SJRWMD staff to further eliminate and reduce wetland impacts. Specifically, SJRWMD requested changes to the site plan which included reductions in impacts to various wetlands and additional buffers to other wetlands. Several changes to the site plan were made to accommodate the SJRWMD's concerns relating to reducing impacts to wildlife, particularly the Florida sandhill crane. The reductions in wetland impacts and other design changes resulted in a revised site plan which the SJRWMD staff recommended to the district's governing board for approval. The staff recommendation of approval, with associated conditions, is set forth in Technical Staff Report dated February 10, 1998. On July 14 and 16, 1998, the SJRWMD revised the technical staff report to reflect changes to the project design and mitigation plan, as well as to add conditions inadvertently omitted from the earlier technical staff report. Condition no. 8 was mistakenly added to the July 16 technical staff report and by stipulation of all the parties, this condition was removed from the technical staff report. (See transcript, page 521) Stormwater Analysis McIntosh utilized information from different sources in preparing the stormwater calculations submitted to the SJRWMD. The developer provided information regarding proposed lot sizes and types so as to determine the impervious surface area for developable lots. The geotechnical consultants, Universal Engineering Sciences, (Universal) provided McIntosh with preliminary, interim, and final geotechnical reports, soil boring logs, and groundwater table estimates. The input from Universal primarily involved the establishment of seasonal high and seasonal low groundwater elevations for the pre-development and post-development conditions on the site. The estimated seasonal high and seasonal low groundwater levels refer to the range of levels the groundwater is expected to attain on the site during the wetter (high) and dryer (low) periods of a normal year. These elevations were then utilized in the stormwater calculations prepared by McIntosh. Topography on Live Oak Reserve consists of elevations ranging from 48 feet to 25 feet NGVD. In its pre-development condition, Live Oak Reserve has 6 distinct drainage patterns. Off-site drainage basins also contribute runoff to the property. The conceptual post-development design will modify the project's on-site drainage patterns into 28 drainage basins. At the request of the SJRWMD, Live Oak prepared seasonal high and seasonal low groundwater elevation contour maps. Live Oak performed approximately 200 borings on the Live Oak Reserve property. From the borings, Live Oak determined the soil types present and the existing groundwater elevations. Live Oak also used the borings to assist in establishing the estimated seasonal groundwater elevations. With the exception of several shallow borings in wetland areas, all borings were taken by split spoon sampling. Seventy-nine piezometers were installed next to bore holes to measure groundwater levels. In establishing the seasonal high groundwater levels, Live Oak evaluated the groundwater level at the time of boring; the time of year the groundwater level was measured; the time span of the investigation and its relationship to normal rainfall patterns; soil indicators such as coloration, mottling, and particle size; site specific topography; USGS quadrangle maps depicting site topography; Soil Conservation Service (NSCS) estimates of the expected seasonal high groundwater levels; and vegetative indicators. It is not essential to evaluate rainfall data when determining the seasonal water levels because the historical seasonal water levels are recorded in the soils. The estimated seasonal high groundwater level can be determined during the dry season. The range of the estimated seasonal high groundwater level on the Live Oak Reserve property is from standing water on the ground to five feet below the existing grade. In evaluating Live Oaks estimated seasonal groundwater levels, the District reviewed Live Oak's submittals, and also reviewed the NSCS soil survey to confirm that the estimated seasonal groundwater levels were reasonable. Wetland seasonal surface water levels were estimated using biological indicators such as lichen lines, buttressing, water lines, and sand lines. Lichen lines were apparent on the Live Oak Reserve properly and reflective of normal rainfall conditions. Seasonal high water levels are expected at the end of September. Seasonal low water levels are expected in May. The wetland surface water levels encountered in January 1997, when the seasonal levels were estimated, were neither exceptionally low nor exceptionally high. The water levels were representative of a period of normal rainfall. Water quantity attenuation and stormwater treatment will be accomplished through wet detention ponds and vegetative natural buffers. Due to the location of Live Oak Reserve in the Econlockhatchee River Hydrologic Basin, special basin criteria apply this project. The special basin criteria, also known as the "Econ Rule," is more stringent than the stormwater management criteria set forth in Applicant's Handbook sections 9 and 10. The special basin criteria, as it relates to the surface water management systems, requires Live Oak to control its discharge from two design storms: the mean-annual design storm, and the 25-year, 24-hour design storm. A design storm is a hypothetical storm with a predetermined rainfall amount, a predetermined intensity and 24 hour-duration. Designing the system to control the peak discharge during the mean-annual storm will prevent erosive velocities that would be harmful to Brister Creek and the Econ River. The conceptually proposed system is designed to limit peak rates of discharge to those of pre-development for the mean-annual and the 25-year, 24-hour design storm events. The system, as conceptually proposed, will limit post-development discharge rates to the same as or lower than the pre-development discharge rates. Each stormwater management area will pre-treat its respective post-development basin's pollution volume prior to discharge downstream. Live Oak proposes to use vegetative natural buffers for a portion of the rear lots within the post- development condition to fulfill treatment requirements. Live Oak Reserve is designed for the retention of the first inch of runoff from the total area of the post-development basins or the total runoff from 2.5 inches times the post- development basin's impervious area, whichever is greater. Furthermore, because Live Oak Reserve conceptually discharges to the Econ River, an OFW, the system is designed to provide an additional 50 percent of treatment. For discharges to an OFW the system must treat to a 95 percent removal standard. The outfall structures within each wet detention system are designed to draw down one-half the required treatment volume between 60 to 72 hours following storm event, but no more than one-half of this volume will be discharged within the first 60 hours. Each wet detention pond is designed with a permanent pool with a 31.5-day residence time during the wet season. Residence time is the time that the water within a pond will stay in the pond prior to discharge. The residence time includes the 14-day residence time required of all wet detention systems, an additional 50 percent residence time (7 days) for discharging into an OFW, for a total of 21 days. In addition, each system has been designed to provide an additional 50 percent residence time (10.5 days) because Live Oak has elected not to plant littoral shelves within each pond. As conceptually designed, Live Oak reserve's post- development drainage pattern will have no effect on the drainage patterns of Lake Eva or Horseshoe Lake. As conceptually designed, Live Oak Reserve's post-development drainage pattern will reduce the rate of flow during the storm events, which is a positive effect on the drainage pattern of Brister Creek. The reduction in flow velocity reduces the erosiveness of the storm. Live Oak has demonstrated that the 25-year and 100- year, 24-hour storm events' post-development peak stages for Lake Eva and Horseshoe Lake are not changed as a result of this conceptual project. Based upon Live Oak's calculations, the Live Oak Reserve project will not cause any restriction to the flow of water as it outfalls from Horseshoe Lake to Brister Creek. The conceptual wet detention systems within Live Oak Reserve are proposed to have a maximum depth of 12 feet. However, Live Oak requested consideration at the time of final engineering for each phase of development to maximize selected stormwater management areas for maximum depths of up to 25 feet. That consideration will be made in subsequent application review and is also subject to the City of Oviedo's approval. The conceptual wet detention ponds are designed with an average length to width ratio of two to one, and are configured to minimize the occurrence of short circuiting. As such, they will meet the criteria of the applicable rules. Tailwater conditions for the project were based on published flood elevations. Live Oak analyzed the tailwater condition for the mean-annual, 25-year 24-hour, and the 100-year 24-hour design storms. Live Oak completed a 100-year flow analysis for Live Oak reserve. Pre-development floodplain elevations for Lake Eva, Horseshoe Lake, and the Econ River were referenced from previous studies (Seminole County) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Live Oak determined that the 100-year floodplain elevations effecting Live Oak Reserve to be 40.2 feet NGVD from Horseshoe Lake, 45.0 feet NGVD for Lake Eva, and 32.5 feet NGVD for the Econlockhatchee. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a map of flood prone areas which indicates that the elevation delineating the flood prone area for Horseshoe Lake is 40.14, not 40.2, and for Lake Eva is 43.38, not 45.0. Therefore, the area indicated by USGS as the flood prone area is included in the 100-year floodplain analysis of Live Oak. Live Oak, in its conceptual design, has demonstrated that it will provide compensating storage for any encroachments into the 100-year floodplain. Live Oak has conceptually proposed to fill approximately 18.69 acre- feet within the 100-year floodplain. Live Oak will compensate the filling of the floodplain by providing a cut with the 100-year floodplain of approximately 27.09 acre-feet. By meeting the criteria in the "Econ Rule" the project conceptually meets all other relevant standards for stormwater management as the basin rule is more stringent. Live Oak has provided reasonable assurance that the development will not affect surrounding property or raise stagewater elevations of any surrounding property; the development will not displace the 100- year flood plain area; and the development will not restrict or impede the natural flow from Horseshoe Lake. Wetland and Wildlife Impacts Approximately 430 acres of wetlands cover the project site. Two general types of wetlands on found on the Live Oak reserve property: herbaceous wetlands and forested wetlands. Twenty-three herbaceous wetlands are classified as freshwater marshes. These wetlands range in size from 0.2 acre to over 8 acres. Wetlands 10 and 16, the largest on the property, are mixed hardwood forested wetlands. Approximately 525 acres of the Live Oak Reserve property are located within the RHPZ. Of this area, approximately 410.5 acres are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands that are predominantly pine flatwoods and xeric scrub. A few of the wetlands on site are considered RHPZ wetlands, not "isolated," solely because they are connected to floodplain wetlands by ditches. These wetlands and 50 feet of the uplands surrounding them are considered part of the RHPZ. The wetlands within the RHPZ are intact with little disturbance, especially in the Econ River corridor that is a part of wetland 16. Wetland 10 has been logged and the species composition in that wetland has changed. Wetlands 12 and 14 have ditch connections to the Econ River, but these ditch connections do not appear to have adversely impacted the wetlands hydrologically. Wetlands 2,3, and 8 have ditch connections to the Econ River. These wetlands have been adversely affected (drained) by the ditching. The RHPZ uplands are in good condition and provide very valuable habitat, except for 12 acres that are adjacent to upland cut drainage ditches. These 12 acres have no habitat value. The portion of the Live Oak Reserve property within the RHPZ provides good habitat important to fish and wildlife, and is part of the Econ River floodplain. The upland areas outside the RHPZ on the Live Oak Reserve property primarily consist of pine flatwoods and pasture. The pine flatwoods have been logged and are overgrown. The pasture appears to have been cleared many years ago and planted with bahia grass. Twenty-two isolated wetlands, which total approximately 17.9 acres, are located on the Live Oak reserve property. The isolated wetlands are intact and in good condition, except for temporary impacts due to cattle grazing and logging. The isolated wetlands provide habitat for wading birds, frogs, toads, and other wildlife. Ephemeral wetlands are wetlands that are seasonally inundated, but not necessarily inundated every year. Ephemeral wetlands provide important functions to wildlife, including gopher frogs and other amphibians for breeding, wading birds and sandhill cranes for foraging, and invertebrates. Ephemeral wetlands or "seasonal" wetlands occur on the Live Oak Reserve property. Although Live Oak did not separately address any of the wetlands as ephemeral, the value and functions of ephemeral wetlands were assessed by SJRWMD staff-person, David Eunice. While several small ephemeral wetlands are being impacted by the proposed development, several others are being preserved. Live Oak conducted wildlife surveys of the Live Oak Reserve property in accordance with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's approved Wildlife Methodology Guidelines. Based on the surveys, Live Oak determined that three listed species occurred on-site: the Florida sandhill crane, the gopher tortoise, and the Sherman's fox squirrel. The Florida sandhill crane is a threatened species. Live Oak found no evidence that the property hosts Florida panthers. Although the wildlife surveys did not identify gopher frogs, a species of special concern, the SJRWMD recognized the potential for the gopher frog to use the wetlands, including the ephemeral or seasonal wetlands, on the Live Oak Reserve property. Florida sandhill cranes have been observed foraging in a few areas on the Live Oak reserve property. In the spring of 1997, Live Oak identified two active nests in freshwater marshes (wetlands 21 and 29). There is no evidence that the sandhill cranes are currently nesting in wetland 29; however, Florida sandhill crane nests have been located in wetlands 14 and 21 this year. The typical critical nesting habitat for Florida sandhill cranes is a large, isolated marsh, generally either dominated by maidencane or pickerel weed. The marsh must maintain a surface water level between 12 and 24 inches so that the birds can construct a suitable nesting platform in the marsh. Nesting success, in part, depends upon wetland type used and water depths. The Florida sandhill crane also requires a certain amount of pasture-like upland habitat in which to forage. However, the crane forages in both uplands and wetland. Upland pasture is the sandhill crane's preferred foraging habitat. The sandhill crane's second most preferred foraging habitat is freshwater marsh. When the sandhill cranes have chicks and fledglings, the birds forage in the wetlands. After a period of three to four months, the juvenile and adult sandhill cranes will move to open pasture to forage. The Econ River floodplain wetlands and their associated upland habitats on the Live Oak reserve property are regionally ecologically significant. Overall, the Live Oak Reserve property provides good ecological value. It is part of the river corridor, has a tributary that runs through it and has uplands that have had little disturbance. Live Oak has eliminated certain wetland impacts and reduced others during the design of the Live Oak Reserve project. Live Oak eliminated some road crossings, and redesigned the pond configuration to eliminate or reduce encroachments into wetlands. Live Oak's site plan that was submitted as part of the initial April 14, 1997, application reflects Live Oak's initial attempts to eliminate or reduce impacts. Live Oak, in its application, proposed a project design with 46 acres of wetland impacts. The site plan has changed since Live Oak made the initial application to the SJRWMD. The initial project design called for the removal of the southern one-half of wetland 29 for the construction of a stormwater pond. Live Oak redesigned the project to preserve wetland 29 with a 50-foot upland buffer around it to eliminate direct impacts to the sandhill cranes nesting there. Live Oak further reduced impacts by preserving wetlands 14 and 15, and by placing upland buffers around them to protect sandhill crane habitat. The revised design of the surface water management system reduced wetland impacts by approximately 7 acres. The SJRWMD February 10, 1998, technical staff report includes the design plans reducing impacts by 7 acres. After the SJRWMD issued its February 10, 1998, technical staff report, Live Oak once again redesigned the project to preserve wetland 12. This redesign reduced wetland impacts by an additional 3 acres. In this case, SJRWMD staff worked with Live Oak to reduce or eliminate its impacts. Nonetheless, staff believed Live Oak's proposed mitigation qualified for the exception under Section 12.2.1.2b, that is, the on-site preservation of the Econ River floodplain and associated uplands, in concert with Live Oak's contribution to acquiring a conservation easement over the Yarborough parcel, discussed below, provides regional ecological value and provides greater long term ecological value then the areas impacted. Live Oak proposes practicable design alternatives, but it is not required to reduce or eliminate all impacts. Some design alternatives, such as whether to use a bridge or culverts for the Brister Creek crossing, must be addressed and considered at a later permit application stage and not at this conceptual permit stage. The proposed design includes dredging or filling of approximately 35.9 acres of wetlands and construction in approximately 38 acres of RHPZ uplands. Of these 35 wetlands on the Live Oak Reserve property, Live Oak will completely impact 23 of the wetlands (17.64 acres of wetland impact); partially impact 5 wetlands (18.28 acres of wetland impacts out of 370.15 acres of wetlands); and will avoid impacts to 7 wetlands (40.63 acres). The impacts are mostly limited to the small isolated wetlands, the upland/wetland transitional edges of the floodplain wetlands, and portions of RHPZ already degraded by a ranch roadway and ditch placement. Live Oak focused its impacts on areas, including wetlands, that were historically disturbed. SJRWMD staff considered that the isolated wetlands less than 0.5 acre were used by sandhill cranes and other threatened or endangered species. Therefore, staff required Live Oak to offset impacts to the small isolated wetlands. In addition to physical impacts to wetlands and RHPZ, the habitation of the proposed subdivision, which will result in noise and intrusion into wildlife habitat by humans and their pets, will cause secondary impacts. Those secondary impacts are offset in part by the upland buffers proposed by the applicant (a total of 10 acres of 25 foot buffers and 47.86 acres of 50- foot buffers.) After considering the type of impact proposed; past, present and future activities that may occur in the Econ River Hydrologic Basin; and that Live Oak off-site mitigation of adverse impacts is located within the same hydrologic basin; SJRWMD staff appropriately determined that Live Oak Reserve would not have an adverse cumulative impact. Mitigation Live Oak's mitigation plan consists of both on-site and off-site preservation. The proposed on-site component of the mitigation plan entails the preservation of 19.3 acres of herbaceous marsh, 373.2 acres of forested wetlands, and 124.9 acres of uplands. The mitigation plan preserves approximately 5.65 acres of isolated wetlands on-site, and approximately 386.86 acres of RHPZ wetlands on-site. The cornerstone of Live Oak's on-site mitigation is the preservation of the Econ River forested floodplain swamp, as well as two upland areas, in the southwestern corner of the property. One of the upland areas is a 15-acre upland scrub island on the east side of the river that is surrounded by forested wetlands. The other upland area is 24 acres of uplands located near the Econ River on its west side. Portions of both uplands are within the RHPZ. Both the forested floodplain and the associated upland areas provide habitat of regional ecological significance. The forested floodplain wetlands and the uplands that are part of the RHPZ are protected to a large degree by SJRWMD regulations. These regionally significant wildlife communities, however, can be temporarily, but chronically, impacted, if not permanently degraded, by timbering and other activities that are relatively unregulated. Live Oak proposes to protect and preserve these areas by placing them in a conservation easement. Placing Econ River forested floodplain wetlands and the upland RHPZ areas in a conservation easement will provide a greater level of protection and assurance that they will mature to an "old growth" condition, which will benefit many wildlife species. The Econ River floodplain wetlands, the upland scrub island and the small isolated wetland in the scrub island will accommodate the smaller wildlife species that currently use the Live Oak Reserve property. Live Oak has preserved most of the larger isolated wetlands with high ecological value. The large isolated wetlands preserved on-site will continue to maintain a high level of ecological function even with the surrounding development. Wildlife, such as frogs, toads, snakes, and wading birds will continue to use those wetlands. The on-site portion of the mitigation plan preserves approximately 71.87 acres of upland buffers, of which 2.04 acres are located in 25-foot buffers and 69.83 acres are located in 50- foot RHPZ buffers. The buffer areas will be placed in a conservation easement. The wildlife values of the uplands on this property that are not within the RHPZ are protected to some degree by local government regulations; they are, however, largely unprotected by the existing regulations of SJRWMD. Without the proposed conservation easements, this habitat may be developed or significantly degraded by other activities. As a component of its on-site sandhill crane nesting site management plan, Live Oak preserves a 6.83-acre upland buffer next to wetland 21, which hosts a sandhill crane nest. Additionally, Live Oak provides enhancement of 3.88 acres on the southside of wetland 21 within the 6.83-acre buffer area by converting this area to improved pasture for sandhill crane foraging habitat. The mitigation plan sufficiently offsets the impacts to the smaller isolated wetlands, even if these wetlands have more than a typical resource value. When evaluating impacts and mitigation, Applicant's Handbook Section 12.2.3.7 requires the SJRWMD to evaluate the predicted ability of the wetland or other surface water to maintain their current functions as part of the proposed system once the project is developed. Many of the smaller isolated wetlands, when located in a natural setting such as a pine flatwood, are very critical and provide very high ecological value. However, once a project is developed and the small isolated wetland is surrounded by homes, the resource value of the small isolated wetland is diminished. Many of the smaller wildlife species, such as frogs and snakes, will be extirpated from the developed area of property, whether or not the smaller isolated wetlands remain. SJRWMD considered the value of the off-site mitigation to offset the adverse impacts to the smaller isolated wetlands. In determining the adequacy of the preservation component of the mitigation plan, SJRWMD staff did not rely upon any specific rule, regulation, or comprehensive plan of the City of Oviedo. However, the staff did consider the overall protections afforded by the regulatory and comprehensive plan requirements of the city and determined that preservation of the mitigation areas by conservation easement provided greater assurance that these areas will be protected than the local government rules, regulations, and comprehensive plan. The off-site component of the mitigation plan is the contribution of $160,525 towards participation in the SJRWMD acquisition of a conservation easement over the 3,456 acre Yarborough parcel. The Yarborough parcel is located in the northeastern corner of the Econ River Hydrologic Basin. The Yarborough parcel encompasses property north and south of the Econ River. A portion, mostly sovereign lands, lies within the Puzzle Lake/Upper St. Johns River Hydrologic Basin. The Yarborough parcel is part of a large working ranch. The parcel contains improved and unimproved pasture, significant cabbage palm hammocks, pine flatwood communities, and freshwater marsh. Live Oak's participation equates to the acquisition of a conservation easement over 200 acres of the Yarborough parcel. However, Live Oak is not purchasing any particular 200 acres with the Yarborough parcel. Live Oak's contribution is applied to 200 acres of the Yarborough parcel within the Econ River Hydrologic Basin. SJRWMD estimates that of the 200 acres, 165 acres are wetlands and 35 acres are uplands. This assessment is based on the composition of wetlands and uplands on the Yarborough property within the Econlockhatchee River Hydrologic Basin. SJRWMD has purchased development rights over the Yarborough parcel. Yarborough is authorized to continue its cattle operation on the Yarborough parcel for 20 years in accordance with the conditions of the conservation easement. However, Yarborough is not permitted to increase the amount of improved pasture or further develop the parcel. On the contrary, the conservation easement requires Yarborough to decrease the number of cattle on the parcel over the next 20 years. Purchase of the conservation easement over the working ranch has positive environmental benefits. The conservation easement will protect the wildlife species that use the ranch. This environmental benefit can be used to offset adverse impacts on the Live Oak Reserve property. To participate in this type of mitigation, the acquisition must be imminent so that the SJRWMD is reasonably assured that the purchase will go forward. Participation is precluded for a parcel after its acquisition is concluded. Live Oak's mitigation plan, with its on-site and off- site components, offsets Live Oak Reserves adverse impacts. SJRWMD calculates the mitigation ratio and compares it to the guidelines in the Applicant's Handbook to determine if mitigation is adequate. SJRWMD however, is not required to adhere to any set ratio. The upland preservation ratio (area preserved to area impacted), excluding the 12 acres of uplands along the upland cut ditches and the Yarborough parcel uplands, is 6 to one. The rule guidelines for upland preservation is from 3 to one to 20 to one. The wetland preservation ratio is 15.5 to one. The rule guidelines for wetland preservation is from 10 to one to 60 to one. Public Interest Criteria Live Oak Reserve will not have any effect on the public health, safety or welfare or property of others. Because the mitigation plan adequately offsets all adverse impacts, Live Oak reserve will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Because of the benefits of lowering the discharge rates in the post-development condition and reducing the velocity of stormwater in Brister Creek, Live Oak Reserve will reduce the potential for erosion. Live Oak Reserve will not have any affect on the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the site. Live Oak Reserve will be of permanent nature. However, its adverse impacts have been offset by mitigation. The permanence of the project is beneficial in that it provides treatment of untreated off-site runoff from county road 419 by the Live Oak surface water management system and it reduces the discharge rate of stormwater down Brister Creek. Therefore, the permanence of the project is not contrary to the public interest. In accordance with Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources determined that the Live Oak Reserve project will have no possible impact to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historical Places, or otherwise of historical or architectural value. Furthermore, the Division of Historical Resources determined that the project is consistent with Florida's Coastal Management Program and its historic preservation laws and concerns. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the various vegetative communities on the Live Oak Reserve property is good. However, there is no guarantee that the value and functions would remain good if the property is not managed for species like the sandhill crane or if agricultural and silvicultural practices continue to occur on the property. The mitigation plan, preserving regionally ecologically significant wetland and upland communities on both the Live Oak Reserve and Yarborough parcel by conservation easement, should provide a greater protection of those communities than what currently exists.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered granting Live Oak's application for a conceptual approval environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the SJRWMD technical staff report dated July 16, 1998, with the exception of condition 8, deleted by stipulation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 2nd day of November, 1998 COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Scott M. Price, Esquire J.A. Jurgens, P.A. 505 Wekiva Springs Road Longwood, Florida 32779 Charles H. Griffin, pro se 250 West 7th Street Chuluota, Florida 32766 Michael L. Gore, Esquire Meredith A. Harper, Esquire Ken W. Wright, Esquire Shutts and Bowen, LLP 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801 Anthony J. Cotter, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
The Issue Whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District proved that Alan R. Behrens signed a pleading, motion, or other paper in this proceeding for an “improper purpose,” and, if so, whether sanctions should be imposed pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Alan R. Behrens has resided and owned property at 4740 Southwest Armadillo Trail, Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida, since 1985. There is a two-inch free-flowing artesian well used for domestic purposes on this property. Mr. Behrens’ well is approximately 150 feet deep and draws water from the Intermediate aquifer. The well currently has no pumping mechanism, and Mr. Behrens relies on an unaided artesian flow to produce water, which at times is inadequate. In prior administrative cases and the case involving Has-Ben Groves, Mr. Behrens is concerned that the withdrawal of water in the amounts requested by others from areas near his property will impair his ability to draw adequate amounts of water from his well. Mr. Behrens stated that his purpose in challenging the Has-Ben Groves WUP “is to receive assurances that any proposed use is not going to adversely impact [his] well. That’s [his] general biggest, main goal.” He feels that he did not receive assurances from the District; therefore, his only option was to request a hearing. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder as Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code. The District has the statutory duty to review and approve or deny applications requesting consumptive water use permits. The Has-Ben Groves WUP Application On January 27, 2003, the District issued a notice of final agency action for approval of Water Use General Permit No. 20012410.000 issued to Has-Ben Groves. The WUP authorized annual average groundwater withdrawals of 31,100 gallons per day (gpd) to be used for irrigation of Has-Ben Groves’ 40-acre citrus grove. (Peak monthly withdrawals of 254,300 gpd and withdrawals for crop protection at 1,015,200 gpd were authorized.) Tomlinson previously owned the Has-Ben Groves’ 40 acres. The District previously permitted the well on the Has-Ben Groves 40 acres when Tomlinson owned the property. The Tomlinson well was previously permitted for 77,000 gpd on an annual basis, but the permit expired. Thus, Has-Ben Groves applied for a new WUP. The Has-Ben Groves permitted well site is located in Hardee County and is approximately 16 miles from Mr. Behrens’ artesian well in DeSoto County, and is expected to draw approximately 94 percent of its water from the Upper Floridan aquifer. Did Mr. Behrens sign a pleading, motion,or other paper for an improper purpose? On January 20, 2003, Mr. Behrens, by letter, asked the District to be advised of any agency action regarding five WUP applications, including the Has-Ben Groves application. In this letter, Mr. Behrens also requested, what he characterized as “public information,” “what the predicted drawdown to the intermediate and Floridan aquifers are.” He inquired further: “Please make sure the hydrologist includes this information. I have previously asked for this basic information; please do not force me to take legal action against SWFMD per the Sunshine law & other public information laws.” (Emphasis in original.) Mr. Behrens was copied with the District’s “Final Agency Action Transmittal Letter” sent to Has-Ben Groves on January 27, 2003. According to Mr. Behrens, “legal action” meant the filing of a petition requesting an administrative hearing. He felt that it was his only option to receive information and assurances. In particular, Mr. Behrens wanted the District to create and provide him with drawdown contours and modeling even if the District believed it was unnecessary. See Endnote 1. By letter dated January 29, 2003, the District, by Pamela A. Gifford, CLA, Office of General Counsel, responded to Mr. Behrens’ request for ‘predicted drawdown’ information and stated in part: “First, please be advised, the District does not prepare ‘predicted drawdown’ for all water use permits. Second, to ask for ‘predicted drawdown’ for permits, you are making a pubic records request. The District does not accept anticipatory public record requests. In other words, when the District receives a public records request, it will search for existing records responsive to the request as of the date of the public records request. . . . Third, the District will not create a record to respond to a public records request. If a ‘predicted drawdown’ exists, it will be provided to you, if it does not, it will not be created to answer your request.”1 By letter dated January 31, 2003, Mr. Behrens responded to the District’s January 29, 2003, letter referred to above and expressed his understanding that he could “expect the results of drawdown modeling to be included in Notices of Agency Action that [he] receive from the District.” Mr. Behrens requested the name of the District office and the hydrologist who reviewed the Has-Ben Groves WUP application; the location of the file; a statement that it was “apparently a new withdrawal”; a request to identify the amount of water coming from the Intermediate and Floridan aquifers; a query as to why the withdrawal would “be cased to only a depth of 120 feet; won’t this mean that much of the water will be drawn from the intermediate?” Mr. Behrens also requested “a copy of the drawdown modeling results (map).” Mr. Behrens advised that it was “very important that new groundwater withdrawals do not lower [his] well level further, because [he is] relying completely on artesian free-flowing pressure; every inch of level reduction creates further hardship for [him].” (During his deposition, Mr. Behrens felt that the District could produce the information on a “voluntary” basis in order to give him “assurances up front.”) By letter dated February 10, 2003, the District, by Ms. Gifford, responded to Mr. Behrens’ January 31, 2003, letter and advised him “that drawdown modeling will not be included in Notices of Agency Action that you receive from the District. The only way that you will receive the drawdown modeling is if the District has records related to the modeling at the time you make a specific public records request for same. For example, if you make a public records request today for drawdown modeling, the District will only provide records to you that are in our files as of today. You would have to make a subsequent public records request to get any records that were received or created by the District after today’s date.” (Emphasis in original.) Ms. Gifford also advised Mr. Behrens that he was being provided with “copies of documents that are responsive to [his] public records request dated January 31, 2003.” Mr. Behrens was provided with a copy of the Has-Ben Groves General Water Use Permit Application which indicated, in part, that the application was “new” as opposed to a “renewal” or “modification”; the location of the well site; that Has-Ben Groves intended to irrigate 40 acres for citrus; and that the construction date of the well was in “1960.” The word “existing” is written on the line describing, in part, the casing diameter, depth, and pump capacity. See Finding of Fact The name “Phillippi” is handwritten on page one of the application. (Michael Phillippi is a professional geologist and employed with the District for over nine years. He had a pre- application telephone conversation with the applicant for the Has-Ben Groves WUP.) A “Water Use Permit Evaluation Worksheet” was also enclosed which included, among other information, the names “Lucille” and “Deborah” and the initials of two persons. The record does not indicate that Mr. Behrens followed up with the District regarding the Has-Ben Groves application after receiving the District’s February 10, 2003, letter and enclosures. On February 19, 2003, Mr. Behrens filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging the District’s preliminary decision to approve the WUP. The District determined that the Petition was timely filed, but not in substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.201(2), governing the initiation of administrative proceedings. The District issued an Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice on February 27, 2003. On March 12, 2003, Mr. Behrens filed an Amended Petition for Formal Hearing. Mr. Behrens alleged that the withdrawal to be authorized by the WUP “would use huge quantities of water from the intermediate aquifer, even though water from the Floridan aquifer is completely suitable for citrus irrigation”; is “very close” to Mr. Behrens’ “property and well”; and the “cone of depression in the Intermediate aquifer that would be caused by the new use will cause a reduction in Petitioner’s water level and pressure and impair the ability of his well to produce water.” (Mr. Behrens also alleged that “[t]he proposed well would be eight inches in diameter, 920 feet deep, and cased to only 120 feet.” See Finding of Fact 15.) Mr. Behrens also alleged that the District refused to provide certain information, such as predicted drawdown to area wells. He also raised numerous disputed issues of material fact. On May 23, 2003, the District deposed Mr. Behrens. During his deposition, Mr. Behrens was asked to identify all facts and documents or sources of information he relied on in making the allegations in the Amended Petition. Mr. Behrens testified that the challenged water use withdrawal “seems like a very excessive amount”; “is [c]lose enough to have an impact on [his] well”; “is going to have a drawdown, is going to have an impact on the aquifer” and he has “a well on the aquifer”; that “these wells are going to have a drawdown and they’re going to draw down [his] well”; and that his position, that the Has-Ben Groves well will have a drawdown impact on his well, is based upon “[s]cience and facts and common sense” and “the evidence is self-evident.” Mr. Behrens has “done no studies.” Rather, he relies on information, such as the documents he introduced into evidence and his knowledge about the area and the District, to support the allegations in the Petition and Amended Petition. See, e.g., Findings of Fact 22-23. He does not have enough money to hire experts. He relies on the District’s hydrologists for the information he requests and for assurances. Yet, Mr. Behrens did not contact any District hydrologist to discuss his concerns before he filed the Petition and Amended Petition. See also Findings of Fact 26-28. On June 17, 2003, Mr. Behrens responded to the District’s Interrogatories, which requested Mr. Behrens to identify all facts he relied upon in making his assertions, including all documents prepared or reviewed in connection with such assertions. Mr. Behrens stated that no specific documents were prepared or reviewed in connection with his assertions made in paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition, and that the assertions in paragraph 6 were “pure truth – there’s no need to go searching to prove the obvious!” (Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition alleged: “The proposed new groundwater withdrawal would use huge quantities of water from the Intermediate aquifer, even though water from the Floridan aquifer is completely suitable for citrus irrigation.”) During the final hearing, Mr. Behrens claimed that prior to filing his Petition, he relied on his experience and the information he maintains regarding the District’s identification of water use problems, and the District’s March 2000 Horse Creek Draft Resource Evaluation Report, the “Water Resources in Jeopardy” report published during the early 1990’s, and the 1992 Recommended Order in Alan R. Behrens, et al. v. Consolidated Minerals, Inc. and Southwest Florida Water Management District, et al., Case Nos. 92-0953-92-0957, 1993 WL 944120 (DOAH April 20, 1993; SWFWMD Nov. 30, 1994), in which Hearing Officer Daniel M. Kilbride found that Mr. Behrens was substantially affected by the District’s then proposed renewal and modification of an existing WUP held by Consolidated Minerals. 1993 WL 944120, at *4. (In interrogatory responses, Mr. Behrens also identified a 1986 potentiometric surface map of the Intermediate aquifer, among other maps he might identify.) These documents do not provide information relevant to whether the challenged Has-Ben Groves water withdrawal meets the conditions for issuance of a WUP or would lead a reasonable person to allege that the challenged Has-Ben Groves water use and well would have an adverse impact on Mr. Behrens’ use of his well. Before filing his initial Petition and during the interval before he filed his Amended Petition, Mr. Behrens did not contact or speak to District staff who reviewed the Has-Ben Groves WUP application or District staff in the Bartow Service Office (the District service office responsible for permitting matters in Hardee County) to obtain information concerning the Has-Ben Groves permit application or to discuss his concerns regarding whether the proposed water use to be authorized by the WUP would adversely affect his well. But see Finding of Fact 13, which indicates that on January 31, 2003, Mr. Behrens posed several questions to the District, prior to filing his Petition, which apparently were left unanswered. It appears Mr. Behrens did not pursue this inquiry until he served the District with Interrogatories on May 29, 2003. Mr. Behrens did not review the District’s “work file” after filing his Petition. In his Proposed Final Order (PFO), Mr. Behrens provided a detailed chronology and analysis of the factors he considered that caused him to file prior challenges to District action and his challenge to the District’s intent to approve the Has-Ben Groves WUP. He has mistrusted the District over time and has had little faith that the District understands his “unique circumstance” and will protect his well from adverse impacts resulting from the issuance of WUPs. See, e.g., (T. 95- 96, 98, 100.) He notes in his PFO that it was not until the Has-Ben Groves case that he “started to have trust in the District staff’s reliance on regional well monitoring data (as its sole source of cumulative impact analysis).” According to Mr. Behrens, the District provided him with information during discovery from which he derived reasonable assurances. He also felt that based on his experience, he “did not contact the permit reviewers in this matter because, from experience, he knew he could not trust them to provide the necessary assurances with a few comments over the telephone.” Yet, because of his financial inability to hire experts, Mr. Behrens relies on the expertise of the District’s hydrologists for assurance that his well will not be adversely impacted. See, e.g., (T. 112) (District Exhibit 13, pp. 41-42, 55, 58-61.) Stated otherwise, Mr. Behrens wanted the District staff to provide him with proof of reasonable assurance and he filed the Petition and Amended Petition because he felt he did not receive appropriate proof. If this final hearing went forward, his intent was to ask questions of the District’s hydrologists regarding many of the documents in his possession and to ask “District staff, under oath, about specific matters related to the protection of his well and the intermediate aquifer, in general,” presumably as he had done in the Basso and Boran cases, for example. See, e.g. (District Exhibit 13, p. 59-60.) Then, the ALJ, after hearing all of evidence, would decide whether reasonable assurance was provided. Prior to and after Mr. Behrens filed his Amended Petition, the District maintained Regional Observation and Monitoring Program (ROMP) wells that provide cumulative monitoring information concerning the Intermediate and Floridan aquifer water levels throughout the District. ROMP well data are available to the public upon request. (In response to a question posed by Mr. Behrens during the final hearing, Mr. Balser stated that ROMP well data do not give absolute assurance or reflect “[e]xactly what is happening in the geology under [Mr. Behrens] property.” Mr. Balser stated that he “would have to do testing of [his] property. But this is the best guess we can make looking at it from a regional view.”) It is more than a fair inference that Mr. Behrens was familiar with ROMP well data and their application in specific cases as a result of his participation in prior administrative cases. See pp. 4-5, supra. He did not request ROMP well data available from the District prior to filing his Petition and Amended Petition, although he asked for the quantity of groundwater which was expected to be withdrawn from the Intermediate and Floridan aquifers. See Conclusions of Law 48- 50. District WUP information and other records are available for public inspection, including the use and permitting history of the water withdrawal challenged by Mr. Behrens in this proceeding. If Mr. Behrens had inquired of the District prior to filing his Petition and Amended Petition, Mr. Behrens could have learned that the well on the Has-Ben Groves property had been in existence as early as the 1960’s for citrus irrigation, was first permitted around 1974, had previously been authorized by the District for withdrawals of as much as 77,000 gpd, was expected to draw approximately 94 percent of its water from the Upper Floridan aquifer, and there was no reasonable basis to conclude that withdrawals of 31,100 gpd from the Has-Ben Groves well would cause any adverse impact to his well, which draws water from the Intermediate aquifer. Stated otherwise, at the time he filed his Petition and Amended Petition, Mr. Behrens had no reasonable factual basis to allege that withdrawals of 31,100 gpd from the Has-Ben Groves’ well, located approximately 16 miles from his well, would have an adverse impact on his use of water from his well. (An applicant for a WUP is required to provide, in part, reasonable assurance that the water use “[w]ill not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D- 2.301(1)(i).) On June 30, 2003, Mr. Behrens filed a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” and responded, in part, to the District’s Motion for Summary Recommended Order, but not the District’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Behrens stated that he withdrew his Amended Petition because he obtained information that he did not have when he filed his Amended Petition and that addressed his concerns about impacts to his well. He claimed, in part, that being informed of the District’s plan to set minimum levels for the Intermediate aquifer had allayed his fears that he would be without an artesian free-flowing water supply. However, the challenged WUP did not address or involve the setting of minimum flow levels. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Behrens did not make a reasonable inquiry regarding the facts and applicable law. Using an objective standard, an ordinary person standing in Mr. Behrens’ shoes would not have prosecuted this claim if a reasonable inquiry had been conducted. Stated otherwise, Mr. Behrens did not have a “reasonably clear legal justification” to proceed based on his limited inquiry. Mr. Behrens signed the Petition and Amended Petition for an “improper purpose.” The District’s Request for Sanctions The District proved that its lawyers expended approximately 98.8 hours in responding to the challenge brought by Mr. Behrens and that the District incurred $426.25 in costs. An hourly rate of $125.00 per hour is a reasonable rate. The hours expended by District lawyers were reasonable. The costs incurred were reasonable. The District requests that sanctions be imposed in the amount of $12,350.00 for attorney's fees and $426.25 in costs. For the reasons more fully stated in the Conclusions of Law, based on the totality of the facts presented, the imposition of a sanction against Mr. Behrens in the amount of $500.00 (for costs and a small portion of fees) is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a special taxing district providing fire protection and rescue services to the residents of the Estero area of Lee County. The fire station is located at 20241 Tamiami Trail, Estero, Florida. Petitioner employs 14 employees, including administrative staff and firefighters. The firefighters work 24 hours straight and then are off-duty for 48 hours. Two to four employees work each shift. Firefighting requires a fast response. Thus, Petitioner requires that on-duty firefighters remain at the station for their entire 24-hour shift, unless they are out fighting fires or performing rescue duties. The fire station contains an 8' x 13' bedroom with six mattresses located on three bunk beds. On-duty firefighters are allowed to bring pillows and sheets so they can sleep at the station while on duty. There are no dressers in the room, which contains small lockers that the firefighters may use to store a change of clothes. Petitioner provides kitchen facilities at the fire station and well water. The well water is used for washing equipment, taking showers, and flushing the toilet. The well water is not used for any other purposes, nor is it used by any other persons. Petitioner provides bottled water for drinking and cooking. All of the firefighters have residences apart from the fire station and within a reasonable commuting distance from the fire station. No firefighter has ever lived at the station. Petitioner does not charge, or reduce the pay of, the firefighters for their use of the limited sleeping facilities. Petitioner lawfully does not treat the use of the limited sleeping facilities by firefighters as gross income for the purposes of withholding federal income tax or making social security contributions. By letter dated July 18, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that the fire station's water system is a limited use community water system because the sleeping facilities constituted rental residences, as defined by Rule 10D- 4.024(21), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent advised Petitioner that it was therefore required to obtain a permit. As noted in the following section, the statute authorizes Respondent to regulate as limited use community public water systems those systems serving a certain number of "rental residences." The statute does not define "rental residence." In Rule 10D-4.024(21), Respondent defines a "rental residence" as follows: a dwelling unit, a structure or part of a structure that is rented for use, or furnished with or without rent as an incident of employ- ment, for use as a home, residence, sleeping place by one or more persons, a mobile home rented by a tenant. This term does not apply to facilities offering transient residency such as public lodging establishments. This term includes other facilities where residency or detention is incidental to the provision of medical, geriatric, educational, counseling, religious, or similar services. Respondent equated a "rental residence" with a "dwelling unit" when it based its definition of "rental residence" on the statutory definition of "dwelling unit" in Chapter 83, Part II, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A "dwelling unit" is a "residence." The American Heritage dictionary defines a "dwelling" as "a place to live in; residence; abode." Similarly, the same dictionary's first definition of "residence" is "the place in which one lives; a dwelling; an abode." But the statutory definition qualifies "residential" with "rental." The word "rental" requires consideration of the nature of the relationship of the occupant to the dwelling and its owner. Obviously, the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act addresses rental transactions, but it does not do so in the definition of "dwelling unit." Other provisions of the Act describe the kind of activity that must take place for a person to be considered a tenant renting a dwelling unit. Most importantly, Section 83.43(6) defines "rent" as "periodic payments due the landlord from the tenant for occupancy under a rental agreement " The facts of this case present a revealing illustration of the distinction between a "residence" or "dwelling unit," on the one hand, and a "rental residence," on the other hand. There is no rental relationship between the occupants of the sleeping quarters at the fire station and the residence or dwelling itself. The firefighters do not pay, directly or indirectly, for these beds or the rooms in which the beds are located. Their employer legitimately does not include the value of the use of these sleeping quarters in the compensation paid to the firefighters. The firefighters have residences within commuting distance of the fire station and use the meager sleeping quarters and kitchen facilities only because they are required to spend long hours continuously at the fire station.
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500112 requested water from three (3) wells for the purpose of industrial use. This application is for a new use. The center of withdrawals will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 38' 58" North, Longitude 81 degrees 48' 21" West, in Hardee County, Florida. The application is for the use of not more than 470 million gallons of water per year and not more than 2,592,000 gallons of water during any single day to be withdrawn from the Florida Aquifer. Application received as Exhibit 1. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Herald Advocate, published weekly in Wauchula, Florida, on August 7 and 14, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The affidavit of publication was received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 2. Letters of objection were received from the following: Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Route 1, Box 238, Wauchula, Florida 33273. Mr. Smith states that in his opinion such withdrawal of water will severely damage his property. He is developing a mobile home park on eight (8) acres and is fearful that the amount of water requested in this application will diminish his supply of water for his project. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Van Dyck, written on August 16, 1975, Route 2, Box 657, Wauchula, Florida 33873. They are fearful that the large amount of water American Orange Corporation proposes to pump each day will affect their shallow well which provides water for their home. They would like to see some type of agreement whereby American Orange Corporation would be willing to pay for replacement of the well if the corporation should cause their well to go dry. Mr. Stanley H. Beck, Counselor at Law, wrote a letter in behalf of his client, Harold Beck, requesting information as to the applicable statutes and regulations which affect the matter of the consumptive use permit. A telegram was sent by Harold Beck of Suite 1021, Rivergate Plaza, Miami 33131, stating that he objected to the application of American Orange Corporation's withdrawal of water or the reason that it would reduce the property value. The witness for the permittee is Barbara Boatwright, hydrologist, who was duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The staff hydrologist recommended that the permit be granted with two (2) conditions. One was that each of the wells be metered and two, that the District receive monthly reports from each meter. The applicant has consented.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, East County Water Control District, Lehigh Acres, Florida (ECWCD), was created in 1958 pursuant to statute, legislative act, and judicial decree as a drainage district for resources management and control. ECWCD has similar boundaries to those of the Lehigh Acres development near Fort Myers, Florida, which consists of some 65,000 acres, 1,200 of which are located in Hendry County, and the remainder in Lee County, Florida. The works sought to be constructed are set forth in Unit III of the ECWCD's Plan of Reclamation that was approved by the Circuit Court of Lee County on September 25, 1972. The Plan of Reclamation is intended to provide a system of water control for separate Unit No. 3, an area of almost 70 square miles in Lehigh Acres, to prevent flooding in that area and thus permit maximum beneficial use of land for development and other purposes. The Plan of Reclamation indicates that an auxiliary benefit would accrue in that the peak discharge into the lower Orange River would be lowered by a planned outfall canal system that will extend and adjoin existing canals with water control structures (Testimony of Gardner, Ward, Exhibit 11.) In 1973, the ECWCD filed application with various state agencies to implement its Plan of Reclamation. In 1974, one of the agencies requested that a report be prepared on the effect of implementation of the plan on water resources. This was secured in May, 1975, and applications were refiled thereafter. On June 8, 1975, the ECWCD filed Application No. 20986 with the FCD requesting a surface water management permit to construct the works covered under its Plan of Reclamation and an additional water control structure (Testimony of Gardner, Ward, Composite Exhibit 1.) The ECWCD consists of approximately 102 square miles located in the northeast portion of Lee County, south of the Caloosahatchee River, some 17 miles east of Fort Myers. The principal community located therein is Lehigh Acres with a current population of about 13,000. This developed area represents about 34 percent of the ECWCD. Unit No. 3 covers approximately 69 percent of the total distract land area. The primary receiving water body for the land area of the ECWCD is the Caloosahatchee River on the north boundary which in turn is one of the two major outlets of Lake Okeechobee for water control. The ECWCD contributes approximately 53 square miles of runoff into the Caloosahatchee River drainage basin. The remainder of 49 square miles of the ECWCD contributes runoff to the Orange River which enters the Caloosahatchee River approximately 8 miles downstream of the Franklin Lock and Dam. The ECWCD presently has some 175 miles of primary and secondary canals, several controllable culverts and one major water control structure, No. 1, on Hickey's Creek Canal. Internal stormwater routing is accomplished via swales and shallow waterways. The existing water management plan removes excess storm runoff from 49 square miles via Sailfish and Able Canals (which are located within the district boundaries) to the Orange River. There are two other drainage basins, one being the Hickey's Creek Basin of 20 square miles drained by the Hickey's Creek Canal which in turn is fed by several smaller canals, and the second being the portion of Bedman's Creek Basin within the ECWCD of 14 square miles. The developed portion of the ECWCD is serviced by sewage collection and central treatment facilities. To date, there has been no shortage of domestic water in the ECWCD, which comes from underground sources. The three major canals serve as outfall canals as well as major interior collector canals. Severe flooding has occurred within the Orange River and the Hickey's Creek basin in the past, but has not been experienced in the past several years due to drought conditions (Exhibit 5.) Under the present water control plan, the Able-Sailfish Canal basin discharges to the Orange River while the Hickey's Creek Canal basin discharges to the Caloosahatchee River. Under the proposed plan, both basins would discharge all runoff to the Orange River below 178 cubic feet per second which has been determined to be a safe limit for discharges into the Orange River to prevent flooding due to ECWCD discharges. Any runoff in excess of 178 cfs will go to the Caloosahatchee River (Exhibit 5.) The proposed water control project consists of the following principal elements: A diversion waterway approximately 1 mile long will be constructed from Able Canal to Hickey's Creek Canal, with a portion of the latter canal to be enlarged. Existing Structure No. 1 will be enlarged and automated to accommodate additional flow to be diverted from Able Canal to Hickey's Creek Canal. Structure No. 2 to be located at the junction of Able and Sailfish Canal, equipped with automatic gates, will be constructed to maintain low flows into the Orange River and to divert the excess into the Caloosahatchee River via Hickey's Creek Canal. An outfall canal from the junction of Hickey's Creek and Hickey's Creek Canal to the Caloosahatchee River, approximately 3,000 feet in length, will be built to carry excess waters from the diversion to alleviate flooding in the lower regions in Hickey's Creek. Structure No. 3, a low level overflow type dam, will be constructed to require continuation of low volume discharges down Hickey's Creek with higher discharges (above 360 cubic feet per second) passing to the Caloosahatchee River via the Outfall Canal (Exhibit 5.) The sandstone aquifer which underlies the water table aquifer in the ECWCD area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. They are separate aquifers and do not show the same response to water level changes. During a heavy rainstorm, the water table aquifer rises to the surface. The source of recharge for the sandstone aquifer has not been definitely ascertained, but even if it is determined that recharge occurs in the ECWCD land area, it would not be detrimentally affected because the proposed works are designed to ensure that present water levels remain the same (Testimony of Winter.) Concern over the possible loss of cypress trees and increased number of fires if the area known as Greenbriar Swamp is drained are premature because proposed horizontal canals bordering that area are not included in the project under consideration (Testimony of Long.) The Orange River and Hickey's Creek Basins have experienced floods in the past. Various land owners who reside near the Orange River in the Buckingham area, which is adjacent to but not within the ECWCD, have experienced flooding of the Orange River in past years that has caused damage to their property and who consequently are in favor of the proposed project (Testimony of Pizzagalli, Hudson, Skates.) Other land owners are of an opposite view due to possible lowering of the water table in the Orange River and the Hickey's Creek areas (Testimony of Cantrell , Hartwell, Brown, Henry, Exhibit 7.) Although testimony and documentary evidence was received at the hearing concerning the effect of the proposed works upon water quality, specific findings in this regard are not deemed necessary in view of the FCD staff recommendation that any granting of a surface water management permit be conditioned upon the ECWCD's pending application before the Department of Environmental Regulation for a Chapter 403 and 253 permit and water quality certification (Exhibit 5.)
Recommendation That applicant be granted a permit for construction of the facilities proposed in its Application No. 20986, subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District. Done and entered this 3rd day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: John Wheeler, Esquire P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Thomas G. Pelham, Esquire P.O. Box 1109 a 2302 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard D. DeBoest, Esquire P.O. Box 1480 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles A. Ball, Jr., Esquire Route 1, Box 486 Ft. Myers, Florida Madison F. Pacetti, Esquire 324 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida
The Issue The issues in this case are: whether the Petitioner, Lake Region Audubon Society (LRAS), a not-for-profit corporation, has filed a petition challenging the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44025789.001 to Spanish Oaks of Central Florida, L.C.C. (Spanish Oaks); whether LRAS has standing to challenge the ERP; whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District, or SWFWMD) should issue the ERP to Spanish Oaks; and whether Spanish Oaks should be awarded attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact Application and ERP On or about January 23, 2004, Spanish Oaks submitted to SWFWMD an application for an ERP to construct a surface water management system (the System) to serve a 30.878-acre, 47-lot single-family residential development in the vicinity of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida. SWFWMD requested additional information on February 20, 2004, to which Spanish Oaks responded on or about February 27, 2004. The application was deemed complete on March 26, 2004. On April 27, 2004, SWFWMD issued the Spanish Oaks ERP. The Spanish Oaks ERP describes the System as follows: The proposed surface water management system includes storm drains with associated piping and three interconnected retention ponds (Pond A, Pond B, and Pond C). The system is designed to accommodate the runoff from the activities associated with the construction of the 47-lot subdivision with paved roads. The project site is located on the south side of State Road 33, just east of Lake Luther Road in Polk County. The project is located within a hydrologically closed drainage basin. The consultant utilized a design storm based on a 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event of 10.0 inches. The ponds are designed to retain the post-development runoff volume for the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event without surface discharge. Project runoff will be conveyed to the proposed retention ponds. . . . No adverse off-site/on-site water quantity impacts are expected. Compliance with Chapter 40D-4, F.A.C., water quality requirements is assured; the retention ponds will treat the first one- half inch of runoff from the contributing drainage area and recover this volume through natural infiltration within 72 hours. This is consistent with Part B, Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual Section 5.2(c). No adverse on-site/off-site water quality impacts are expected. There is 0.11 acre of herbaceous wetlands within the project area. Permanent wetland impacts are proposed to the 0.11 acre herbaceous wetland. No mitigation is required for this impact. LRAS' Amended Petition On June 6, 2005, LRAS filed a Petition signed by Paul Anderson, Mae Hartsaw, Carrie Plair, and Chuck Geanangel. SWFWD dismissed the Petition without prejudice. On July 11, 2005, an Amended Petition was filed, clarifying that LRAS was orally informed about the Spanish Oaks ERP by one of its members, since identified as Donna Stark, on May 10, 2005. The Amended Petition was signed by LRAS Steering Committee/Acting President Carrie Plair. The District determined that the Amended Petition was timely filed and substantially complied with the requirements for a petition. The Amended Petition alleged the following as disputed issues of material fact: the Permit allows construction of a retention pond in a sinkhole in the southeast portion of the site; construction of a retention pond in a sinkhole creates a danger to public health and safety; and Spanish Oaks failed to notify SWFWMD that it was beginning construction of the clay cores of certain berms surrounding the retention ponds, as required by a permit condition so that SWFWMD could inspect during the construction.3 The Amended Petition asserted that LRAS member Donna Stark observed firsthand a sinkhole collapse that allegedly occurred in the southeast portion of Spanish Oaks site during construction of Retention Pond A. The Amended Petition alleged that on January 25, 2005, Donna Stark, along with a state employee (since identified as Timothy King), observed a "very large cone-shaped depression with smooth steeply-sloping sides – so steep that Donna Stark was nervous that the front-end loader driving up and down the slopes could end up in the aquifer if he lost traction in the loose unconsolidated sands. In the center of the depression was a lake perhaps 50 feet in diameter." The Amended Petition further alleged that “Donna Stark judged the distance from the top of the ground surface to the water surface to be about 15 feet.” The Amended Petition also asserted that “[o]n November 13, 2004, LRAS member Donna Stark was informed by a man who had worked on the Spanish Oaks site that the retention ponds were 30 feet deep.” As to any specific rules or statutes requiring reversal or modification of the proposed agency action, LRAS’ Amended Petition asserted that the Spanish Oaks development violates Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code,4 which, LRAS contends, disallows the use of a sinkhole to discharge contaminated water, citing Rule 62-522.300(1) and (3). See Conclusion 90, infra. Standing LRAS did not allege or present any evidence to prove that the substantial interests of a substantial number of its members would be affected by issuance of the ERP to Spanish Oaks. The Amended Petition alleged that, if LRAS failed to oppose the ERP, it would not "fulfill it's [sic] objectives and hence adversely affect the corporation and disappoint it's [sic] membership." But LRAS did not present any evidence at the final hearing to prove that its own substantial interests would be affected by the ERP. LRAS alleged that it has standing under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes. See Conclusions 74, infra. LRAS was formed as a Florida not-for-profit corporation in 1962. The evidence was sufficient to prove that LRAS has at least 25 current members residing in Polk County, where Spanish Oaks' ERP is proposed. Not only was there testimony in the depositions introduced into evidence as Spanish Oaks Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 that there were over 500 members of LRAS, most of whom would reside in Polk County, exhibits attached to those depositions included a partial membership list with at least 25 current members residing in Polk County,5 in addition to other members residing in Polk County who testified during the final hearing. Article II of LRAS' Articles of Incorporation states that LRAS was formed "to promote an understanding and interest in wildlife and the environment that supports it and to further the cause of conservation." It also includes language generally empowering the corporation to "have and exercise all of the powers of like corporations not for profit and to do all and everything necessary, suitable or proper for the accomplishment of any of the purposes, the attainment of any of the objects or the furtherance of any of the powers herein set forth, . . . and to do every other act or acts, thing or things incident or pertinent to or growing out of or connected with the aforesaid objects, purposes or powers or any of them." Finally, it includes the admonition that enumeration of specific "powers and objects . . . shall not in anyway be construed as any limitation or derogation of any power or object herein specifically named or any general power which this corporation might otherwise have." Spanish Oaks6 contends that LRAS has no standing in part because the Petition and Amended Petition was "ultra vires"-i.e., that, although there was no evidence that LRAS was dissolved or otherwise not in good standing as a duly- organized not-for-profit corporation, the signers did not have the legal authority to sign or file either the Petition or the Amended Petition on behalf of LRAS under its articles of incorporation and by-laws. At the time of its formation in 1962, LRAS had eleven charter members, six officers, and ten directors. Article VI of the Articles of Incorporation provided, in pertinent part: The affairs of the corporation shall be managed by a board of directors of "not less than five members of the officers provided for in this charter and the Board of Directors shall elect a president, a first vice president, a second vice president, a secretary and a treasurer. The number of directors shall be fixed by the by-laws of the corporation, but in no instance shall the number of directors be less than five. The Board of Directors may establish an Executive Committee from the members of the Board of Directors by resolution and may provide for the setting up of advisory boards or councils. The Board of Directors shall be elected from the voting members of the corporation at an annual meeting to be held in June of each year at a date to be determined by the Board of Directors at least fifteen days prior to such meeting. A quorum for the purpose of transacting business shall consist of those present. The officers and directors herein provided for shall serve until the next general election of the corporation, provided, however, that in the event of any vacancies prior to that time the Board of Directors may fill such vacancies by majority vote. There was no evidence of any amendment to those provisions in the articles of incorporation. Article I of LRAS' By-Laws, as last revised on April 7, 2002, provided for a president to: "(a) preside at meetings of the Society and of the Board of Directors; . . . ; (c) decide all questions of order, and act as judge in elections and declare the results; (d) appoint, subject to the Executive Committee's approval, the chairmen of the Standing Committee, and the chairmen of such special committees as may be authorized by the Board; (e) perform such other duties as the Board or the By-Laws may from time to time assign." It also provided for: a first vice-president, who was to preside and perform the duties of the president in the absence or inability of the president; a second vice-president, who was to preside and perform the duties of the president in the absence or inability of the president and first vice- president; a third vice-president to coordinate all field activities; a fourth vice-president to coordinate all membership activities; a fifth vice-president to be the newsletter editor; a recording secretary to keep an accurate record of all meetings, act as secretary of the board of directors, keep a record of attendance at meetings of the board of directors, and act as custodian of all records and papers; a corresponding secretary, who was to perform the duties of the recording secretary in the absence or inability of the recording secretary; and a treasurer. Article II of the By-Laws provided for the board of directors to "be composed of all officers and committee chairmen, and other members who may be appointed by the President." It also provided that the board of directors had the "power to fill vacancies in the list of officers." It also provided: "A majority of officers shall have the power to carry on the affairs of the Society in the event of emergency, between Board Meetings." Article III of the By-Laws provided for committees to be established by the president as deemed necessary as well as apparently for appointment of individuals with special responsibilities. Article IV provided for elections, including: "A Nominating Committee, consisting of a Chairman and two other members appointed by the President and announced at the January Board Meeting, shall submit a slate of officers at the March meeting for approval by the Board, to be voted on at the Annual Meeting of the Society in April. . . . A majority of the votes cast shall constitute an election. If there are no nominations from the floor, the slate of officers shall stand as presented." It also provided: "Elected officers shall be elected for a term of one year, and shall hold office until their successors have been elected." The president was limited to two consecutive terms, or a third consecutive term upon majority vote of the board of directors. Article V of the By-Laws provided for: open meetings of the board of directors to be held on the second Wednesday of each month September through May, unless changed on ten days notice to each board member; special meetings at the call of the president or written request of five members, with "due notice"; and one annual meeting to be held in April, unless changed by direction of the board. Article VI provided that a majority of the board would constitute a quorum, provided at least two officers were present, and that 15 members, including at least four Board members, would be a quorum for the annual meeting. Article VIII provided that membership in National Audubon, Florida Audubon or LRAS would constitute membership in all three levels for anyone living within the LRAS area. As indicated above, there are inconsistencies between the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws. For example, the Articles of Incorporation provide for an annual meeting in June, while the By-Laws provide for the annual meeting to take place in April, unless changed by the board of directors. In addition, the By-Laws provide for more officers than the Articles of Incorporation. Finally, the Articles of Incorporation provide that a quorum at the annual meeting shall consist of those present, while the By-Laws provide for a quorum of a majority of the board, provided at least two are officers, and that 15 members, including at least four board members, would be a quorum for the annual meeting. Under Section 617.0206, Florida Statutes, by-laws must be consistent with the articles of incorporation. Even allowing for the inconsistencies between the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws, the evidence suggested that, notwithstanding the formal and detailed (if somewhat inconsistent) provisions in the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, LRAS has operated less formally and with less attention to those details at least in recent years, in part because it is a totally-volunteer organization and seems always to be looking for members to share in the tasks of continued operation. Any member who expresses interest in the business of the organization is welcome to volunteer to be on the board of directors. Any volunteer is virtually assured of becoming a board member. There certainly are no contested elections. Spanish Oaks questions whether the process used results in the legitimate election of members of the board of directors and appointment of officers in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. The evidence presented by Spanish Oaks as to status of LRAS' board of directors and officers was unclear. It consisted of the deposition testimony of Paul Anderson, Carrie Plair, and Chuck Geanangel, along with minutes attached as exhibits to the Anderson deposition. In addition, while not actually introduced in evidence at the final hearing, the minutes of the May 2005 meeting of the board of directors were attached to and formed part of the basis for the Motion for Summary Recommended Order which was filed by Spanish Oaks and joined by SWFWMD. In addition, the PRO filed by Spanish Oaks cited to these attachments to the Motion for Summary Recommended Order.7 The evidence indicates that, notwithstanding provisions in the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, for the last two years LRAS has operated using a five-member steering committee (also referred to as an executive board) instead of a president. Designed to relieve the burden on long-serving volunteer president, Pat Herbert, the idea was that the steering committee would rotate responsibility for conducting board meetings, so that each committee member would conduct two meetings a year. Anderson and Plair testified that they were on the LRAS Steering Committee, along with Geanangle, Bill Karnofsky and Mae Hartsaw. Plair testified that all members of the Steering Committee are members of the board of directors, along with all other officers. Anderson also named several other officers from memory--Liz Purnell, Paul Fellers (a vice- president), Gary McCoy (membership chair), and Herman Moulden (newsletter editor). He deferred to a list of board members, which he did not have with him and which was not placed in evidence. Plair named a few other board members--Bob Snow, Gina Lucas, Gil Lucas--along with Fellers. The minutes placed in evidence by Spanish Oaks all state that they are minutes of board of directors meetings and do not refer to an annual general membership meeting. However, Anderson testified that a board of directors meeting is combined with the annual general membership meeting. He believed it was in December but was not sure. Geanangel testified that the annual general membership meeting was in the spring, which was consistent with Plair's recollection, and was noticed as such. Plair testified that there generally were meeting agendas for all board of directors meetings (one of which, according to the testimony, would be the annual general membership meeting). No notices or agendas of meetings were placed in evidence. The minutes placed in evidence started with the September 2003 meeting of the board of directors. According to the minutes, Karnofsky conducted the meeting and also presented a treasurer's report, indicating that he also was the Treasurer at the time. Herbert, Louise Lang, Hartsaw, Plair, Paul and Janet Anderson, Ann Pinner, Gil and Gina Lucas, Paul Fellers, and Rae Bourqueim also attended. Bourquein announced a newsletter deadline. Pinner was looking for volunteers. Under old business, the rotation for conducting the next several meetings was announced: Karnofsky for October 2003, Plair for November and December 2003, Paul Anderson in January and February 2004, and Hartsaw in March and April 2004. Janet Anderson was congratulated on the job she was doing as "Publicity Chairperson." A December 2003 Christmas party was announced. Motions were made or seconded by Gil Lucas, Paul Anderson, Bourqueim, Fellers, and Hartsaw (suggesting that they were members of the board of directors). The minutes were recorded by Gina Lucas, as "Secretary Pro Tem." There was no other indication in those minutes as to who the officers and board members were. The minutes of the October 2003 meeting indicate that the meeting was conducted by Herbert, not Karnofsky, who was unable to attend due to illness. Nine others attended, including the Andersons, Plair, the Lucases, Fellers, Bourquein, Herbert, and Purnell, who was the Recording Secretary. The November 2003 minutes indicate that Plair conducted the board meeting. Hartsaw, Bourquein, Geanangel, Karnofsky, the Lucases, Fellers, Marvel Loftus, the Andersons, Ron Butts, Herbert, and three others also attended, along with Purnell, the Recording Secretary. Motions were made or seconded by Paul Anderson, Hartsaw, Fellers, Herbert, Geanangel, and Janet Anderson. The minutes of the January 2004 meeting of the board of directors indicate that Paul Anderson conducted the meeting, Karnofsky presented a treasurer's report, and Purnell was the Recording Secretary. Hartsaw and Geanangel attended the meeting, along with the Andersons, the Lucases, Herbert, Lang, Loftus, and two others. A motion was made by Herbert and seconded by Loftus. According to the minutes of the February 2004 meeting of the board of directors, it was conducted by Paul Anderson again, again included Karnofsky's treasurer's report, and again was recorded by Purnell. Janet Anderson, Lang, Plair, Hartsaw, the Lucases, Geanangel, and three others also attended. The minutes indicate that Chuck Geanangel would conduct the March 2004 meeting. They also included the reports of several others, including Plair and Hartsaw, without specifying whether they were officers. The minutes indicated that the slate of candidates would be the same as the current officers, but they do not specify who the current officers were, or whether the reference to "officers" was meant to include board members. The minutes of the March and April 2004 meetings, which were conducted by Geanangel and also attended by Hartsaw, the Andersons, Bourquein, Karnofsky, Purnell, Loftus, Pinner, Plair, Fellers, and others. Motions were made or seconded by Herbert, Paul Anderson, Hartsaw, and Loftus. These minutes do not reveal any more information about who the officers were but do reflect that Ron Butts was willing to be on the board of directors and would be contacted about the position. The minutes indicate that a board of directors meeting was held on May 12, 2004, and that it was conducted by Anderson again and was attended by 13 people, including Plair, Hartsaw, Butts, and Geanangel. The minutes do not mention its being a general membership meeting, do not mention any voting, and do not mention any nominations from the floor for membership on the board of directors. They indicate that a new membership chair volunteer was called for and that Karnofsky would be asked to conduct the next meeting in September 2004. Motions were made or seconded by Hartsaw, Butts, Geanangel, and Loftus. The September 2004 minutes indicate that the board meeting was conducted by Geanangel, not Karnofsky, who was absent and did not present his treasurer's report. Plair, the Andersons, Butts, and Ann Pinner attended. Motions were made or seconded by Janet Anderson, Geanangel, Butts, Plair, Paul Anderson, and Pinner. A House Interior Committee was formed, with Plair, Susie Brantley, and Gina Lucas as members. Janet Anderson recorded the minutes in Purnell's absence. According to the minutes, Geanangel also conducted the October 2004 meeting of the board, which was also attended by Bourquein, Karnofsky (who gave the treasurer's report), Pinner, Plair, the Andersons, Paul and Donna Fellers, Butts, the Lucases, and Purnell, the Recording Secretary. Gina Lucas reported for the House Interior Committee. Motions were made or seconded by Butts, Loftus, and Paul Fellers. According to the minutes, Plair conducted the November 2004 meeting of the board, which was also attended by Karnofsky (who gave the treasurer's report), Pinner, the Andersons, Hartsaw, Butts, one other person, and Purnell, the Recording Secretary. It was announced that Bourquein was resigning from her position as Newsletter Editor. There was no replacement yet. The next minutes were for a board meeting in January 2005. Paul Anderson conducted the meeting, which also was attended by Geanangel, Plair, Karnofsky (who gave the treasurer's report), Hartsaw, Gary McCoy, Pinner, Paul Fellers, the Lucases, Butts, one other person, and Purnell, the Recording Secretary. McCoy was introduced as the new Membership Chairman, and it was announced that Herman Moulden had accepted responsibility for the newsletter and website. Geanangel reported on Polk County's desire to use the Saddle Creek property owned by Audubon of Florida for water storage, flow, and quality purposes. Leadership vacancies for Nature Faire and Corresponding Secretary were announced. A motion was made by Pinner and seconded by Hartsaw. According to the minutes, the February 2005 meeting was conducted by Paul Anderson. Plair, Karnofsky, Butts, McCoy, Hartsaw, the Andersons, Moulden, Geanangel, Pinner, Paul Fellers, and Purnell attended. Moulden solicited articles for the newsletter. It was suggested that an invitation to serve on the board be extended to Bob Snow. Motions were made or seconded by Butts, Janet Anderson, Plair, and Pinner. Purnell recorded the minutes. According to the minutes, the March 2005 meeting was conducted by Hartsaw. The Andersons, Paul Fellers, Moulden, McCoy, Butts, Karnofsky, Plair, Geanangel, and one other person also attended. McCoy presented a membership report, and Moulden reported on the newsletter. Geanangel reported on negotiations with Polk County on the Saddle Creek property. Motions were made or seconded by Paul Anderson, Fellers, and Karnofsky. Hartsaw would chair the April meeting. Paul Anderson recorded the minutes in Purnell's absence. According to the minutes, the April 2005 meeting was conducted by Hartsaw. Pinner, McCoy, Karnofsky, the Andersons, Moulden, the Lucases, Butts, Plair, Paul Fellers, Purnell (the Recording Secretary), and one other person also attended. Karnofsky gave his treasurer's report, Moulden asked for newsletter articles, and a nominating committee was appointed, consisting of Paul Anderson, Karnofsky, and Plair. A motion was made by Karnofsky and seconded by Loftus. The real need for a corresponding secretary was discussed. According to the minutes,8 the May 11, 2005 meeting was conducted by Karnofsky. Plair, Butts, the Andersons, Pinner, McCoy, Moulden, Geanangel, Purnell (the Recording Secretary), Donna Stark, and one other person also attended. Motions were made by Paul Anderson and seconded by Pinner. The minutes reflect a nominating committee report which included: a five-member Steering Committee of Karnofsky, Hartsaw, Geanangel, Plair, and Paul Anderson; Hartsaw as Vice- President for Programs; Geanangel as Vice-President for Conservation; Paul Fellers as Vice-President for Field Trips; McCoy as Vice-President for Membership; Moulden as Vice- President for News Letter; Karnofsky as Treasurer; and Purnell as Recording Secretary. Also nominated as members of the board of directors were: Janet Anderson, Louise Lang, Marvel Loftus, the Lucases, Butts, McCoy, Moulden, Snow, Pinner, and six others. No voting or nominations from the floor are reflected in the minutes. While the evidence was not clear, it appears from the testimony and minutes that all those attending the board of directors meeting on May 11, 2005, except for Donna Stark and one other person, were officers or otherwise members of the board of directors under the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws. The minutes of the February 2004 board meeting state that the "LRAS Candidate slate will be the same as the current officers." It appears that they included at least Karnofsky, Bourqueim, and Purnell and that Karnofsky, Plair, Paul Anderson, Hartsaw, and Geanangel were on the steering committee. Assuming the use of the word "officers" in the minutes meant to include the current board members who were not officers, it appears that they also would have included Herbert, Lang, Janet Anderson, Pinner, the Lucases, Fellers, Loftus, and Butts. There are no minutes mentioning a noticed general membership meeting or election of the board of directors in the spring of 2004. If there was one, the minutes do not indicate that there were nominations from the floor. If there was a noticed general membership meeting for purposes of electing the board of directors, with a quorum, and there were no nominations from the floor, either the slate of current officers (and, probably, directors) "stood," or the officers and board of directors would continue to serve until the next general election, under Article VI of the Articles of Incorporation. In either case, vacancies prior to that time could be filled by the board of directors by majority vote, and it would appear that, at the beginning of the board meeting on May 11, 2005: the officers included at least Karnofsky, Purnell, McCoy, and Moulden; the steering committee still consisted the same five; and other board members included at least Lang, Janet Anderson, Pinner, the Lucases, Fellers, Loftus, and Butts. Only 12 individuals appearing to be board members attended the meeting on May 11, 2005. While this would not be a quorum under the By-Laws, it would be a quorum under the Articles of Incorporation, which would control over inconsistent By-Laws.9 Assuming the May 2005 meeting was the noticed general membership meeting, since the minutes do not reflect any nominations from the floor, the slate stood as presented under Article IV of the By-Laws. If not, (or if the By-Laws established the necessary quorum), under Article VI of the Articles of Incorporation, the current officers and board of directors would serve until the next general election. In either case, it appears that authorized officers and directors were in place and in attendance at the board meeting on May 11, 2005, and that there was a quorum for transacting business under the Articles of Incorporation. In any event, Spanish Oaks did not prove the contrary. According to the May 2005 minutes, as well as the testimony at the final hearing, Donna Stark made a presentation asserting that Spanish Oaks was using at least three sinkholes to collect runoff water, instead of digging retention ponds, contrary to legal requirements and polluting the underlying aquifer. She asked LRAS to consider filing an administrative challenge to the ERP. After the presentation, the board decided that the Steering Committee would continue to investigate and make a decision as to what role LRAS should have in the future. Although the minutes do not reflect a vote on a resolution, the assigned task of the Steering Committee was like the role of the "Executive Committee" referred to in Article VI of the Articles of Incorporation. The Steering Committee reviewed the information presented by Starks, decided to file a challenge, and invited Starks to help draft the Petition, which was signed by four members of the Steering Committee between May 31 and June 2, 2005, as well as the Amended Petition signed by "LRAS Steering Committee/Acting President Carrie Plair" on July 6, 2005. Starks actually drafted almost all of the Petition and Amended Petition. The subject of the challenge in the Petition and Amended Petition is virtually identical to a challenge to Spanish Oaks' ERP that was filed by Starks on behalf of her not-for-profit corporation, Central Florida EcoTours, in early May 2005 but was time-barred and dismissed because Starks and Ecotours got mailed notice of the issuance of the ERP to Spanish Oaks. Spanish Oaks implied that Starks told LRAS about the fate of the EcoTours challenge and asked LRAS to file its Petition and Amended Petition at her behest to block the Spanish Oaks development for her ulterior motives. But those allegations were denied by LRAS and were not proven. Alleged Sinkholes The principal concern raised by LRAS, both in its Amended Petition and at hearing, is that one or more of the retention ponds constructed on Spanish Oaks is located over a sinkhole. LRAS is of the view that this alone should mandate that the ERP application be denied. Retention ponds are often located in depressional areas since these land features are generally the lowest spots on a property and allow the engineers designing a surface water management system to utilize the land’s natural drainage configuration. A relic sinkhole, as contrasted to an active sinkhole, has either been sealed or has self-sealed, so that there is no connection between the sinkhole and the underlying aquifer. An active sinkhole provides a direct connection-- referred to by both LRAS’ and Spanish Oaks' experts as a “good communication”--between the surface and the aquifer. Retention ponds are intended to allow infiltration of water through the soils underlying the pond bottom. This infiltration through soil layers provides water quality treatment, and it is necessary to ensure that the bottom surface of a retention pond is sufficiently separated by soils from the top of the aquifer. If an active sinkhole develops in a retention pond, SWFWMD requires that some corrective action be taken. Generally, this involves refilling the cavity formed by the sinkhole. However, because retention ponds are designed to allow infiltration through the pond bottoms, care must be taken to ensure that any fill does not impede this infiltration function. The bottoms of the retention ponds at Spanish Oaks are approximately seven feet below natural grade. The Floridan Aquifer in the Spanish Oaks vicinity is approximately 75 feet below grade. The separation between the pond bottoms and the limestone that is part of the aquifer is sufficient to provide adequate water quality treatment. Soil borings done around the perimeter of each of the ponds indicate the presence of clays and clayey sands between the pond bottoms and the aquifer. These soil layers act as an aquitard that impedes the migration of water into the bedrock (and upper soils into lower cavities, voids, or ravel zones, which are areas of loose, unconsolidated soils capable of further downward subsidence). In each instance, the depth at which the aquitard occurs is below the bottom depth of the retention ponds. There was no competent evidence admitted at hearing to suggest that there are active sinkholes in or under any of the three retention ponds on Spanish Oaks. To the contrary, the SWFWMD personnel who have been on the site testified that they saw nothing on the site that indicated the presence of an active sinkhole. Contractors and engineers who were on the site prior to and during construction of Spanish Oaks stated that they were not aware of any active sinkholes. Nonetheless, because LRAS made the allegation that there were sinkholes on the site, Spanish Oaks retained a geotechnical engineer with expertise in sinkholes, Sonny Gulati, to conduct a sinkhole investigation of the three retention ponds. Mr. Gulati used testing protocols that are generally utilized to determine whether sinkhole activity has caused damage to a building or other structure. Mr. Gulati observed no damage to the retention ponds and his investigation revealed no sinkhole activity onsite. (LRAS’ expert also was unaware of any damage to the retention ponds.) Mr. Gulati used both ground penetrating radar (GPR) and standard penetration testing (SPT) during his investigation. GPR makes use of repetitive, short-duration, electromagnetic waves, which are deflected back to a receiver by interfaces between materials. GPR detects subsurface features such as sinkholes and voids through the reflected radar signal. GPR must be conducted with the transmitter in contact with the ground surface. It cannot be used over a water surface. Mr. Gulati took GPR readings around each of the three retention ponds, in two circles, one contained within the other. GPR data collected on the Spanish Oaks site revealed no subsurface anomalies. SPT is described in Mr. Gulati’s report as: a widely accepted method of in-situ testing of foundation soils (ASTM D-1586). A two- foot long, two-inch outside diameter, split barrel (“spoon”) sampler, attached to the end of drilling rods, is driven 18.0 inches into the ground by successive blows of a 140-pound hammer freely dropping 30.0 inches. The number of blows needed for each six (6) inches of penetration is recorded. The sum of the blows required for penetration of the second and third six-inch increments of penetration constitutes the test result or N-value. LRAS Exhibit 5, p. 23. An N-value of less than 2 indicates the presence of a ravel zone, a subsurface area with voids or loose soils into which soils from upper strata can travel and which acts as a conduit between strata. An N-value of less than 4, in combination with a loss of drilling fluid,10 may also indicate a ravel zone. Solutioned calcareous ravel zones are those ravel zones that occur in the limestone that forms the top of the Floridan Aquifer. Based on his investigation, Mr. Gulati concluded as follows: Our investigation did not reveal the existence of specific conditions such as cavities or voids, solutioned calcareous ravel zones, or the presence corroded bedrock conditions located above the dense bedrock stratum indicative of sinkhole activity at the subject site. Based on the interpretations of our recent subsoil investigation, site reconnaissance, available background and geologic data, it is our opinion that the subject site has not been impacted by a sinkhole related activity. In our professional opinion, the scope of work included in this analysis is of sufficient scope to eliminate sinkhole activity at the subject site within a reasonable professional probability. LRAS-5 at 18 (emphasis in original). SWFWMD's expert agreed that there is no direct connection to the Floridan Aquifer. Marc Hurst, a geologist who testified for LRAS, opined that Mr. Gulati’s sinkhole investigation was insufficient to demonstrate whether or not the Spanish Oaks retention ponds were constructed over sinkholes.11 However, Mr. Hurst offered no opinion as to whether the retention ponds are located over active sinkholes. Nor did Mr. Hurst specifically disagree with Mr. Gulati’s conclusion that the Spanish Oaks retention ponds have not been impacted by active sinkholes.12 To the contrary, Mr. Hurst admitted that the retention ponds were holding water on the day that he observed them--indicating that to him that the ponds were not acting as a strong conduit to the aquifer. Mr. Gulati also noted the significance of the presence of water in the ponds, stating that, if there were active sinkholes in the ponds, they would not hold water.13 The only suggestion of any sinkhole-related damage to the retention ponds came from Donna Stark, who testified that George Wilt--a heavy equipment operator at the site incorrectly identified by Ms. Stark as “an employee of Spanish Oaks”--told her that there had been a sinkhole collapse during the excavation of Pond A. This hearsay testimony was directly contradicted by Mr. Wilt himself, who testified that he made no such statement. Despite the allegation in LRAS’ petition regarding observations of collapse of sinkhole by Donna Stark, Ms. Stark herself admitted at hearing that she did not witness any actual collapse. Rather, she testified that, on January 25, 2005, she saw what she believed to be the aftermath of a sinkhole collapse. Stark may have been confused by the amount of excavated material being stored on the ground surface around the pond. 43,906 cubic yards of dirt was excavated from Pond A alone and was stacked to a height of 8-10 feet higher than the natural ground elevation. Others who observed the site on January 25, 2005, saw no evidence of a sinkhole collapse. Tim King, a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission employee who was with Ms. Stark on January 25, 2005, merely reported seeing pond excavation in process. Laura Howe, a SWFWMD employee who inspected the site on that date, observed that “[i]t appears depth of ponds are [p]robably close to permitted depth.” Moreover, Ms. Stark admits that, on February 10, 2005, she observed the ponds to be “[s]even and a half feet, or six and a half, whatever it should be.” Ms. Stark’s suggestion that the collapse was filled in between January 25 and February 10, 2005, is belied by testimony that repairing a sinkhole collapse of the size suggested by Ms. Stark would have required much more material than was available. (No dirt was imported onto the site.) The evidence admitted at hearing requires a finding that there was no sinkhole collapse onsite. Spanish Oaks provided reasonable assurance that the System was designed and constructed to include sufficient separation between the pond bottoms and the Floridan Aquifer to prevent groundwater contamination. Construction of Berms LRAS contended in its Amended Petition that Spanish Oaks failed to give notice prior to constructing clay cores in some of the berms onsite, as required as a condition of the ERP, and that this failure constituted failure to provide reasonable assurances.14 The interconnection of the three ponds that are part of the System will allow them to function as one pond, while a perimeter berm around the entire Spanish Oaks project will ensure that surface water runoff is retained onsite and directed toward the ponds. Ponds A and C are located, respectively, at the southeast and northeast corners of Spanish Oaks.15 The design plans submitted with the ERP application indicated that the berms alongside the eastern side of Ponds A and C are to include clay cores, a design feature that was included as a specific condition in the ERP. The purpose of the clay cores was to prevent offsite impacts caused by lateral movement of water. The specific conditions of the ERP also required that Spanish Oaks notify SWFWMD's "Surface Water Regulation Manager, Bartow Permitting Department [William Hartmann], at least 48 hours prior to commencement of construction of the clay core, so that District staff may observe this construction activity." LRAS proved that Mr. Hartmann did not personally receive a phone call prior to the construction of the clay cores, as required by the ERP, and that SWFWMD staff did not observe the construction. Mr. Hartmann explained that this constituted a permit condition compliance issue which would prevent the ERP from being transferred to the operation phase until SWFWMD was assured that the clay core was, in fact, constructed as required. To confirm proper construction of the clay core, Spanish Oaks undertook soil borings. SWFWMD staff engineer Sherry Windsor was onsite to observe the soil borings. Spanish Oaks also submitted a report from its engineering consultant certifying that the clay cores had been properly constructed in accordance with the ERP. SWFWMD typically relies on a project engineer’s signed and sealed certifications of compliance matters. SWFWMD staff observations and the certification provided by the Spanish Oaks engineer satisfactorily resolved the issue of proper clay core construction. Failure to notify Mr. Hartmann prior to construction, as required by the ERP, does not undermine Spanish Oaks' provision of the necessary reasonable assurance for issuance of the ERP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that SWFWMD issue a final order approving the issuance of ERP 44025789.001 to Spanish Oaks. Jurisdiction is retained to consider Spanish Oaks’ Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), if renewed within 30 days after issuance of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2005.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations and special provisions set forth in the staff report (attached thereto). Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should approve applications to renew consumptive use permits filed on behalf of the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority), Pinellas County (County), and Freeman F. Polk (Polk), and if so, what conditions should be included in the permits. The District proposes to issue renewed permits to these applicants with specified conditions, but Polk seeks certain additional condition; to the permits sought by the Authority and the County, and similarly, the Authority and County seek the imposition of additional conditions on Polk's permit. The parties seek these additional conditions to insure that the permitted uses will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the applications, and will also not cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vegetation are adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased or controlled by the applicants.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based upon relevant stipulations of the parties: The Authority is a special taxing district of the State of Florida encompassing Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, which was created by interlocal agreement on October 25, 1974. It is responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities in locations, and at times, necessary to insure that an adequate supply of water will be available to all persons residing within its boundaries. The District is an agency of the State of Florida which is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen county area, including Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. It has implemented a permitting program that requires all persons seeking to withdraw water in excess of an annual average daily rate of 100,000 gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 1,000,000 gallons, to obtain a consumptive use permit. The Cypress Creek Wellfield is located on a 4,895 acre site in central Pasco County, lying east of U.S. 41 between State Roads 52 and 54. The District owns 3,623 acres of this Wellfield, and the remaining 1,272 acres are owned by the City of St. Petersburg. Construction on the Cypress Creek Wellfield commenced in 1974, and it currently consists of thirteen production wells, numerous monitor wells, several thousand feet of transmission lines, two 5 gallon storage tanks, a pump station and several buildings. The City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and the District have transferred their rights and privileges in this Wellfield, as well as the Wellfield facilities, to the Authority by contracts entered into in November, 1973, and August 1974. Water produced at the Cypress Creek Wellfield is sold at cost by the Authority to users which include the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. The water produced at this Wellfield comprises 29% of the County's total water system demand (20 million gallons a day), and 25% of the City of St. Petersburg's total system demand (10 million gallons a day). These water systems serve approximately 470,000 and 330,000 persons, respectively. In March 1978, the District issued a six-year consumptive use permit to the Authority, the City of St. Petersburg, and the County authorizing an annual average and maximum daily withdrawal of 30 million gallons a day from the Cypress Creek Wellfield. The Authority also began a detailed ecological monitoring program in, and around, this Wellfield in 1978. A three-year permit was then issued to the Authority in December, 1982, authorizing withdrawals of 30 million gallons a day, annual average, and 40 million gallons a day, maximum daily, from the Wellfield. The District determined by Order No. 82-28, dated December 1, 1982, that an average annual daily rate of withdrawal of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of withdrawal of 40 million gallons from the Cypress Creek Wellfield was a reasonable-beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. An application for renewal of the Cypress Creek Wellfield consumptive use permit at the quantities permitted in 1982 was filed with the District on November 7, 1985, by the Authority, the County and the City of St. Petersburg. The continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons is needed in order to meet the water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas and Pasco Counties, is in the interest of residents of Pinellas County, and will not cause the rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse to be lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the District. The regulatory level of the potentiometric surface established by the District for the Cypress Creek Wellfield has never been exceeded by prior withdrawals of water at permitted rates. Continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons will not cause the potentiometric surface level to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory level established by the District, will not cause the surface level of water to be lowered below any minimum established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield is located on a 8,060 acre site in north central Pasco County, lying approximately one mile south of the Pasco-Hernando County line, and immediately east of U.S. 41. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield property has been owned by Pinellas County since 1976. Wellfield construction was completed in 1981. By agreement entered into on April 11, 1979, the Authority is obligated to sell the County water produced from the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield, but any excess not currently being used by the County may be sold to other members of the Authority. A significant amount of water produced at Cross Bar Ranch is pumped to the Cypress Creek Wellfield where it is combined with that Wellfield's water, and then distributed to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, as well as the City of St. Petersburg, for further distribution. The water produced at these two Wellfields in combination accounts for about 60% of the County's total water system demand. Following pump tests performed from 1977 to 1979, as well as an ecological monitoring program, the District issued a modified consumptive use permit to the Authority by Order 80-9, dated February 6, 1980, for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. The District determined that withdrawals at an average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield was a reasonable beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. On November 7, 1985, the Authority and County jointly applied to the District for renewal of the consumptive use permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at the current permitted quantities of an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons. These withdrawal rates are needed in order to meet present and future water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, provide water for environmental mitigation, and make up water when one or more production facilities cannot pump at their permitted levels. The withdrawal of water from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at permitted rates will not cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory levels established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. Jumping Gully is the only stream or watercourse in the vicinity under the influence of this Wellfield, and the District has not established a minimum rate of flow for Jumping Gully. Hydrologic data collected from monitor wells located at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield show the potentiometric surface has been above mean sea level during the operation of this facility. The District has renewed consumptive use permits for a period of ten years for the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Lakeland Power Plant. The Authority owns, leases or otherwise controls the area within both the Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields. Polk owns, leases or otherwise controls the property identified in his amended permit application of July 26, 1988. Both the Authority's and Polk's permit applications were filed on the proper forms, and otherwise comply with the District's procedural requirements for consumptive use permits. Each party has standing to participate in this case. The proposed uses of water which are the subject of these proceedings are reasonable beneficial uses, and in the public interest. The only permit criteria that remain at issue in this case are set forth in Rules 40D-2.301(1)(c) and (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented at the hearing: Polk was first issued a consumptive use permit for Ft. King Ranch in August, 1981, after both the Cypress Creek Wellfield and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield had each been permitted to withdraw 30 million gallons per day. Polk's permit authorized him to withdraw ground water at an average annual rate of 420,000 gallons per day, and a maximum rate of approximately 1.94 gallons per day for irrigation of pasture grass and citrus, and cattle drinking water. A temporary consumptive use permit issued to Polk in August, 1981, was signed by him and states on its face that these additional groundwater withdrawals were necessary because of drought conditions. A modified permit was issued to Polk by the District in July, 1982, authorizing him to increase his withdrawals to an average annual rate of approximately 1.94 gpd, and a maximum rate of 5.9 gpd. Polk's wells are not metered. Prior to August, 1981, Polk did not have man made surface or groundwater withdrawal on his property. As it relates to this proceeding, the property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk is known as the Ft. King Ranch, which is generally located between the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, and consists of approximately 6,000 acres. The Ft. King Ranch is comprised of five tracts which were separately acquired by Polk commencing in January, 1969, and ending in 1984. By 1978, Polk had acquired two of these five tracts. He leased a third tract beginning in 1971, before acquiring an ownership interest in 1981. These three tracts were designated parcels A, B, and C, and are located in the eastern and northern portion of the Ranch. These three parcels were the only tracts owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk at the time the first Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield permits were issued in 1978. The western tracts were acquired in 1982 and 1984, and were also referred to as the AL-BAR Ranch at hearing. Polk uses the Ft. King Ranch for a cow-calf operation, and also sod farming and seeding. From 1969 to approximately 1978, there was sufficient surface water on the Ft. King Ranch for these farming activities to be carried out without irrigation or wells. Water holes used by cattle were always wet, and lakes on the property were used for swimming and fishing. His pasture, hay, seed and sod grasses received moisture solely from rainfall. However, Polk did not establish the amounts of water used in his operations prior to the issuance of Wellfield permits. In 1976, parcels A, B, and C were used for these purposes, although Polk has frequently changed the specific size and location of acreages devoted to these land uses. In order to correct flooding that occurred on portions of the Ft. King Ranch during times of heavy rainfall, Polk sought the advice of the Soil Conservation Service in the mid-1970's. He was advised to construct a series of dikes and swales to control the flow of surface water on his property. During 1980 and 1981, Polk constructed a network of swales and ditches to divert and control the flow of surface water from portions of the Ranch needing less water to those requiring wetter conditions, such as his sod and seed operation. The swales interconnect lakes and ponds on his Ranch. He also constructed a levee on the property, and installed a lift pump. These activities have converted most of the eastern portion of his ranch to improved pasture and sod grasses, and virtually eliminated native vegetation. Polk had no professional help in the construction of his ditch-swale systems, or the levee. Beginning in approximately 1980, drier conditions were experienced at the Ranch. One of the ten driest years on record in this area occurred in 1980, and continued drought conditions in 1981 caused the District's Governing Board to declare a water shortage, and impose water conservation measures throughout the District. Some lakes and cypress swamps dried completely and failed to recharge to pre-1980 levels after rainfall. Due to reduced water availability since 1980, including drought conditions in 1985, Polk's calf weights have decreased, while the number of non-breeding cows has increased. Feed bills have increased due to reduced hay and grass production at the Ranch. Polk's bahia seed and sod crops have also declined since 1980 due to reduced surface water levels. Adequate and stable moisture is essential for seed production, and while such conditions did exist on the Ft. King Ranch prior to 1980, they have been absent since 1980. Due to the drier conditions which he noted in 1980 and 1981, Polk filed a formal complaint with the District in 1981. A site visit and pump test were conducted, and the District concluded that the Wellfields were causing less than a one foot drawdown in the Ft. King Ranch water table, and that dry conditions at his ranch were due primarily to drought. In 1985, Polk complained to the District again, and requested that it augment two lakes within the Ranch. After review of surrounding lake conditions, the District declined his request since Polk's lakes had not experienced water level declines atypical of lakes well beyond the influence of the Authority's Wellfields. Studies of water level elevations in the area indicate that the effect of Cypress Creek Wellfield pumpage is quite small when compared to natural changes in water levels due to variable rainfall and evapotransporation. Rainfall in this region is variable, and there has been a significant negative trend over time in surficial and potentiometric water levels that predates Wellfield pumpage. According to J. B. Butler, who was accepted as an expert in hydrology, the swales, dikes and levees constructed by Polk have not caused the water table or surface water level reductions experienced since late 1981. Rather, these are an attempt to divert and retain water on the property, and even in their absence, there would be no significant flow of surface water across Ft. King Ranch from an east to west direction. In addition, Butler testified that a fence line berm constructed along the northern border of the Ranch is an insignificant obstacle to the flow of surface water from the north to south across the Ranch when compared to topographic features, and has had no impact on the water tables of the Ranch. However, evidence introduced at hearing established that as early as 1981, the staff of the District concluded that the swales and elevated fence lines could be aggravating low water conditions by increasing evaporation and leakance, and by excluding surface water which would have entered the Ft. King Ranch from the north. The Authority offered competent substantial evidence to rebut the Butler testimony. Thomas Schanze, who was accepted as an expert in agricultural engineering, testified that Polk's elevated berm along his northern fence line has significantly restricted the flow of surface water onto Ft. King Ranch, and has contributed to the eastern portion of the Ft. King Ranch becoming a closed watershed. Between 1984 and 1986, approximately 700 million gallons of surface water have been excluded by Polk's water control and diversion activities. This exclusion has resulted in a diminished water table within the Ft. King Ranch of about one half foot compared with the water table on the northern side of the berm. Surface water cannot flow onto Polk's property until water levels immediately north reach flood stage. Aerial photographs of the Ft. King Ranch and surrounding properties show that the Polk property is significantly drier than surrounding properties, which include predominant wetlands. If the dry conditions experienced by Polk had been due to pumpage, the same dry conditions should be observed on surrounding properties and lands nearer the Wellfields. However, aerial photos show that lands closer to the Wellfields than Ft. King Ranch are less dry than the Ranch itself. This supports the position of the District and the Authority that Polk's own activities have had a significantly greater impact than pumpage on surface and groundwater levels. The reduction in productivity of Polk's farming activities is reasonably related to his northern berm which serves as a dike, preventing water from flowing onto Ft. King Ranch, as well as drought conditions existing in 1980, 1981 and 1985. The cumulative effect of water excluded from this property and dry weather conditions is significant, and accounts for decreased production. It was not established through competent substantial evidence that Polk's decreased production has resulted from any hydrologic impact of Wellfield pumpage. The District's expert in hydrology and ground water modeling, Robert G. Perry, concluded that significant water table declines on Ft. King Ranch due to pumping from Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields could not be confirmed. Through groundwater flow modeling and statistical analysis, he concluded that a one foot water table drawdown contour resulting from withdrawals at the rate of 30 mgd for 30 days without any recharge would not reach the Ft. King Ranch. Even in a worse case scenario of 120 days without recharge and pumpage at Cypress Creek of 30 mgd for 30 days, then 40 mgd for 30 days, and finally 30 mgd for 60 days, Perry concluded that the one foot water table drawdown contour would not reach Polk's Ranch. There is some evidence that under a worse case condition, pumpage at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield could result in the one foot water table drawdown contour intersecting a small portion of the western tract of the Ft. King Ranch, but this tract was not owned or leased by Polk in 1978, when the first Wellfield permits were issued. Conflicting evidence based upon steady state modeling by Craig Hutchinson of the United States Geological Survey was introduced on behalf of Polk to establish that the cumulative impact of the Wellfields could induce a significant drawdown in the water table in the area between the Wellfields, including the Ft. King Ranch. However, this evidence is rejected as less credible than the analysis conducted by Park and Phillip Davis, who was also accepted as an expert in hydrology and groundwater flow modeling. The steady state approach used by Hutchinson is inappropriate for analyzing the effects of wellfield withdrawals on the water table, because the water table is a dynamic system which is never at steady state. The transient groundwater simulation model used by the District is better suited for an analysis of impacts to the water table, although it does tend to overpredict such impacts, since it accounts for changes in rainfall. The Hutchinson analysis is also unreliable since it is based upon artificially derived antecedent water levels, rather than observed levels. Finally, he did not have required predevelopment water table data, and thus, could not verify water table predictions derived from his steady state model. A transient groundwater flow computer model used by Terry Bengtsson to estimate greater potentiometric surface and water table declines due to withdrawals from the Wellfields than predicted by Park or Davis was discredited, and shown to be unreasonable, by the results of a 28 day pump test in September and October, 1988. According to Rick Stebnisky, who was called on behalf of Polk and accepted as an expert in groundwater hydrology, the combined effect of pumping at the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields has resulted in a significant reduction in water table and potentiometric surface levels at Ft. King Ranch, with such reductions being greater in the southern areas than northern portions of Polk's property. He testified that drawdowns have been noted since pumping began at Cypress Creek in April, 1976, with greater drawdowns occurring closest to the Wellfields, and for this reason drawdowns appear to be related to pumping rather than drought conditions. However, Stebnisky's conclusions were drawn from an overly simplistic hydrographic analysis which ignored factors other than pumpage, such as reduced rainfall, regional trends, surface drainage and non-wellfield pumpage, according to Robert G. Perry, an expert in hydrology and groundwater modeling. Stebnisky was not accepted as an expert in groundwater flow modeling. It was also established that some of the basic assumptions used by Stebnisky in predicting drawdowns were inaccurate, and not based upon accepted hydrologic principles. Therefore, when weighed and considered against other expert testimony, including that of Perry and Dr. J. I. Garcia-Bengochea, Ph.D., an expert in hydrology and environmental engineering, the testimony of Stebnisky is found to lack credibility. While Dr. Garcia-Bengochea agreed with the testimony of Stebnisky that the potentiometric surface and water table levels on the Ft. King Ranch had been somewhat reduced due PAGE 18 MISSING individual well meters, regardless of whether on-site wetlands are being augmented, and is sufficiently accurate for use in evaluating the impact of withdrawals on the water table and Floridan Aquifer. As a condition for renewal of the Authority's permits, the District has required that flow measuring devices or methods be installed for each augmentation discharge point, although generally augmentation of lakes and wetlands within wellfields is not metered. The allowable drawdown levels of potentiometric surface for the Cypress Creek Wellfield established by the District have never been reached. The lowest levels occurred during severe drought conditions in 1981 and 1985. However, even during these times, the lowest potentiometric surface level was 8.53 feet above regulatory levels. Notwithstanding the testimony of Philip Waller, an expert in hydrology, pumping from Polk's irrigation Wellfields have not had a significant impact on the Cypress Creek Wellfield because Waller's model assumptions are extreme, according to Robert G. Perry, whose field of expertise includes groundwater modeling. These unrealistic assumptions included that Polk would operate his irrigation wells at maximum capacity for 120 days, and that there would be no recharge, even though irrigation, like rainfall, would be expected to result in some recharge. Even under these extreme assumptions, Waller's modeling only produced a one foot drawdown at Cypress Creek Wellfield, which would still be well within regulatory levels established by the District, based upon data for the drought years of 1981 and 1985. Since 1979, Cypress Creek Wellfield has averaged approximately 30 million gallons per day, with the maximum withdrawal occurring in May, 1983, when it averaged 34.2 mgd. From 1981 to 1985, the average withdrawals from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield remained stable at 13 mgd, but since 1986, the pumpage has increased to over 15 mgd due, in part, to the use of water from Cross Bar to compensate for contaminated wells shut down at the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield. For purposes of Rule 40D-2.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, the District does not consider the use of water that occurs naturally, without pumping or diversion, for use on crops or other agricultural purposes to be, an existing legal use of water, because it does not require a permit. The District does not apply Rule 40D-2.301(2)(e) to protect agricultural crops, but rather to protect naturally occurring vegetation. When an application to renew a consumptive use permit is reviewed by the District, and that renewal does not seek an increase in the quantity of water withdrawals, "legal users" are those present prior to the original permit. On May 17, 1988, a Final Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 88-0693R declaring the District's Rules 40D-2.301(3)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Administrative Code, which otherwise would apply in this proceeding, to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Authority's applications were declared complete by the District on June 18, 1987, and the District staff recommended issuance of these permits on August 14, 1987. Modifications to the draft permit were made by the District on December 28, 1988, and these modified draft permits are acceptable to the Authority. The latest draft permits contain stated conditions which include the requirement that the Authority directly measure the amount of water it uses to augment the water level of on-site wetlands. On February 22, 1989, the Authority and the District filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Case Number 87- 4644 by which they settled their dispute as to the duration of consumptive use permit renewals for the Wellfields, and provided for a ten year permit for Cypress Creek, and a six year permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. Polk submitted his original permit application on April 13, 1987, and then amended his request on July 26, 1988. The District has proposed to issue a draft permit to Polk, with stated conditions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order approving the consumptive use permit applications of the West Coasts Regional Water Supply Authority and Pinellas County for the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, with conditions proposed by the District, and also approving the consumptive use permit application of Freeman F. Polk, with conditions proposed by the District. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 10th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4644, 87-4645, 87-4647, & 88-1169 Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings 6, 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 38. 8-11. Adopted in Finding 20. 12. Adopted in Finding 21. 13-14. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 25. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 25, 26. 20-22. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 23-48. Adopted in Findings 31 through 35. 49-60. Adopted in Findings 28 through 30. 61-64 Adopted in Finding 36. 65-68. Adopted in Finding 37. Rulings on the Authority's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4, 10. Adopted in Finding 2. 4-6. Adopted in Finding 39. Adopted in Finding 18. Adopted in Findings 21, 22. Adopted in Finding 40. 10-11. Adopted in Finding 3. 12-14. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 6, 38. Adopted in Finding 5. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 6, 21. 20. Adopted in Findings 7, 16. 21-23. Adopted in Finding 41. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 11, 38. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. 3132 Adopted in Findings 11, 21. 33. Adopted in Findings 12, 16. 34-36. Adopted in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 24. 41-42. Adopted in Finding 22. 43-45. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 50-53. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Findings 20, 21. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 41. Rejected as unnecessary. 60-62. Adopted in Finding 35. 63. Adopted in Finding 36. 64-70. Adopted in Findings 34, 35. 71-76. Adopted in Findings 33 through 35. 77-78. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 79-80. Adopted in Finding 34. 81-87. Adopted in Finding 32. 88-91. Adopted in Findings 26 through 35. 92-96. Adopted in Findings 29, 30, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Finding 29. 99-100. Adopted in Finding 30. 101-102. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected in Finding 37. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 37 Ruling on Pinellas County's Proposed Finding of Fact: (The County also adopted the Authority's Proposed Findings.) 1. Rejected since the statement proposed by the County is not a finding of fact, but simply a statement on the evidence. Evidence which was not admitted at hearing has not been considered. Rulings on Polk's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Findings 9, 10. Adopted in Finding 21. Rejected in Findings 6, 11, 21. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 25 through 27. 7-8. Rejected in Findings 25 through 27. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 24. 11-13. Rejected in Findings 24, 29, 30. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as argument on the evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Douglas M. Wyckoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas E. Cone, Jr., Esquire 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire Chris Jayson, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Bram D. E. Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34699-6899
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Alliance is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 203 Northeast First Street, Gainesville, Florida. Its mission is to ensure the restoration, preservation, and protection for future generations of the ecosystems along the Ichetucknee River, including its associated springs. The Alliance has approximately 40 members. Seventeen members appeared at the final hearing and testified that they regularly use the Ichetucknee River and its associated priority springs for recreation, wildlife observation, and other purposes. Seventeen members is a substantial number of the total membership of the Alliance. Petitioner Still is a natural person who owns 117 acres of land in Bradford County. He uses the land primarily for timber production. He does not have a consumptive (water) use permit. He has used the Lower Santa Fe River and associated springs for recreation since 1979 and continues to visit the river and springs for this purpose. Petitioner FWF is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Blairstone Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The mission of FWF includes the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and wildlife habitat. In the parties’ Pre-Hearing Stipulation, FWF identified Manley Fuller, its President, as its witness for organizational standing. It also listed “standing witnesses as needed,” but did not name them. At his deposition, Mr. Fuller stated that he did not know how many FWF members use the MFL water bodies. At the beginning of the final hearing, FWF made an oral proffer that it was prepared to call “10 members who are using the water bodies.” Later, FWF stated that some members were unwilling or unable to come to Tallahassee, but suggested that 10 or 15 might (now) be talked into coming to the final hearing or testifying by video. FWF also proffered a membership list, showing the number of members by county. It shows that FWF has a total of 11,788 members. In the six counties in the vicinity of the MFL water bodies (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, and Union) there are 457 FWF members. Ten, 15, or 20 members is not a substantial number of FWF’s 11,788 total members, nor is it a substantial number of its 457 members who live in the vicinity of the MFL waterbodies. Respondent DEP is a state agency with powers and duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the power and duty under section 373.042(1), which it shares with the water management districts, to establish minimum flows for surface watercourses and minimum levels for groundwater (“MFLs”) and recovery strategies when MFLs will not be achieved. Respondent/Intervenor SRWMD is a regional water management district with powers and duties under chapter 373, including powers and duties related to MFLs. The MFL waterbodies are located within SRWMD. Intervenor SJRWMD is the water management district adjacent to SRWMD. A portion of SJRWMD is included within the planning area created for the MFL waterbodies. Intervenor NFUCG is a regional trade organization representing interests of public water supply utilities in North Florida that hold consumptive use permits and are subject to the Proposed Rules. Intervenors CCUA and JEA are two members of NFUCG. Intervenors Alachua County, Gilchrist County, Suwannee County, Bradford County, and Columbia County are political subdivisions of the State in geographic proximity to the MFL water bodies. These Counties have the duty to plan for and protect the MFL water bodies as part of their local government comprehensive planning responsibilities under chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Minimum Flows and Recovery Strategies The water management districts and the DEP are required to establish minimum flows for surface water courses. § 373.042(1), Fla. Stat. Minimum flows are “the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.” § 373.042(1)(a), Fla. Stat. If the existing flow in a water body is below its established minimum flow, DEP or the district is required to develop a “recovery strategy” designed to “[a]chieve recovery to the established minimum flow or level as soon as practicable.” § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. MFLs and recovery strategies are required to be included in a water management district’s regional water supply plan. § 373.709(2)(c) and (g), Fla. Stat. Water management districts must develop regional water supply plans in regions where they determine existing sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future users and to sustain water resources and related natural systems. § 373.709(1), Fla. Stat. SRWMD does not have a regional water supply plan. It is working on a draft plan that is expected to be completed in late 2015. The MFL Water Bodies The Lower Santa Fe River runs for approximately 30 miles from Santa Fe River Rise Spring to its confluence with the Suwannee River. The Lower Santa Fe is fed primarily by groundwater discharge from the Upper Floridan aquifer including the baseflow provided by several major springs. The Lower Santa Fe River system, including its tributary, the Ichetucknee River (below State Road 27), is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water, a designation conferred on waters “with exceptional recreational or ecological significance.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(3). The Ichetucknee River runs for six miles from the Head Spring to its confluence with the Lower Santa Fe. Its flow is derived almost entirely from springflow. The ecological, recreational, and economic values of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are widely recognized. Both rivers flow through lands preserved for public use as part of the State Park System. SRWMD published a Water Supply Assessment in 2010 to determine whether water demands could be met for the 2010-2030 planning period without adversely affecting natural resources. The North Florida Groundwater Flow Model was used to evaluate groundwater withdrawals and their effect on aquifer levels and the flows in springs and rivers. The 2010 assessment concluded that groundwater levels of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the eastern and northeastern portions of the District were in decline. The District’s analysis of river and streamflows also found declining trends. It was concluded that existing water sources would not be able to meet projected water demands over the planning period. As a result, the Lower Santa Fe River Basin (including the Ichetucknee River) was designated as a water supply planning region and SRWMD began to develop minimum flows for these water bodies. Because groundwater withdrawals within the adjacent SJRWMD were also affecting the MFL waterbodies1/, DEP, SRWMD, and SJRWMD entered into an interagency agreement in 2011 to work together on water supply issues and the development of a joint regional groundwater model. Development of the Minimum Flows The procedural difficulties faced in establishing minimum flows affected by water uses in two water management districts eventually lead to the Legislature’s creation of section 373.042(4) in 2013, which authorizes DEP to adopt relevant rules which can be applied by the water management districts without the need for their own rulemaking. In June 2013, SRWMD requested that DEP adopt minimum flows for the MFL waterbodies pursuant to the new law. A gage2/ for the Lower Santa Fe River near Fort White, and a gage for the Ichetucknee River on US 27 were selected for establishment of the respective minimum flows. The minimum flows were determined by first establishing a hydrologic baseline condition at the two gages. Then, SRWMD determined a departure from the baseline that would cause significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. The minimum flows are expressed as stage duration curves rather than a single number, in order to account for the changes in flow that occur naturally due to seasonal, climatic, and other factors affecting rainfall. Once the minimum flows were determined, SRWMD evaluated whether they are being met. It concluded that the minimum flows are not being met. Therefore, in accordance with section 373.0421(2), a recovery strategy had to be prepared and implemented. The Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy is a plan for achieving a return to adopted MFLs and will generally include plans for developing new water supplies and implementing conservation and efficiency measures. See § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. The practice of the water management districts has been to also adopt regulatory measures that are used in the review of consumptive use permits as part of a recovery strategy. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-80.074. That practice was followed for the MFL water bodies. The Recovery Strategy includes planning, water conservation, water supply development, and water resource development components. These components comprise the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy, entitled “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” is the regulatory portion and is incorporated by reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(d). The Recovery Strategy is to be implemented in two phases and the objectives of each phase are described in Table 4-1 of the Recovery Strategy. Phase I includes adoption of supplemental regulatory measures, work with user groups to implement water conservation measures, completion of an improved regional groundwater model, and identification and investigation of water supply projects. In Phase II of the Recovery Strategy, DEP plans to use the new regional model to develop long-term regulatory measures to address regional impacts to the MFLs water bodies. In addition, SRWMD and SJRWMD would develop and implement additional water resource and supply projects. The Proposed Rules The Proposed Rules would create three sections in a new chapter 62-42 of the Florida Administrative Code. Rules 62- and 62-42.200 set forth the scope and definitions: 62-42.100 Scope The purpose of this chapter is to set forth Department-adopted minimum flows and levels (MFLS) and the regulatory provisions of any required recovery or prevention strategy as provided in Section 373.042(4), F.S. The Department recognizes that recovery and prevention strategies may contain both regulatory and non-regulatory provisions. The non-regulatory provisions are not included in this rule, and will be included in the applicable regional water supply plans approved by the appropriate districts pursuant to Section 373.0421(2) and Section 373.709, F.S. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] 62-42.200 Definitions When used in this chapter, the following words shall have the indicated meanings unless the rule indicates otherwise: Flow Duration Curve means a plot of magnitude of flow versus percent of time the magnitude of flow is equaled or exceeded. Flow Duration Frequency means the percentage of time that a given flow is equaled or exceeded. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] Rule 62-42.300 is where the proposed minimum flows are set forth. The minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(a); the minimum flows for the Ichetucknee River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(b); and the minimum flows for 16 priority springs are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(c). The minimum flows for the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are expressed as water flow in cubic feet per second (“cfs”) at various points on a flow duration curve. The minimum flows for ten named springs associated with the Santa Fe River and six named springs associated with the Ichetucknee River are set forth as a “percent reduction from the median baseline flow contribution of the spring to the flow” at a particular river gage. This approach, which ties spring flow to river flow, was used by DEP because there is minimal flow data for the springs. Rule 62-42.300(1)(d) adopts by reference “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” which is Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy. Rule 62-42.300(1)(e) states that DEP, in coordination with SRWMD and SJRWMD, shall reevaluate these minimum flows after completion of the North Florida Southeast Georgia Regional Groundwater Flow Model, which is currently under development. The rule also states that DEP will “strike” rules 62-42.300(1)(a) through (d) and adopt new rules no later than three years after completion of the final peer review report regarding the new groundwater model, or by December 31, 2019, whichever date is earlier. The Supplemental Regulatory Measures adopted by reference in rule 62-42.300(1)(d) are intended to provide additional criteria for review of consumptive use permit applications during Phase I. These measures would be applied to water uses within the North Florida Regional Water Supply Planning Area. For the purposes of the issues raised in these consolidated cases, it is necessary to discuss three categories of permit applications and how they would be treated under the Supplemental Regulatory Measures in Phase I: (1) A new permit application that shows a “potential impact” to the MFL water bodies must eliminate or offset the potential impact; (2) An application to renew a permit, which does not seek to increase the amount of water used, would be renewed for five years no matter what impact it is having on the MFL water bodies; however, if the impact is eliminated or offset, the renewal would not be limited to five years; and (3) An application to renew a permit which seeks an increased quantity of water would have to eliminate or offset the potential impact to the MFL water bodies associated only with the increase. This category of permits is limited to a five-year renewal unless the existing impacts are also eliminated or offset. See § 6.5(a)-(d) of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.5(e) states that existing permits that do not expire during Phase I are considered consistent with the Recovery Strategy and are not subject to modification during the term of their permits. Many permits are issued for a 20-year period, so Phase I would not capture all existing permits because they would not all expire during Phase I.3/ DEP stated that existing permits may be affected by the regulatory measures DEP plans to adopt for Phase II. Section 6.5(f) of the Supplemental Regulatory Measures states that permittees are not responsible for impacts to the MFL water bodies caused by water users in Georgia, or for more than the permittee’s “proportionate share of impacts.” The record evidence established that the effect of Georgia water users on the MFL water bodies is small. Section 6.6(b) requires permits for agricultural use in the counties surrounding the MFL water bodies to include a condition requiring participation in the Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL) program. The purpose of SRWMD’s MIL program is to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems. SRWMD provides cost- sharing in this program. Whether DEP Must Adopt the Entire Recovery Strategy by Rule Petitioners contend that proposed rules 62-42.100(1) and (2) enlarge, modify, or contravene sections 373.042(4) and 373.0421(2) because these statutes require DEP to adopt all of a recovery strategy by rule, not just the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy. Respondents contend that it was consistent with the law for DEP to adopt only the regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy by rule and have SRWMD approve the non- regulatory portion and implement it through a regional water supply plan. It has been the practice of the water management districts to adopt by rule only the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy and to implement the non-regulatory portion as a component of their regional water supply plans. This is primarily a legal issue and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law where it is concluded that DEP is not required to adopt the entire Recovery Strategy by rule. Whether SRWMD Must Adopt the Recovery Strategy By Rule Petitioner Still challenged SRWMD’s approval of the Recovery Strategy as violating the rulemaking requirements of section 120.54. However, Petitioner Still presented no evidence in support of his claim that the Recovery Strategy contains statements that meet the definition of a rule, but were not adopted as rules. Whether the Non-Regulatory Portion of the Recovery Strategy Will Prevent Recovery The Alliance claims that there are flaws in the non- regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy that was approved by SRWMD, primarily related to the estimate of flow deficits in the MFL water bodies and the corresponding amount of water that must be returned to the system to achieve the minimum flows. There is unrefuted record evidence indicating that SRWMD did not account for consumptive use permits issued in the last three or four years. Therefore, the Recovery Strategy probably underestimates the flow deficits in the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and the amount of water needed to achieve the minimum flows.4/ However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Alliance cannot challenge the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy in this proceeding. The Recovery Strategy, including the non-regulatory portion approved by SRWMD, is in Phase I. SRWMD can revise the Recovery Strategy at any time, and in Phase II can do so with the improved analysis made possible with the new regional model. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the non-regulatory portion does not have to achieve recovery in Phase I. Whether the Minimum Flows are Based on the Best Information Available Petitioner Still contends that the minimum flows are not based on the best information available as required by section 373.042(1)(b). He claims that the wrong method was used to estimate streamflow, the modeling was based on a false assumption about the relationship between groundwater levels and river flows, the relationship between withdrawals and flows was not properly accounted for, withdrawals and other anthropogenic impacts were not properly distinguished, tailwater effects were not properly accounted for, and the wrong period of record was used. Petitioner Still’s arguments in this respect are based largely on his own opinions about the quality and significance of the technical data that was used and how it affects the modeling results used in establishing the minimum flows. Petitioner Still does not have the requisite expertise to express these opinions and he did not get expert witnesses at the final hearing to agree with his claims. Petitioner Still does not have an expertise in modeling to express an opinion about the ability of the model to use particular data or how the model accounts for various surface and groundwater phenomena. Petitioner Still failed to prove that the minimum flows are not based on the best available information. Whether the Proposed Rules Are Vague Petitioner Still contends the Proposed Rules are invalid because they use terms that are vague. Some of the terms which Petitioner Still objects to are the same or similar to terms commonly used in other environmental regulations, such as “best available information,” “impact,” “offset,” and “eliminate.” The term “potential impact” is not materially different than the term “impact.” The term “best available modeling tools” is not vague. It reflects the recognition that, like best available information, hydrologic models and technical information are continually being created and updated. Petitioner Still contends that the definitions of “Flow Duration Curve” and “Flow Duration Frequency” in proposed rules 62-42.200(1) and (2), respectively, are vague because they do not state whether “synthetic” data may be used in the production of the flow duration curve, or that they are based on a specific period of record. Synthetic data are numeric inputs used to account for missing data and are created by extrapolating from existing data. As an example, they can be used to satisfy a model’s need to have a water flow entry for every month in a multi-year period being analyzed when there is no actual data available for some of the months. The use of synthetic data is a regular and accepted practice in modeling and does not have to be mentioned in the rule. Flow duration curves and flow duration frequencies are calculated from data covering specific periods of record. Although the definitions of these two terms in proposed rule 62-42.200 could contain more information than is provided, the proposed definitions are not inaccurate. They are not vague. Petitioner Still contends that proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is vague because it establishes the minimum flows for the Santa Fe River at a location without precisely identifying the location. The record shows that the reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” is the actual name of the United States Geological Survey flow gage that has been in use for many years. Furthermore, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(c), which establishes the minimum flows for the priority springs, refers to “the respective river gages listed in paragraphs 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b).” Therefore, it is made clear that the reference to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is a reference to a river gage. The rule is not vague. Petitioner Still asserts that the minimum flows in proposed 62-42.300(1) are vague because they do not identify the period of record that was used in deriving the flow duration curves which are used in the rule. He compared the wording in the proposed rule to SRWMD’s existing rule 40B-8.061(1), which identifies the technical report from which the flow duration curve in that rule was derived. A general description of flow duration curves is found in “Minimum Flows and Levels for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River and Priority Springs” dated November 22, 2013 (“MFL Technical Document”), at page 3-6: They show the percent of time specified discharges were equaled or exceeded for a continuous record in a given period. For example, during the period 1932 to 2010, the daily mean flow of the Santa Fe River near Fort White (Figure 3-2) was at least 767 cfs, 90 percent of the time. The curves are influenced by the period of record used in their creation, but for comparison purposes between different scenarios over a fixed time period they are extremely useful. [Emphasis added.] However, proposed rule 62-42.300(1) does not give the period of record for the flow duration curves that will be used to determine compliance with the minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. Respondents argued that identifying the period of record is unnecessary because anyone interested in knowing the period of record or anything else pertaining to how the flow duration curves were produced could refer to the MFL Technical Document. This is not a situation where a specific number and unit, such as 100 cfs, has been established as a criterion based on technical analyses that can be found in documents. In such a case, the technical documents are not needed to determine compliance with the criterion; they simply explain why the criterion was selected. In the case of a flow duration curve, however, the period of record for the data to be used must be known to determine compliance. For example, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a)1. would establish the following criterion: “3,101 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a flow duration frequency of five percent.” Five percent of what? Five percent of what data set? Data from what time period? Must the same synthetic data be used? The rule does not inform persons subject to the rule what data SRWMD will use to determine compliance. They would not know how to calculate flow duration frequencies without reviewing the MFL Technical Document. Because the minimum flows are not completely identified in the rule, they are vague. Whether a Minimum Flow Should be Established for Each Priority Spring Petitioner Still contends that the Proposed Rules are invalid because minimum flows are not established for each priority spring, which causes them to be unprotected. He claims that each spring needs its own minimum flow “that takes into account the surface and ground water inputs to its flow.” DEP and SRWMD presented evidence that establishing minimum flows for each spring was impracticable because there were insufficient data for the springs. Petitioner Still did not refute this evidence. Whether the Proposed Rules Allow Further Degradation of the MFL Water Bodies The Alliance contends that the Proposed Rules must reduce permitted withdrawals in Phase I and must require monitoring of water use by agricultural water users, but it did not present evidence that these alternative regulatory measures are practicable in SRWMD in Phase I. The Alliance did not show there are permitting mechanisms that have been used by other water management districts as part of the first phase of a recovery strategy that are practicable for use in SRWMD and would be more effective. The only evidence presented on the subject of what regulatory measures other water management districts have adopted as part of a recovery strategy pertained to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”). That evidence showed that SWFWMD took a similar approach of allowing existing permitted uses to continue their water withdrawals while new water supplies and conservation mechanisms were developed. The Alliance contends that the Supplemental Regulatory Measures do not prevent further degradation because there are projected to be numerous, new agricultural water uses in Phase I. However, under section 6.5(b), new water uses will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. The Alliance makes a similar argument regarding existing agricultural water users who will request an increase in water. Under section 6.5(c), increases in water use will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. Whether the SERC and Revised SERC are Good Faith Estimates and Whether the Proposed Rules Impose the Lowest Cost Regulatory Alternatives Petitioner Still failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that DEP’s original SERC or the revised SERC were not good faith estimates of regulatory costs associated with the Proposed Rules. The record evidence shows they are good faith estimates. He also failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that the objectives of the law being implemented could be substantially accomplished by a less costly regulatory alternative.
