The Issue Whether Michael Chbat's 2008 application for a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) to construct a culvert extension across his property in Walton County, Florida, should be approved?
Findings Of Fact La Grange Bayou Estates La Grange Bayou Estates is a residential subdivision in Freeport, Walton County, Florida. The subdivision lies to the north of the shoreline of Choctawhatchee Bay. It can be viewed as divided roughly in half between bayfront lots south of an east-west road that transects the subdivision and lots that are north of the road. The subdivision is platted and the plat is in the public records of Walton County. Filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Walton County, Florida, on September 15, 1982, the plat ("the 1982 Plat") shows 29 residential lots in the subdivision as of that date. See Petitioner's Ex. 6. Lots 1 through 16, according to the 1982 Plat, are the bayfront lots, south of a 40-foot wide road designated as a private road in the plat. That road is now known as Alden Lane. Wetlands over which the Department has jurisdiction ("jurisdictional wetlands") comprise much of the southern portion of bayfront lots and the drainage easement. Among the bayfront lots are both Lot 9 which belongs to Mr. Chbat and Lot 8 which belongs to Mr. Sheehey. A 50-foot easement lies between Lot 9 and Lot 8 and is described more fully below. The presence of jurisdictional wetlands on Mr. Chbat's lot over which he hopes to install the culvert extension requires that he obtain a WRP. To the north of Alden Lane are lots numbered by the 1982 Plat as 17 through 29. The lots are served by Alden Lane and, in what is roughly the northeast quadrant of the subdivision, by two other roads. One of the roads is shown on the 1982 Plat as a "40' PRIVATE ROAD." Id. A 2006 aerial photograph introduced into evidence by Chbat designates the road "unnamed." See Chbat Ex. 5. The other is designated as a "graded county road," on the 1982 Plat. By 2006, it had come to be known as Beatrice Point Road. Id. Beatrice Point Road transects a pond that runs roughly 340 feet (excluding about 30 feet of roadway) in a northeasterly direction from Alden Lane to the southern edge of an area north of the subdivision shown on the 1982 Plat to be un-platted. The pond is most likely the result of a "borrow pit" dug in order to obtain fill for the construction of the roads when the subdivision was initially developed. The southern boundary of the pond lies along approximately 140 feet of Alden Lane's northern edge. The pond is across the street from Lots 9, 10 and 11 of the subdivision. The pond is also not far northeast of the 50-foot easement (the "Drainage Easement") between Lots 9 and 8. The Drainage Easement The Drainage Easement is just to the west of Lot 9. It is noted on the 1982 Plat as a "50' EASEMENT (PRIVATE)." Id. The 50-foot wide Drainage Easement runs the length of the western boundary of Lot 9 and the length of the eastern boundary of Lot 8. The northeast corner of the Drainage Easement is approximately 30 feet from the southwest corner of the pond separated from the pond by the roadway of Alden Lane. The eastern boundary of the Drainage Easement is 226.37 feet in length, or if taken to the middle of Alden Lane, 246.3 feet. The western boundary is 206.13 feet long or if taken to the middle of the road, 226.65 feet. The purpose of the Drainage Easement, as is evident from its denomination in this recommended order, is drainage. As Mr. Street definitively put it at hearing, it is "now and always has been intended to drain stormwater to the [B]ay." Tr. Vol. III at 179. Mr. Street's opinion of the function of the Drainage Easement is supported by drawings submitted by Mr. Chbat as part of the WRP application. The drawings show that the Drainage Easement's function is facilitated by three culverts north of the Easement (referred to during the hearing as "pipes") each of which is intended to direct stormwater at its point of discharge toward the Drainage Easement. See Chbat Ex. 1. One of the culverts ("the Drainage Ditch Culvert") serves a drainage ditch that is to the north of the Easement and Alden Lane. According to the drawings, the drainage ditch lies on the other side of the "un-named road" from the pond, that is, to the west of the pond, and is some 40-to-50 feet north of the Drainage Easement. The Drainage Ditch Culvert extends from the ditch to the southern half of Alden Lane from where it appears from the application's drawings that stormwater would be conveyed to the western side of the Drainage Easement along it's border with Lot 8 and on toward the Bay. In fact, it is a functioning culvert that "conveys water from a swale on the side of the road into the [D]rainage [E]asement." Tr. 64. Once in the Drainage Easement, according to the drawings, the water should flow into the Bay out of a "cut," id., that is labeled on the drawings as an "existing trench." See Chbat Ex. 1. The trench, however, has been filled in with sand by tidal activity or sediment deposited by stormwater or both. The trench has not been maintained, and it no longer exists. The other two culverts (the "Pond Culverts") lie east of the Drainage Ditch Culvert. They catch overflow from the pond caused by stormwater and convey it under and through Alden Lane toward the Drainage Easement. The westernmost Pond Culvert (the "Western Pond Culvert") appears to terminate in Alden Lane near its southern edge just north of the Easement. At the time of hearing, however, it was not functioning properly. "[I]t is full of sand and silted up . . .", tr. Vol. I at 58; "[t]he pipe to the west is clogged and it is not functioning." Tr. Vol. I at 64. It is also at an elevation that would keep it from serving drainage purposes in all but the most severe storm events. See Chbat Ex. 9 at 22. The other Pond Culvert, (the "Eastern Pond Culvert") terminates in the northwest corner of Lot 9 at the border between Lot 9 and the Drainage Easement about 10 feet southeast of the terminus of the Western Pond Culvert. The Eastern Pond Culvert is the culvert with which the Amended Permit is concerned, that is, it is the culvert to be extended by the permit. Calling it a "pipe," Mr. Street offered the following about the assistance the Eastern Pond Culvert offers in conveying stormwater into the Drainage Easement and down to the Bay: There is currently a pipe that discharges into that easement. There . . . was an attempt to place the water from the . . . pond into the easement. And the natural flow of water on this entire property from the road to the [B]ay is north to south. At some point, at least 2004, that drainage easement contained a conveyance at its southern end that would safely discharge stormwater to the [B]ay. Tr. Vol. III at 179-80. Petitioner Sheehey and Lot 8 Thomas Sheehey is the owner of Lot 8, where he has a residence in which he makes his home. He has lived in the residence approximately five years. During that time, Mr. Sheehey has fished in the Bay and enjoyed the use of his kayak and his waverunner on the Bay. He also enjoys "sitting down having a cup of coffee and looking at it," tr. vol. III at 151, as well as watching his neighbors fish. The recreational uses to which he puts the Bay is the reason he chose to purchase a bayfront lot in La Grange Bayou Estates. Over the period of time that he has resided on Lot 8, Mr. Sheehey has observed the effects of rain events on his lot and well as lots close to Lot 8. He has also taken pictures of his property and the near-by lots. Among the photographs were four taken after rain events or "after a wet period," tr. vol. III at 88, at some point in the last four years. The four photos were introduced as a composite exhibit, Petitioner's Ex. 2, with each photograph marked as 2A, 2B, 2C or 2D. Mr. Sheehey could not specify when the pictures were taken in the past four years other than that if a picture had a certain dock in it, then it was taken after January of 2009. Petitioner's Ex. 2A was taken from Mr. Sheehey's lot looking toward the Bay. It shows an area of the lot under water separated from the Bay by a ridge. Petitioner's Ex. 2B is a picture taken from Lot 13 looking west across Lots 12, 11, 10, 9 "down through 8." Tr. Vol. III at 86. Much of what is photographed is among trees and vegetation emerging from water standing above the surface of the soil. Petitioner's Ex. 2C is a picture taken from Alden Lane looking south across Mr. Chbat's property. It shows a wide swath of water that extends from the road across most of the property to the Bay. The water is either in a swale or constitutes overflow outside the swale. The most recent of the four is Petitioner's Ex. 2D, which shows the dock referred to by Mr. Sheehey that was built in early 2009. It is a picture taken from Lot number 13 toward the west through Lots 12, 11, 10, 9. Like the others, it shows vegetation standing in water to the north of the Bay. Taken together, the four pictures in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 demonstrate that significant portions of the lots depicted are under water following sufficient amounts of recent rain. The four photographs that comprise Petitioner's Exhibit 2 are not the only photos taken by Mr. Sheehey that were introduced into evidence. Three other photographs of Mr. Sheehey's, Petitioner's Exhibits 7A, 7B and 7C, were admitted following testimony about them from a long-time observer of the flow of water from Alden Lane to the Bay. A Long-time Observer Thomas Eugene Cummins had lived in La Grange Estates "[t]wo months shy of 20 years," tr. vol. III at 7, at the time of his testimony. His house was the fourth to be constructed in the subdivision. Over the two decades of his residence, the pond between Alden Lane and the property north of the subdivision has been in existence. Consistent with the drawings submitted to DEP as part of the application, when asked where the pond overflows today, Mr. Cummins answered "it drains under Alden Lane on to Mr. Chbat's lot." Tr. Vol. III at 8. Asked by Mr. Chesser at hearing, "When the water comes out of the pond, is it possible to know where it spreads?"1/ Mr. Cummins testified: On really heavy rains, I have watched the normal color of the pond change from its dark blackish gray color into the reddish color that the clay has washed down into it, flow under Alden Lane and on to Mr. Chbat's lot, and then proceed west through the wetland on lots eight, seven, six, and my five, and turn reddish color even in my lot. Tr. Vol. III at 9-10. Mr. Cummins knew the source of the "red color" of the stormwater: red clay introduced to La Grange Estates by the County half a decade earlier. Mr. Cummins testified: Beatrice Point Road, which is the road that runs over the pond, about five years ago the county did some repair on the road and actually put red clay in certain spots to even it out. Tr. Vol. III at 9. Prior to the county's work on the road referred-to by Mr. Cummins, there had been no red clay in the neighborhood. Alden Way, for example, has no red clay. It is a road composed of shell. The only red clay in the subdivision is that which is on Beatrice Point Road. The water that runs onto Mr. Cummins' lot following a heavy rain rises to as much as 12 inches.2/ The water rises as high as it does because it is held back by a naturally-occurring land formation between the Bay and Mr. Cummins property. This geo-formation was referred-to at hearing as the ridge line or the ridge. The Ridge The Ridge was described by Mr. Cummins as a vegetated mass of earth that most of the time, even in heavy rains, sits above the water that collects on the bayfront lots of La Grange Estates. The Ridge prevents a substantial amount of stormwater runoff from entering the Bay from the wetlands on the southern portion of the subdivision's bayfront lots. For that reason, the ridge is called "our upland,3/" tr. vol. III at 13, according to Mr. Cummins. Between Lot 9 and Lot 5, the ridge varies in width "anywhere between 10 feet . . . up toward Mr. Chbat's lot, down to [Mr. Cummins'] lot where its around 30 or 40 feet [wide.]" Id. (It may extend, in fact, across all of the bayfront lots.) The ridge meanders not far from the shoreline. Id. In some places it is as narrow as five feet. The height of the ridge varies as well from as low as one foot to as high as two and half feet. Mr. Street also testified about the Ridge, referring to it in his testimony as a "ridge line": Now, there is a ridge line, and there's been a lot of testimony about this ridge line, that it exists across all of the lots. My testimony was, essentially, related to the review that I did, which was primarily associated with lots eight and nine, and the drainage easement between them. And from what I can tell, the elevation of that ridge line is give or take three. Elevation three, not a height of three. An elevation of three. It could be lower, and perhaps, is higher. And its subject to the vagaries of a number of factors, flow of stormwater, wave action, tidal influence, and the like. And these accretions and depositions of sand over time change that ridge line. And sometimes, it opens up. And sometimes it may not have a natural opening, depending on where you are along that entire stretch of beach. * * * [T]o the extent there is an opening in that ridge line, water will flow naturally to the bay. Tr. Vol. III at 180-181. An "east west flow of water," tr. vol. III at 181, along the bayfront lots, that is, a flow of water either in an easterly direction or a westerly one is contrary to the flow from Alden Lane north of the lots to the Bay south of the lots. Whether flowing east or west, the water in the southern portions of the bayfront lots is "controlled by the ridge line." Id. In other words, stormwater that flows from north to south across the bayfront lots, including Mr. Chbat's and the Drainage Easement, is going to collect and begin to flow from east to west or west to east at some point north of the Ridge before it drains into the Bay. The only exception to east-west flow, as made clear by Mr. Street, is when and if there is an opening in the Ridge that allows the water otherwise held back by the Ridge to flow southward into the Bay. The east-west flow of the water along the Ridge was described at hearing as "unnatural." Id. In fact, it is not un-natural. The Ridge is the cause of the east-west flow and, as Mr. Street testified, the Ridge is the result of natural processes such as tidal influence, wave action, accretion and deposition of sand.4/ The Ridge is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7A,5/ another photograph taken by Mr. Sheehey. The ridge as shown in the picture is well vegetated and above water to its north and higher than the Bay to its south. It is quite clear that if there is no opening in the ridge to the Bay, stormwater north of the ridge is forced to flow in east-west directions and is prevented from flowing into the Bay. Petitioners' Exhibit 7B is a photograph of the southern terminus of a swale (see paragraphs 40 - 49, below) on Mr. Chbat's property. It shows the swale cut through the Ridge. Water, however, does not appear to be running from the end of the swale into the bay. It appears that the end of the swale is a few feet from the Bay separated by a narrow sandy area on the shore. Nonetheless, the photograph shows that there is potential for stormwater to flow from the swale when the swale has more water in it. Petitioner's Exhibit 7C is a picture of the pond6/ across the street from Mr. Chbat's Lot 9. Mr. Chbat and Lot 9 Michael Chbat is the owner of Lot 9. He purchased the lot "[t]o build a house on it." Tr. Vol. I at 22. Because he has family close by (in Fort Walton Beach), Mr. Chbat expects to use a house built on the lot for weekend visits. His ultimate aspiration is to live in a house on Lot 9 after he retires from his position as a construction engineer with the City of Tallahassee. At hearing, Mr. Chbat described Lot 9 on the day he bought it: "the lot was overgrown. It drained from north to south. It had water standing on it. And it had a pipe [the Eastern Pond Culvert] on the northwest corner discharging." Tr. Vol. I at 23. He also described the state of the lot at the time of hearing. The Eastern Pond Culvert on the northwest corner was still there. The lot had been cleared to some extent to rid it of invasive species. Overgrown vegetation was trimmed or cleared to make room for a driveway permitted by the Department and "a parking pad in the front area of it, as well as an access pad in the uplands." Id. A dock had also been constructed from the property into the Bay. The most significant difference between the lot at the time of purchase and the lot at the time of hearing for purposes of this proceeding is that the lot now has a swale (the Swale) that runs from the point of discharge of the Eastern Pond Culvert "all of the way to the bay area." Id. The Swale The Swale was put in sometime after March 20, 2007, as the result of a Settlement Agreement fully executed on that date "By and Between Michael Chbat and Thomas L. Sheehey." Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Settlement Agreement followed events that commenced in 2004 when Mr. Chbat filed an application (the "2004 Application") with DEP for a WRP primarily to construct a house and a boardwalk leading from the house on Lot 9 to a dock in the Bay. The 2004 Application also proposed the extension of the Eastern Pond Culvert with a "pipe" along the western boundary of Chbat's property in a manner substantially similar to the culvert extension allowed by the Amended Permit that is the subject of this proceeding. On October 28, 2005, DEP proposed that the 2004 Application be granted. The permit (the "Proposed Original Permit") was assigned No. 66-0235320-001-DF. See Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. The Proposed Original Permit was challenged by Mr. Sheehey when he "filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing contesting certain action authorized under the [Proposed Original] Permit . . . specifically the relocation of a drainage pipe . . . ." Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. After referral of the petition to DOAH, Mr. Chbat and Mr. Sheehey wrote in the Settlement Agreement that they had "determined that it is in their best interests to settle this matter amicably pursuant to the terms hereafter". Id. Among the terms is that Chbat would file an Amended Application. See id. The agreed-to amendment to the 2004 Application was attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit "A," a drawing of a "Drainage Swale Plan," produced by Genesis Group for Mr. Chbat. The drawing depicts a swale that runs from the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert nearly the full length of the western boundary of Lot 9 to the Bay. See Exhibit "A" to Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Swale was designed to take the place of the 2004 Application's proposal for a "pipe"7/ attached to the point of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Settlement Agreement received the support of DEP because the Department believed that a swale would assist in improving the quality of the stormwater discharged to the Bay over the untreated discharge from the end of the "pipe." Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the 2004 Application was amended. The Department amended the Proposed Original Permit accordingly and final agency action was taken with the issuance of a permit to Mr. Chbat (the "Final Original Permit") found in DEP Permit File No. 66-0235320-001- DF. Installation of the Swale The Swale was installed, but it did not work as intended. The result of the Swale's installation was more water on the lot rather than less. Mr. Chbat described the after-effects of the Swale: "it started bringing more water to the lot . . .". Tr. Vol. I at 31. The increased amount of water is the result of several factors, one of which is tidal influence: the tide from the Bay pushes water into the Swale. "[A]bout halfway on the swale . . . that water from the bay was meeting the water from the pipe . . .". Id. The water from the Bay tide and the stormwater conveyed by the Swale would meet at "about the middle of the span of the swale." Id. The result was "a lot more water," id., on the lot. Mr. Thomason confirmed Mr. Chbat's assessment that the reason the Swale did not function as effectively as necessary is tidal flow onto Lot 9 from the Bay particularly from high winds. But tidal flow onto Lot 9 and the interruption in the discharge of stormwater through the Swale are not the only problems. There is also a maintenance factor that accompanies tidal flow: sand deposition. Mr. Thomason elaborated: "[D]uring storm events or [just normal] wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to . . . the sandy area at the end of [Lot 9] next to the [Bay.]"8/ Tr. Vol. I at 62. The influx of sand onto Lot 9 is not just a problem for adequate functioning of the Swale. The Drainage Easement has "the same problem." Id. Both the Swale and the Drainage Easement are plagued by deposition of sand pushed landward by normal tidal influences and storm events. Maintenance of the Swale and the Drainage Easement, therefore, would assist the drainage of stormwater into the Bay. The tidal influence and maintenance issues that Mr. Chbat encountered with the Swale led him to apply for a different and new permit. That application was filed in 2008. The 2008 Application Mr. Chbat filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP on August 1, 2008 (the "2008 Application"). See Chbat Exhibit 1. The work to be approved was similar to the work originally proposed in the 2004 Application in that both applications proposed installation of a "pipe" to be fixed to the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert that would run along the western boundary of Lot 9 toward the Bay. A description of the work is contained in Section 10 of the 2008 Application: "Extension of an existing stormwater pipe within a private lot approximately 150 feet. The slope for the proposed pipe extension will be at minimum so that stormwater will be treated further, and minimizing erosion." Chbat Ex. 1 at 3. After the filing of the 2008 Application, Mr. Chbat learned that Mr. Sheehey objected to the newest Chbat proposal because he believed 150 feet is not lengthy enough to clear the Ridge. See Chbat Exhibit 2. In order to cure the objection, Mr. Chbat proposed a modification to the 2008 Application. He attached a "sealed and signed drawing," id., to a letter dated September 18, 2008, that he submitted to DEP. The drawing shows the extension to be 177 feet, 27 feet more than initially proposed by the 2008 Application. The additional 27 feet was intended to ensure that the discharge would be directly into the Bay in order to "eliminate any possible run-off impact to adjacent properties." Id. The modification was accepted by DEP." See exhibit number 19/ attached to the Amended Permit, Chbat Exhibit 4. There was conflicting evidence in the proceeding on whether the outfall from a culvert extension of 177 feet will be bayward of the Ridge. The issue was put to rest by Mr. Street’s testimony in rebuttal at the hearing. See Tr. Vol. III at 194 and 203-4. His testimony establishes that the point of discharge at the end of the culvert extension will clear the Ridge so that the discharge will be directly into the Bay. The Mound The culvert extension is designed at an elevation and with cover (presumably sod). The extension runs through jurisdictional wetlands and segments them. It does not, however, isolate any portion of the wetlands. The wetlands on Mr. Chbat's property and those to the immediate east and west of it, therefore, will retain their status as jurisdictional wetlands should the extension be installed. With its sod cover, the culvert extension will be a mini-berm (or a "mound" as Mr. Street called it) at an elevation of 17 to 18 inches above grade. Water that pools to its west will no longer be able to flow eastward of the mound (except rarely under the most extreme weather events.) Conversely, water that collects to its east will no longer be able to flow westward of the extension. It would have to be a severe storm event for water to rise above the mound. Mr. Chbat has never seen water rise to 18 inches above grade and Mr. Cummins testified the highest water ever gets on his property is roughly 12 inches. The Department approved the 2008 Application as modified to lengthen the extension to 177 feet and issued the Amended Permit. But an incorrect and critical assumption was made during review of the application that related to the mound. Review of the 2008 Application During his review of the application, Mr. Street, as DEP's stormwater engineer, assumed from the drawings that the Drainage Easement is functional.10/ The assumption was expressed in Mr. Street's testimony in the Department's case-in-chief: Q [D]id you determine whether the pipe, as it would be mounded . . . [the culvert extension covered in sod] . . . would create problems for storm water flow? A I looked at that. There were two conclusions that I drew. One was that the mound would create a higher water elevation on the Chbat property east of the mound, but would not create standing water west of the mound extending into the [Drainage E]asment . . . . Which on the drawings that I reviewed showed an existing trench at the south end of that easement. And it was my opinion that any water that fell west of the mound would exit through the easement. Tr. Vol. II at 92 (emphasis added.) Mr. Street's assumption that water would not pool to the west of the mound in the Drainage Easement and toward Mr. Sheehey's property was contradicted by Mr. Sheehey's stormwater engineer, Mr. Porterfield. THe Porterfield Testimony and Support for It at Hearing The testimony at hearing of Mr. Porterfield, who conducted a site visit, established the opposite of what Mr. Street assumed. The volume of stormwater runoff that pools east of the mound, that is, water on Lot 9, will not be as great as the volume as the water that pools west of the mound. Water that would have flowed onto Lot 9 from the Eastern Pond Culvert will flow directly to the Bay via the culvert extension. The extension will also protect the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 from water that would have flowed from the Eastern Pond Culvert onto that property. But there is a significant difference between stormwater to the west of the extension and to the east. To the extension's west, the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 will have to contend with stormwater from the Drainage Ditch Culvert, the culvert north of Alden Lane that does not convey stormwater from the pond but that like the Pond Culverts has a discharge point directed at the Drainage Easement. How often and to what extent pooling of stormwater will occur west of the mound due to its presence is difficult to determine on the state of this record.11/ No studies or analyses of the likelihood and severity of storm events and the volumes of stormwater runoff that would be produced by them were conducted by any of the stormwater engineers in the case nor were any such analyses done with regard to pooling caused by the presence of the covered culvert extension. The testimony of Mr. Porterfield, however, and other evidence, demonstrates that that additional collection of water west of the mound caused by the mound will occur following heavy rain. Mr. Street was present in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing, including during the presentation of Mr. Sheehey's case. As Mr. Street candidly testified on rebuttal after he had heard all the evidence: I would also maintain that the drainage easement which has signs of a historical usage as a drainage easement with a trench, in fact, that conveys water safely to the bay, that should be re-established and maintained. That’s what it’s there for.” Tr. Vol III at 181 (emphasis added.) Thus, it became clear to Mr. Street after listening to all the evidence in the case that the Drainage Easement has not been properly maintained. The trench that was expected to carry stormwater toward the Bay no longer exists. In short, the testimony of Mr. Street, for all his many strengths as a witness, falls short of supporting the position of the Department and Mr. Chbat. Having never visited the site,12/ he approved the project on the basis of drawings that do not conform to the on-site physical reality. When presented with the evidence at hearing that the Drainage Easement is not functioning, he championed re-establishment and maintenance of the Drainage Easement. Mr. Chbat placed part of the Swale's functionality problem on the tide pushing stormwater northward but his case also recognized the maintenance problem caused by deposition of sand that besets the Swale. Mr. Thomason, moreover, recognized that the Drainage Easement has the same maintenance issue. Mr. Chbat's stormwater engineer testified During storm events or just normal wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to. . . the sandy area at the end of [Chbat's] lot next to the water. And so that . . . tends to inhibit the natural flow down the swale . . . we have the same problem on the drainage easement . . . where sand builds up in that discharge. Tr. Vol. I at 62 (emphasis added). From this record, it is clear that neither the Swale nor the Drainage Easement functions properly. Their functional status, moreover, is due in significant part to lack of maintenance. It may be that maintenance ultimately will not solve the problem; maintenance efforts to keep the Swale and Drainage Easement clear of the sand deposited by tidal activity may require too much effort for them to be reasonably required. But that evidence was not produced. Indeed, the record was silent as to any maintenance efforts with regard to the Swale by Mr. Chbat or with regard to the Drainage Easement by the owner of the easement. The record is also silent as to whether DEP voiced any concern about the maintenance issues that beset the Swale. It is clear that concern was not raised by the Department in regard to the Drainage Easement until the rebuttal phase of the hearing, since the assumption was made that the easement was properly maintained. Whatever communication may have occurred with regard to maintenance issues among the parties, the Department issued the Amended Permit.13/ The Permit/Authorization Number for the Amended Permit is 66-235320-002-DF.14/ Issued December 19, 2008, the Amended Permit has an expiration date of December 19, 2013. The expiration date coincides with the construction phase of five years on the face of the Amended Permit. See Chbat Ex. 4. Mr. Sheehey Challenges the Amended Permit On January 6, 2009, Mr. Sheehey, pro se, filed with DEP a petition (the "Petition") seeking a formal administrative hearing with regard to "Amended Wetland Resource Permit 66- 00235320-002-DF." Although the Petition makes reference to the Amended Permit, it seeks in the first instance enforcement of the Settlement Agreement that relates to the Final Original Permit. The Petition states: "Petitioner believes that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over this matter and should enforce the March 20, 2007 Settlement Agreement which requires that Permittee act in conformance with Exhibit 'A' of the Agreement [the drawing of the Swale]." In the event that DEP declined to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Petition sets out disputed issues of material fact that relate to issuance of the Amended Permit. The Petition was referred to DOAH on February 19, 2009. One week before the final hearing, the Department filed the motion in limine that is discussed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. The motion was granted to the extent that it sought to preclude Sheehey from introducing evidence that supported enforcement of the Settlement Agreement since the 2008 Application, which, while bearing similarity to the 2004 Application, is nonetheless an independent application that should be approved or denied on its own merits without regard to the 2004 Application, the Proposed Original Permit, the Settlement Agreement or the Final Original Permit. The case proceeded to hearing on the remaining issues raised by the Petition: 1) whether Sheehey has standing to contest approval of the 2008 Application; 2) whether Chbat gave the notice required by Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, and 3) whether Chbat's application meets the criteria in statutes and rules for issuance of the Amended Permit. Standing The findings of fact relevant to Mr. Sheehey's standing are found in paragraph 9, above. Notice Notice of the 2008 Application was published in The Defuniak Springs Herald-Breeze, a newspaper published in Defuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. The notice was published on October 23, 2008. The evidence presented by Mr. Sheehey concerning lack of legal notice consisted of testimony by Mr. Sheehey at hearing in response to questions from his counsel. See Tr. Vol. III at 134. The testimony does not establish that Mr. Sheehey was a person who had filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting his particular area. The testimony of Mr. Sheehey, moreover, establishes that he was given oral notice of the application by Mr. O'Donnell within four days of its filing. WRP Permitting Criteria To obtain a WRP, an applicant must satisfy the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-312 and Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. These criteria govern a range of topics including water quality. Water Quality15/ Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-312.080 provides that no permit shall be issued unless the Department has been supplied with reasonable assurances that the proposed work will not violate water quality standards. Water that enters the pond spends some amount of time in the pond (residence time) before flowing out. During residence time, solids drop out of the water so that the quality of the stormwater that flows out of the pond is reasonably expected to be better than the quality of the stormwater runoff when it entered the pond. Vegetation surrounding the pond, furthermore, enhances the quality of the water in the pond, whether the water’s source is runoff or rain falling directly into the pond. The water that flows out of the pond north of Alden Lane is “existing discharge.” Tr. Vol. I at 65. It generally made its way to the Bay prior to the Swale. Some of it makes its way to the Bay via the Swale now; some of it outside the Swale as overflow. The culvert extension will convey that discharge to the Bay if the extension is installed. The quality of the water is not significantly less when it discharges to the Bay via the Swale or otherwise from the Chbat property than when it would enter the culvert extension should it be installed. It is true that the Swale would have provided filtration and additional treatment to the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert as does the Chbat property in general. But that does not mean that the quality of the culvert’s discharge is a concern. The Swale may have been an option preferable to the extension of the culvert as far as water quality goes but all parties agree that the Swale has failed as a conveyance (albeit Mr. Sheehey maintains that the Swale would work with proper maintenance.) That there is a discharge method that improves the quality of the discharge, such as a swale, does not mean that the discharge to the Bay via the culvert extension is of insufficient quality. None of the parties tested the quality of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Department, nonetheless, offered evidence with regard to its quality. The Department concluded that the quality of the pond and its discharge were not of concern. Had the pond been contaminated to an extent that would have given rise to concerns, moreover, the Swale or the culvert extension as a means of conveying the discharge to the Bay would not have made a “discernible difference.” Tr. Vol. II at 80. The Department provided evidence of assumptions made with regard to the quality of the water that led the Department to conclude that testing of the discharge was unnecessary. Mr. O’Donnell, the Department’s expert in the application of state rules and statutes in wetland resource permitting, detailed the assumptions at hearing: My assumption was that that pond was dug some time in the past as a way to provide fill for roads. That it was never any part of . . . [a] stormwater treatment system. And that it conveyed upstream water through the pond and then on down into Choctawhatchee Bay. It was strictly a [borrow pit and a conveyance pond.] It was never permitted as a treatment system in any way that I was aware of in my diligence [in determining whether the extension should be permitted.] Tr. Vol. II at 79. Once Mr. O’Donnell’s testimony entered the record at the behest of Mr. Chbat, the burden shifted to Mr. Sheehey to prove that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance of water quality. Mr. Sheehey did not offer evidence of any testing of the discharge. Nor did he offer testimony that rebutted Mr. O’Donnell’s opinion. In fact, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson (Mr.Sheehey's witness) supported Mr. O'Donnell's opinion with regard to water quality. See Tr. Vol. III at 112. In sum, the Department made assumptions that are found to be reasonable based on Mr. O’Donnell’s expertise and experience. Those assumptions were not shown to be unreasonable by Mr. Sheehey. The Department’s conclusions about water quality flow directly from Mr. O’Donnell’s reasonable assumptions. Reasonable assurances have been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Public Interest Test Choctawhatchee Bay is not designated as an “outstanding Florida water.” The test that Mr. Chbat must meet therefore is whether the activity proposed by the permit application is “not contrary to the public interest.” § 373.414, Fla. Stat. In making that determination, the Department is directed by the statute to consider and balance seven criteria. See § 373.414(a) 1-7, Fla. Stat. Of the seven, three are at issue once water quality is determined to be of no concern. Two of the three, “[w]hether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature,” Section 373.414(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, and “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity,” Section 373.414(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, do not require in-depth consideration. With regard to the nature of the project time-wise, the evidence establishes that the culvert extension is intended to be permanent. With regard to current condition, the area affected by the proposed activity is a residential lot, a substantial portion of which is under water following heavy rain. To facilitate the conveyance of stormwater, the lot is served by the Swale. The Swale is not functioning optimally because of lack of maintenance and because of the Ridge. With regard to relative value from the standpoint of water quality, the function being performed by the lot and the Swale is little, at least as established by this record. While it is certainly true that the lot with or without the Swale will filtrate and otherwise treat stormwater runoff from the pond, the difference in the quality of the stormwater conveyed by the culvert extension from that which would enter the Bay without the extension is not significant. See the discussion above of Mr. O’Donnell’s accepted opinions. Of the seven statutory criteria to be weighed and balanced by the Department, the one that is central to this case is found in subparagraph 1., of subsection (1)(a): “[w]hether the [culvert extension] will adversely affect . . . the property of others.” The “property of others” in this case is the property of Mr. Sheehey. The Project’s Effect on the Property of Mr. Sheehey. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63-70, above, Mr. Chbat has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not have a detrimental effect on the property of Mr. Sheehey. The extent of the detrimental effect to Mr. Sheehey's property is difficult to determine from this record but it is highly likely based on all the evidence of record that there will be a detrimental effect: additional flooding in heavy rain events.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection deny17/ the Amended Permit for the failure of Mr. Chbat to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely affect Mr. Sheehey's property. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a lease on a 160-acre tract of land along the northern boundary of Palm Beach County which has been zoned and used for several years to mine rock used in local road building operations. This tract of land is surrounded on the east, south and west by some 1,000 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Vanguard Farms. The Vanguard Farms property is used to grow citrus and sugarcane. The geology of the area in the vicinity of this application is such that some three feet of Everglades top soil overlies the limestone. The land surface is about fifteen (15) feet NGVD and the water level table fluctuates from twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet NGVD for the dry and wet seasons. The Vanguard Farms property, which surrounds Petitioner's property in Palm Beach County, is a wet area bordered on the west by Lake Okeechobee and on the east by high ground water elevation. The area has an excess of rainfall over evapotranspiration and excess water will always be generated. In order to render Vanguard Farms arable it is necessary to drain the property and pump excess water from the land. The existing rock pit is some 6.7 acres in area. In order to economically mine rock from this pit it is necessary to remove stable overburden and expose the limerock to provide a stable platform on which the mining equipment can be operated. Since the water table is generally above the top of this limerock, it is necessary to remove water from the pit to expose the rock to be quarried. During earlier operations water from the pit dewatering was pumped into a canal which flowed onto intervenor's property. In the application now under consideration, no water from the dewatering operation will be pumped off the 160 acres controlled by Petitioner. A 25-acre holding pond has been constructed on this site as well as a 9-acre overflow pond. The holding pond was constructed by piling the overburden, and possibly some limerock, in a rectangular shape some ten feet above the surface (25 feet NGVD). This material with which this 10-foot high levee is formed was excavated with a dragline and shaped with a tractor. Condition 28, of the conditions proposed by Respondent for the grant of this application, requires all dikes, levees and berms behind which water is to be retained to be inspected for structural adequacy. A report of such inspection and steps necessary to correct the deficiencies noted shall be submitted, and the report is to be signed and sealed by a Florida registered professional engineer. Perimeter ditches on the north, south and east sides of Petitioner's lands will intercept seepage from the retention pond and surface waters flowing onto this property. These perimeter ditches are connected to the rock pit to which such waters will flow. Water moving westward across the property will be intercepted by the rock pit. Without the rock pit excess water generated in this area will flow onto Vanguard's adjacent land. This condition will exist when the pit is not in operation. However, when the pit is in operation, the water will be retained on Petitioner's property by those limiting conditions requiring the maintenance of water level elevation in the perimeter ditch to be kept either equal to or below the water level elevation of Vanguard Farms. Under this condition, all water will be routed between the pit and retention pond. Conditions of the permit which Respondent proposes to issue include that the water level in the retention pond not exceed 18.5 feet NGVD, that the holding pond be interconnected with the overflow pond, that the water level in the perimeter ditches be maintained by use of a flashboard riser at 10.8 feet NGVD, that dewatering operations cease upon notification by District staff of any adjacent property owners experiencing water-related problems, and that a direct connection between holding pond and rock pit be established for emergency discharge of water from the holding pond back into the rock pit.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a certificate authorizing it to continue operating a water and sewer utility in Flagler County; and Whether Petitioner's application to increase its water and sewer rates to its customers should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Utility The Utility, a subsidiary of ITT Community Development Corporation, owns and operates a central water and sewer system serving Palm Coast Community--a planned development of approximately 40 square miles located in Flagler County. Although the development has less than 3,000 occupied homesites, more than 40,000 homesites are planned. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4.) The Water System The water system includes wells, a treatment plant, storage facilities, and distribution mains. There are 13 water supply wells with a flow capability of 3.40 MGD (million gallons per day); present peak flow is 2.00 MGD. The raw water is piped to a central water treatment plant which utilizes a lime- softening process. Present plant peak flows equal the maximum rated capacity: 2.00 MGD. There are two ground storage reservoirs (with a total capacity of 1,300,000 gallons) and two elevated storage tanks (with a total capacity of 850,000 gallons). The water distribution system consists of an extensive network of mains, valves, fire hydrants, and meters used to convey potable water from the treatment plant to customers throughout Palm Coast Community. Although during the test year ending June 28, 1980, the Utility supplied water to an average of 2,191 residential and 80 general service customers, water distribution mains have been constructed to 22,988 building sites. The total water system, as of June 28, 1980, has been constructed at a cost of $17,486,433. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4.) The Sewer System The sewer system includes a collection system, 57 lift stations, a wastewater treatment plant, and effluent disposal facilities. The wastewater plant utilizes an extended aeration process and has a rated hydraulic capacity of 600,000 gallons per day. Effluent is disposed of by spray irrigation on a 65-acre disposal field. Although during the test year, the Utility supplied sewer service to an average of 1,502 residential and 39 general service customers, sewage collection mains have been constructed to 22,988 building sites. As of June 28, 1980, the sewer system has been constructed at a cost of $24,850,962. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4). The Rate Increase Application By its application, the Utility seeks authorization to increase water operating revenues by $170,460 and sewer operating revenues by $106,924. If granted, annual gross water revenues would increase (by approximately 40 percent) to $422,211 and gross sewer revenues would increase (by approximately 40 percent) to $267,194. (Testimony of Deterding; 5-3 P-4, R-2.) As grounds, the Utility contends that during the test year ending June 28, 1980, it suffered an operating loss of $225,430 in its water operations, and a loss of $109,909 in its sewer operations; that it is entitled to a 13.08 percent rate of return on its rate base. (Application for Rate Increase, dated November 3, 1980). II. The Elements of Rate Making In issuing a certificate and setting rates, the Commission must determine: the rate base 2/ ; (2) the cost of providing the utility service, including debt interest, working capital, maintenance, depreciation, tax, and operating expenses; (3) a fair return on the rate base; and (4) the quality of service provided. At hearing, the Utility presented evidence on each of these rate-making elements. For the most part, the Commission did not oppose the Utility's evidence; those matters which were disputed are separately addressed below. Rate Base Rate base represents the Utility's property which provides the services for which rates are charged. There are three issues involving the establishment of rate base: (1) average or year-end rate base. (2) inclusion of cost of a 750,000 gallon water storage tank; and (3) deferral of depreciation on non-used- and-useful plant. Average or Year-End Rate Base At hearing, the Utility asserted that it had experienced extraordinary growth, justifying the utilization of year-end rate base. The Commission disputed this claim of extraordinary growth, and urged the use of a 13-month average. On June 22, 1981, the Utility filed a post-hearing "Notice of Change in the Position of the Applicant," by which it receded from its previous position and agreed that, for purposes of this proceeding, an average rate base should be used. The issue is, therefore, moot and utilization of a 13-month average rate base is accepted. However, the Utility continues to assert that a year-end rate base should be established for "purposes of certification." 3/ Such assertion is rejected as inconsistent with its June 22, 1981, acceptance of average rate base: the acceptance applied to this "proceeding," 4/ and was not limited to rate-making purposes. Moreover, the Utility has not shown why a second rate base, based on year-end figures, should be established. Year-end rate base constitutes a deviation from the standard and preferable method of using a 13-month average; it may only be used under circumstances of unusual or extraordinary growth-- circumstances which the Utility no longer claims exist. (Testimony of Deterding; R-2) Deferral of Depreciation and Amortization The Utility requests authority to defer depreciating non-used-and-useful plant and amortizing contributions-in-aid-of-construction ("CIAC") until such time as the plant or contributions become used and useful. The effect would be to preserve the original cost of the property so it may eventually be recovered from future customers benefitting from its use; because original cost would not have been reduced, rate base would be higher for those future customers. The Commission opposes the requested deferral. Both parties cite language in a previous Commission order (Order No. 7455, Docket No. 760034, In Re: Petition of North Orlando Water and Sewer Corporation) as evidence of existing Commission non-rule policy on deferral of depreciation expense on non-used-and-useful property. The Commission language in that order lends support to the opposing arguments of each party. Even if the policy was stated unequivocally it could not--without record support--establish Commission policy for purposes of this rate proceeding. The Utility's request is rejected because record evidence in this proceeding. The Utility executed a Revenue Agreement with ITT Community Development Corporation on June 27, 1980. Under that agreement, Community Development Corporation, the developer of Palm Coast Community, agreed to pay the Utility--through 1990--an amount sufficient to allow recovery of costs, including depreciation, attributable to utility property installed for unimproved lots. Such utility property is the same non-used-and-useful property for which the utility now seeks to defer depreciation and amortization. Since this revenue agreement allows the Utility to recover from the developer depreciation expenses attributable to non-used-and-useful property, deferral of depreciation--to allow recovery from future customers--is unnecessary. (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding; R2) 5/ Inclusion of Cost of Water Storage Tank The Utility proposes to include in rate base the use-and-useful portion of a 0.75 million gallon elevated storage tank. It was not completed and placed in service until after the test year. Neither was its construction explicitly ordered by government order. However, from an engineering standpoint, it was needed during this test period to maintain minimum water pressure during peak- flow periods and provide adequate flows for fire protection purposes. It now functions as an integral component of the Utility's water system. At hearing, the Commission's accountant testified that 100 percent of the cost of the water storage tank should be removed from the plant-in-service component of rate base because it was not in service during the test year. The parties agreed to his submittal of a post-hearing accounting exhibit showing adjustments resulting from his testimony. However, in his late-filed exhibit (R-2), the accountant took a position which contradicted his testimony at hearing: In this case we feel that consideration of this after test year plant must be given. The utility's used and useful portion of the other storage facilities will increase substantially. In addition this item appears to be an integral component of the plant which was operating during the test year and at present. (R-2.) (Emphasis supplied.) He included proposed schedules which: (1) include the tank as if placed in service during the last month of the test year; (2) include the total cost of the tank including interest capitalized net of the non-used-and-useful portion in calculating average rate base; and (3) show the effect of these adjustments in construction work in progress (CWIP) so that they can be easily identified and not confused with plant that was, in fact, in service by the end of the test year. Notwithstanding this significant change in its accountant's testimony, the Commission continues to advocate 6/ the accountant's earlier position at hearing--one which he has now abandoned. Thus, the Commission argues that: [T]he only correct position in calculating an average rate base is to exclude the after test year plant addition and adjust the used and useful percentage. . .as he [its accountant] originally proposed at the hearing. (Commission's Recommended Order, p. 5) This contention his rejected as inconsistent with the Commission's own accounting and engineering evidence. 7/ It also overlooks the undisputed fact that the storage tank is now operating as an essential component of the water system, and that it will continue to be used during the period in which the new rates will be in effect. The Commission's alternative treatment--as proposed by its accountant's post-hearing exhibit (R-2), is accepted as persuasive. The cost of the storage tank is thus included as CWIP, and is calculated as if placed in service during the last month of the test year; the total cost of the tank, including interest capitalized net of the non-used-and-useful portion, is utilized (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding, Chastain; R-1.) The sewer system rate base proposed by the Utility is not disputed by the Commission and is accepted. The resulting average rate bases for the water and sewer systems are $2,736,279 and $1,044,165, respectively. They are depicted below. WATER RATE BASE (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Utility Plant in Service $12,397,249 Plant Held for Future Use (8,848,497) Construction Work in Progress 39,097 Accumulated Depreciation (216,405) Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction (Net of Amortization) (687,787) Working Capital Allowance 35,837 Materials and Supplies 7,785 Income Tax Lag -0- RATE BASE $ 2,736,279 SEWER RATE BASE (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Utility Plant in Service $18,461,055 Plant Held for Future Use (15,787,481) Construction Work in Progress -0- Accumulated Depreciation (109,729) Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction (Net of Amortization) (1,551,865) Working Capital Allowance 27,186 Materials and Supplies 4,999 Income Tax tag -0- RATE BASE $ 1,044,145 (Late-filed Exhibit, R-2.) B. Operating Income The parties agree that, during the test year, the Utility had a $130,243 operating loss from its water operations, and a sewer operations. The operating statements are $95,281 operating loss from it depicted below: WATER OPERATING STATEMENT (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Operating Revenues (Present Rates) $251,751 Operating Revenue Deductions Operation 286,694 Depreciation 75,314 Amortization 954 Taxes Other Than Income 19,032 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $381,994 s Operating Income (Loss) $(130,243) SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Operating Revenues (Present Rates) $160,270 Operating Revenue Deductions Operation 217,487 Depreciation 21,872 Amortization 767 Taxes Other Than Income 15,425 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $255,551 Operating Income (Loss) $(95,281) Since during the test year, the Utility operated its water and sewer systems at a loss; it received a negative rate of return on its rate base. (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding; Late-Filed Exhibit R-2, P-3, P-4.) Cost of Capital and Fair Rate of Return The only issue between the parties concerning cost of capital to the Utility is whether deferred taxes should be included in its capital structure. At the end of the test year, the Utility's books showed no deferred taxes; however, during the later half of 1980, it changed its accounting treatment for deferred taxes. Applying its new method, deferred taxes at the end of the test year would be $3,137,000--assuming deferred depreciation on non-used-and-useful property is disallowed. The Utility failed to establish the impropriety of applying an accounting method which it will continue to follow in the foreseeable future; it is therefore concluded that the deferred taxes should be calculated as $3,137,000, at zero cost. 8/ The resulting overall cost of capital is 12.29 percent. A reasonable rate of return falls within a range of 11.87 percent to 12.72 percent. It is depicted below: COST OF CAPITAL Weighted Component Common Stock Equity Amount $22,224,497 Weight 42.23 Cost 15.0 percent Cost 6.33 Long Term Debt 27,163,003 51.62 11.5 5.94 Customer Deposits 99,653 .19 8.0 .02 Deferred Taxes 3,137,000 5.96 -0- -0- $52,624,153 100.00 12.29 (Testimony of Kelly, Potter; R-5.) proposed Revenue The Utility seeks increased water revenues of $170,460 and increased sewer revenues of $106,924. Although the parties agree on a base facility rate design, 9/ the Commission disputes proposed charges for fire hydrants and irrigation meters. 10/ Fire Hydrant Charges The Utility presently collects, under contract, a fire hydrant charge of $70 per year per hydrant from two fire districts which serve the area. This method is favored by customers and the fire districts; because the fire districts raise their funds through tax assessments, the customers payments are tax deductable. The Commission argues that the $70 charges do not cover all of the Utility's fire protection costs and that such costs should be recovered through regular service rates. While the $70 charge was shown to be insufficient to cover fire service costs, no reason was provided why the additional funds could not be recovered by increasing charges to the fire districts. This method of paying for fire protection costs is advantageous to the customers. It is likely that the fire service districts would cooperate with the Utility in negotiating fire service charges which are adequate to cover the costs of the service provided. Consequently, it is concluded that the present method of collecting fire service charges should be retained, although the charges should be increased sufficiently to cover the attendant costs to the Utility. (Testimony of Fabelo, Public Witnesses.) Irrigation Meter Charges The Utility proposes a $2.00 base facility charge for irrigation meters, with a $4.50 charge for regular service. The Commission prefers an irrigation meter base facility charge equal to one-half of the base charge of a corresponding regular service meter, assuming both meters are on the same tap to the water main. Since the demand for water that both meters can cumulatively place on the water system is 1.5 times that placed by a regular service meter, the Commission's position is persuasive. 11/ The parties also disputed the base facility customer accounting charges for irrigation meters--the Utility contending that the additional meters impose little additional costs and the Commission asserting that customer accounting charges should be given full weight. The Utility's position is accepted as persuasive. The two meters are usually close together and easily read. Both services are included on one account and one monthly bill covers both. Thus, while the irrigation meter imposes a slight additional accounting cost, it is minimal when compared to the cost imposed by a separate regular service meter. (Testimony of Gregg, Fabelo.) Rate of Return Allowed by Proposed Revenue Adding the requested water revenue increase of $165,633 to the adjusted test-year water operating revenues of $251,751 results in total recommended operating revenues of $417,384. Subtracting test-year operating expenses of $381,994 leaves a net operating income of $35,390--a 1.29 percent return on a water rate base of $2,736,279. Adding the requested sewer revenue increase of $111,751 to the adjusted test-year sewer operating revenues of $160,270 results in total recommended operating revenues of $272,021. Subtracting test-year operating expenses of $255,551 leaves a net operating income of $16,470--a 1.58 percent return on a sewer rate base of $1,044,165. (Testimony of Deterding; R-2) Quality of Service The quality of the water furnished the Utility's customers depends on their location. Customers residing in the area most heavily populated--north of Highway 100--receive satisfactory water service. Their water is treated by the Utility's central lime-softening plant. In contrast, the customers residing in the Seminole Woods area have not received water of comparable quality. Seminole Woods lies in the south extremity of the service area; it consists of approximately eight single-family residences and one duplex. Due to the remote location and slow rate of growth of Seminole Woods, the Utility has not found it practical to interconnect with the central lime-softening plant or build a separate lime-softening plant to serve the area. Instead, the Utility pumps raw water from a nearby well to a temporary facility where it is chlorinated and then conveyed to the residences where it is treated by separate zeolite or "Culligan" water-softening devices. These devices are furnished customers by the Utility without additional charge. The residents of Seminole Woods have frequently received water with excessive chlorine or hydrogen sulfide. The Utility's efforts to monitor the chlorine levels and regularly flush the system have not solved the problems. Seminole Woods customers have repeatedly complained about the quality of their water--its excessive chlorine taste, offensive odor (similar to the smell of rotten eggs), and high sodium content. The water quality is so poor that at least three of the residents have found it undrinkable; they buy bottled water at an additional cost of approximately $20 per month. The Utility's current solution to the problem is to extend mains from the northern area to Seminole Woods. The lines are now under construction and completion is expected "within a year or so." (Tr. 253.) With the exception of the Seminole Woods area, the quality of sewer and water service provided by the Utility is acceptable and has rarely been the subject of complaints. Occasional problems of power outages have been corrected. Neither the water nor the sewer system has been or is now under any governmental citation for non-sewage or water treatment standards. Upon completion of the connecting water mains, it is likely that the residents of Seminole Woods will receive water equal in quality to that enjoyed by other residents of Palm Coast Community. (Testimony of Thomas, Sannartano, Creolino, Potter, Likins.) III. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity The Utility has filed with the Commission a map of its existing utility systems, a description of the area served, and all information requested by the Commission concerning its rates and charges. Neither the Commission nor the public objected to the granting of a certificate authorizing it to continue providing water and sewer services in the affected area. (Testimony of Chastain, Members of the Public; Prehearing Statement.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Utility be granted a certificate to continue operating its water and sewer systems in the areas described, and That it be authorized to file tariffs, consistent with the provisions of this Recommended Order, designed to generate annual gross water revenues of $417,384 and annual gross sewer revenues of $272,021. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1981.
The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue Whether application 23181 for a consumptive use water permit should be granted, pursuant to Chapter 383, Florida Statutes. Prior to the hearing, 16 individuals in the Wabasso, Florida, community petitioned to intervene as parties in this proceeding. By Order, dated August 26, 1976, intervention was granted. Thereafter, counsel for the Wabasso Citizens Association, a private, unincorporated association that included the 16 prior intervenors, requested that intervention include all members of the association. There being no objection to the foregoing request, intervention was granted accordingly. The public hearing in this matter included 22 exhibits and the testimony of 21 witnesses, nine of whom were members of the public. Lists of the exhibits and public witnesses are attached hereto. On January 8, 1975, the Town of Indian River Shores, Florida (hereinafter "Town"), and Lost Tree Village Corporation, Indian Rivers Shores, Florida (hereinafter "Lost Tree"), filed application 23181 for a consumptive use water permit with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (hereinafter "District"). The application requested a permit for the withdrawal of 393 acre feet per year of groundwater from two wells located on a parcel of land owned by Lost Tree at Wabasso, Florida. The requested use was for irrigation of two golf courses located on land owned by Lost Tree known as John's Island, a residential community located within the Town, and as an emergency public water supply for the Town. It was proposed that the water be transported by pipeline owned by Lost Tree from Wabasso to John's Island, a distance of several miles. Although the matter was set for public hearing to be held on February 4, 1975, an unfavorable staff report of the District, dated January 30, 1975, resulted in an indefinite postponement of the hearing. A hydrogeological report was prepared for Lost Tree by a consulting firm on February 12, 1976, and submitted by the applicant to the District. A subsequent staff report of the District was prepared on July 28, 1976. Thereafter, the matter was noticed for hearing to be held August 31, 1976. Pursuant to the request of intervenors, a continuance was granted until September 29, 1976. (Exhibits 5,6,7,8,19)
Findings Of Fact The Town is a municipality that was incorporated in 1953. It is located east of the Indian River on an island and extends from the north boundary of Vero Beach for over 4 miles along the Atlantic ocean. In 1969, Lost Tree commenced developing a 3,000-acre tract of land located within the Town as a residential community. Prior to the initiation of this project, there had been very little development in the Town. In order to attract residents to John's Island, two 36-hole golf courses were constructed on the property, known as the North and South Courses, covering approximately 180 acres. At the present time, John's Island comprises over 600 residences, consisting of single and multiple family units, ranging in price from $65,000 to $500,000. The Town has a population of about 1,200, with 65 percent residing at John's Island. The present assessed value of property located in the Town is about $160,000,000 of which almost $66,000,000 is attributable to property in John's Island. The private golf club at John's Island has approximately 500 members, including about 150 from Vero Beach. The golf courses are considered to be the "heart" and "life-blood" of the community (Testimony of Ecclestone, Miller; Exhibits 5,11,12). The water supply of the Town comes from the water system of the City of Vero Beach, pursuant to contract, via a 16" water main which crosses the Indian River and ends at the northern boundary of Vero Beach. There, it is tied into a 12" water main of the Town. The Town has a one million gallon capacity underground storage tank and a 100,000 gallon overhead tank. The 16" main is the only waterline that crosses the Indian River and, in the event of a rupture, the Town would be limited to its stored supplies (Testimony of Miller, Little, Exhibits 5,17). The John's Island golf courses require irrigation of approximately 70 acres. In the past, irrigation water has been obtained from a system of shallow wells on the property, treated sewage effluent from the surrounding community, and stormwater, all of which is discharged into two ponds located on the courses. Additionally, treated potable water is obtained from the City of Vero Beach through two two-inch water meters that were installed in 1975. Prior to that time, an undisclosed amount of city water was obtained for irrigation and other purposes through city meters installed on fire hydrants in the area. The use of city water was required in order to supplement the resources available on the John's Island property. During the period May, 1975, through August, 1976, the amount of water obtained from the City of Vero Beach that was used for golf course irrigation totaled 54,057,000 gallons, an average of some 110,000 gallons per day. At the present time there is no water problem, insofar as irrigation is concerned, on the South Course which obtains irrigation water from sewage effluent and a number of shallow wells. However, test samplings over the years have shown a gradual increase in the amount of chlorides in the water and it is questionable whether such water will continue to be suitable for irrigation in the foreseeable future. Recent tests show the chloride content of the water at 450 ppm. The type of Bermuda grass on the golf courses can grow satisfactorily with water containing not more than 1,000 ppm. City water is used only on the North Course. The water obtained from the shallow wells in that area is highly saline in content. A recent water test showed a chloride content of 3,800 ppm. Additionally, immediately before an eight inch rainfall which lowered the chloride content to the foregoing figure, the greens on the North Course tested at 6,300 ppm in chloride content (Testimony of Luke, Little, Exhibits 6,7). During periods of drought, the City of Vero Beach has requested John's Island and other water users to either curtail or stop the use of city water for non-domestic purposes. Such requests have been received approximately six times during the past year. In April, 1976, the city water used for golf course irrigation at John's Island was shut off for a period of eight days as a result of a request from officials of Vero Beach. If insufficient irrigation water is not received for a period of 10 days to two weeks, it is extremely probable that a golf course would have to be replanted at an approximate cost of $60,000.00 to $80,000.00 and would require a period of six months for suitable growth. Both the Town and John's Island always cooperated fully with the requests of Vero Beach to curtail water use (Testimony of Luke, Miller, Little, Exhibit 17). At the time irrigation water sources were being explored at John's Island, a test well was drilled to a depth of 2020 feet into the Floridan aquifer underlying the property, but an inadequate quantity of water was developed. Lost Tree owns some 25 acres of land at Winter Beach, Florida, which is located west of John's Island across the Indian River. Although test wells there produced satisfactory water, it was not feasible to use this source due to prohibitions against excavation for such purposes in the Indian River. Due primarily to economic considerations of the high cost of using treated city water for golf course irrigation, and the inconvenience and possible hazards of water interruptions from that source, Lost Tree decided to supplement its resources from water withdrawn from wells to be located on a 4.869 acre tract of land it purchased in Wabasso. Although a deep well was considered at that site, state agencies advised that the Floridan aquifer was overloaded in that area to a degree of 200 percent. Accordingly, in 1973, two ninety-foot deep wells were constructed on the site approximately 500 feet apart into the underlying shallow aquifer. Pump tests showed that the chloride content was within satisfactory limits. Thereafter, Lost Tree in its own name and that of The Town, obtained necessary rights-of-way and permits for the placement of a system of pipes for transportation of water from the Wabasso wells to John's Island. These consisted of a 16" water line from the Wabasso site east over a newly constructed bridge and several existing bridges to Highway A1A where the size of the line south to John's Island was decreased to twelve inches. An agreement was entered into between Lost Tree and the Town on December 19, 1974 whereby the former agreed to supply emergency needs of the Town from water obtained from the Wabasso wells. About that same time, the pipe system was completed and the present application filed with the District (Testimony of Lloyd, Ecclestone, Exhibits 2,6,9). The area immediately surrounding Lost Tree's land in Wabasso consists primarily of residences, groves, and trailer parks. The residents of the unincorporated Wabasso area depend solely upon the shallow aquifer for their domestic water needs since there are no utility services in the area. Grove irrigation normally is accomplished by deep wells to the Floridan aquifer. After the application herein was filed in January, 1975, numerous letters of objection to the proposed withdrawal were filed with the District by residents of the Wabasso community and from local organizations. These objections, for the most part, expressed apprehension that the applicants would be withdrawing far more water from the well field than their fair share based on the size of Lost Tree's land in Wabasso. The objectors also claimed that the requested withdrawal would have a serious detrimental effect on existing users. They further protested the concept of extracting potable water from one area and transporting it to another area for irrigation use on recreational facilities. The initial Staff Report of the District on January 30, 1975, took such objections into consideration and recommended denial of the application based on the unsuitability of the well field site. It found that withdrawal of the requested water for golf course irrigation was not a reasonable and beneficial use because it greatly exceeded the water budget for the site, harmed existing legitimate users in the area by creating drawdowns of several feet which would increase the possibility of potable water supply wells running dry, harming potential future legitimate users by lowering the water table and exporting the water that they might have utilized, and because it threatened to harm such users and the resource itself by "upconing" saline water from the bottom of the aquifer into the fresh water producing zone of the aquifer. Although the report stated that there would be no objection to permitting an allocation on the order of 7.5 acre feet per year, which was the equivalent to the water crop, it was not recommended because such an allocation would do little to meet the applicant's needs for irrigation water (Exhibit 6, Composite Exhibit 20). Recognizing the need for further studies to support its application, Lost Tree hired a firm of consulting groundwater geologists and hydrologists to conduct an investigation of potential sources of irrigation water for both the John's Island and the Wabasso sites. The study confirmed prior conclusions that it was not practicable or feasible to develop the necessary irrigation water from sources available at John's Island. As to the Wabasso area, the report found that the shallow aquifer was not being fully utilized and that extraction of the proposed quantity of water would not exceed the capacity of the aquifer to provide it. It also determined that the presence of a continuous layer of impermeable clay within the Hawthorn formation effectively separates the Floridan from the shallow aquifer. No interference in the water levels of the Floridan aquifer should occur nor is it likely there would be salt water intrusion into the shallow aquifer. However, based on the formulation of a "mathematical model," it was predicted that the proposed withdrawal could adversely affect existing shallow wells within a few hundred feet of the applicant's well field by "drawdown" which could lessen the pumping ability of centrifugal pumps. Nearby existing wells, such as those located in a trailer park immediately west of Lost Tree's well field, could lose suction in pumping and thereby owners might experience delay in extracting water from the wells (Testimony of Amy, Exhibits 4, 8). Although one Wabasso resident who owns property near Lost Tree's wells has experienced a decrease in pressure in her well and poor quality water, and another nearby resident's well went dry, there is no clear evidence that Lost Tree's drilling of its two wells and consequent testing thereof caused these problems. Testimony of other Wabasso residents expressed their apprehension as to possible salt water intrusion and unavailability of water in the shallow aquifer if the requested withdrawal is approved. Other residents and public witnesses challenged the fairness of permitting one land owner to deplete local water supplies by withdrawals for transport to another area for recreational purposes (Testimony of Chesser, McPherson R., Pangburn R., Jackson, Mrs. S.B., Kale, Stout, Wintermute, Pangburn, K., Bidlingmayer, Willey, Gertzen). The District Staff Report, dated July 28, 1976, as supplemented by an addendum, dated August 30, 1976, reviewed the hydrogeological study submitted by the applicants and concluded that withdrawal of a specified amount of water from Lost Tree's Wabasso wells would represent a reasonable and beneficial use of the resource that did not appear to harm either the resource or existing users. It calculated the "crop requirement" for the golf courses on the basis of 135 acres. Testimony at the hearing established that the area required to be irrigated was only 70 acres. Consequently, the report's recommendation as to the annual water allocation for golf course irrigation was scaled down accordingly. Recommendations as to daily withdrawals were based upon the maximum billing by the City of Vero Beach for a 22-day period in January and February, 1975, plus a 20 percent allowance to provide a reasonable degree of operational flexibility. The conclusion of the staff that the withdrawal would not harm existing users is questionable in the light of the applicant's own hydrogeological study and testimony of its experts (Testimony of Winter, Exhibits 6,7,22). The Staff Report recommended that certain conditions be imposed upon any issuance of the requested permit. The following findings are made as to the reasonableness of such proposed conditions: Annual allocation of no more than 51.044 million gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. This permit shall expire 5 years after permit issuance. FINDING: Reasonable. The use may require reevaluation based upon developing needs of the area of withdrawal for higher priority uses of the resource. The total maximum monthly withdrawal from the two wells in Wabasso shall not exceed 6.931 million gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. The total daily withdrawal from the two wells in Wabasso shall not exceed 378,000 gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. Daily pumpage on a monthly basis shall be reported to the District during the following month. This data must be obtained through the use of an in line totalizing meter or meters at the well field. FINDING: Reasonable. Prior to the initiation of any pumping from the wells in Wabasso the permittee must survey all existing wells (with the owners' permission) located within 800 feet of each of these wells. Should it be determined that the permittee's pumping as recommended may adversely affect an existing well the permittee is to be held responsible for making timely corrective measures as deemed necessary at no expense to the owner, in order to preserve the water supply capability of that facility. A complete and detailed report of the survey and corrective measures taken by the permittee shall be submitted to the District. The District will then issue a notice authorizing the permittee to begin pumping as required. FINDING: Unreasonable. Although it is conceded by the applicants that adverse effects upon nearby wells may well occur, attempts to make determinations as to actual effects prior to full operation of Lost Tree's wells would only be speculative in nature. It is noteworthy in this regard that upon issuance of a temporary authorization to Lost Tree to withdraw water commencing in August, 1976, a similar precondition was imposed with a report of a survey and corrective measures taken to be submitted to the District prior to authorization to begin pumping. A cursory survey was performed by a representative of Lost Tree that consisted merely of attempting to locate surrounding wells by off-premises observation. No attempt was made to contact well owners or to obtain information as to the types of pumps on the wells. Such a survey is patently inadequate for the purposes desired by the District and it is considered impracticable and onerous to saddle the applicant with the burden of such a condition. Although withdrawals of water under the temporary permit commenced on September 18, 1976, and continued thereafter, there is no evidence that any complaints were registered by adjacent well owners as a result of the withdrawals (Testimony of Pearson, Exhibits 13, 14). For a period of 18 months after the first full week of operation in which no substantive complaints of adverse impact are received by the District, the permittee must assume full responsibility for taking the appropriate corrective to rectify any adverse impact their withdrawals create on any existing users within the area influenced by their withdrawal. Upon receiving a substantive complaint of adverse impact upon an existing user, the Executive Director of the District will issue a notice prohibiting any further withdrawals from the wells in Wabasso until corrective measures are taken by the permittee at no expense to the existing user, or until the permittee proves that their withdrawal is not the cause of the problem. The Executive Director of the District will issue a notice to resume withdrawals when the District has been satisfied that the situation is remedied. FINDING: Reasonable in part. The condition should be modified to extend the period of the permittee's responsibility for corrective action as to adverse impact on existing users to the entire life of the permit rather than for a period of only 18 months. Further, the District's prohibition of withdrawals after the receipt of a complaint is arbitrary and inconsistent with the method of administrative enforcement procedures as specified in Section 373.119(1), Florida Statutes. To help define the actual impact of the permittee's withdrawal a total of at least seven observation wells shall be installed. The observation wells shall be located between the permittee's wells and Indian River, two shall be located to the west and the remaining two shall be located either to the north or south of the permittee's wells. The locations and depths of these wells shall halve District concurrence. A continuous water level recording device shall be installed on one off these wells. FINDING: Reasonable. Although the installation and monitoring of a number of observation wells imposes a financial burden on the applicants, it is considered a proper requirement to assist in determining the impact of any withdrawal. The time for installation and specifications thereof should be set forth in any permit issued. Hydrographs from the recording device on one of the observation wells and from weekly hand measured water levels on the remaining observation wells shall be submitted to the District on a monthly basis. This data shall be submitted in the month following the period of record. All water level data shall be measured and recorded to the nearest hundredth of a foot and referenced to mean sea level. FINDING: Reasonable. By acceptance of this permit the permittee acknowledges that this permit confers no prior right to the permittee for the use of water in the amount allocated and for the purpose stated. FINDING: Unreasonable. The condition is ambiguous and involves legal aspects that are not proper for determination at this time. Any future application involving the use of the withdrawal facilities permitted herein, shall be considered as an application for a new use and it shall be reviewed accordingly. FINDING: Unreasonable. See comment in I above. All existing Floridan wells located on the applicant's properties must be abandoned in accordance with the current applicable standards of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Abandonment procedures must be carried out within 6 months of the date of issuance of this permit. FINDING: Unreasonable. The abandonment of existing Floridan wells involves subject matter not embraced within the application. An officer of the Lost Tree Village Corporation shall submit with each report required by the District a sworn and acknowledged affidavit that the report reflects the actual measurements or readings taken. FINDING: Reasonable. The Permittee shall obtain a water sample from a pumping well at the Wabasso well field site once a month, within five days of the end of the month. This sample shall be analyzed for chloride content, and the results reported to the District within 14 calendar days after collection. Should the District determine that a significant change has occurred in the chloride content of the water being withdrawn from the Wabasso well field, the District shall initiate a new review of the application. FINDING: Reasonable. Upon installation of the observation wells, a water sample shall be obtained from these wells and analyzed for the following parameters: Chloride Total Dissolved Solids Conductivity Sulfate Calcium Magnesium Sodium Bicarbonate This analysis shall be submitted to the District within 14 days after collection. During the last five days of the months of May and November of each year, during the duration of this permit, the permittee shall obtain one water sample from each of the installed observation wells. These samples shall be analyzed for Chloride content, and the results reported to the District within 14 days after collection. FINDING: Reasonable. If the permittee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the District that the groundwater withdrawn by the south golf course well point system is no longer suitable for the irrigation of the golf course, the annual allocation shall be increased to 82.942 million gallons. FINDING: Unreasonable. Future needs should be the subject of modification of permit terms at an appropriate time, pursuant to section 373.239, F.S. An emergency authorization was issued to the applicants by the governing board of the District on August 30, 1976. This authorization contains certain special conditions including a requirement to conduct and submit a preauthorization survey and report concerning existing wells located within 800 feet of the applicant's wells. In addition, a condition of the authorization was that no withdrawals shall be made unless the City of Vero Beach had ordered the applicant to stop the use of water from its system for golf course irrigation. The evidence shows that neither of these conditions was met by the applicant, but yet withdrawals were made during the month of September, 1976 without District authorization (Testimony of Winter, Rearson, Exhibit 13). The applicant's disregard of these requirements indicates the need for a further special condition if a permit is granted, to ensure that adjacent land owners are protected in the event of adverse effects upon their water supply. To accomplish that, it is found that the following additional condition is reasonable and necessary: P. The Board shall require the applicant to furnish a bond in an appropriate amount, as authorized by Rule 16K-1.061, F.A.C. It is found that insufficient evidence has been presented to determine the merits of the request of the Town of Indian River Shores for an emergency water supply from the Wabasso wells.
Recommendation That a consumptive water use permit, with conditions as specified herein, be issued to applicant Lost Tree Village Corporation for the irrigation of its two golf courses at John's Island. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1030 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 William T. McCluan, Esquire 65 East Nasa Boulevard Post Office Box 459 Melbourne, Florida 32901 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Roger Harloff, should be issued a consumptive use permit to withdraw and use ground water from the wells on his property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roger Harloff, owns several farms in southeastern Manatee County, Florida which, taken together, make up an irregular 8,500 acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the City of Sarasota's Verna Wellfield. Mr. Harloff grows vegetables on much of this tract, of which approximately 1,500 acres is devoted to tomatoes. This tomato crop is the prime crop produced by Mr. Harloff, and provides the raw material for the Harloff packing plant which is dependent upon the tomato crop in order to stay in business. Mr. Harloff also operates a plant nursery at which he produces many if not most of the seedling plants utilized in his vegetable growing operations. In order to be economically feasible and remain operative, Mr. Harloff must farm approximately 3,800 acres during the Spring growing season and approximately 3,000 acres during the Fall. These acres are made up of tomatoes and other vegetables. The packing plant and the plant nursery are dependent upon the farm operation and without adequate water, the farm operation cannot be successfully carried on. In September 1988, Mr. Harloff applied to the District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from twelve wells located on his property, requesting an annual average rate of 12,995,606 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 47,520,000 gpd. The consumptive use permit application filed by Mr. Harloff was assigned District Number 204467.04. After evaluation of the application in conjunction with its needs and policies, the District issued a staff report and proposed agency action on the application which recommended issuance of the permit authorizing water to be drawn from the 12 wells at a rate approximating that requested in the application. Thereafter, the City of Sarasota, which operates the nearby Verna Wellfield, considering that the proposed withdrawal would have a substantial adverse impact on its wellfield operations, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing objecting to the issuance of the permit to Mr. Harloff. Though Mr. Harloff has owned much of the property which make up the 8,500 acre tract in question here, at the time of his application, he did not own, but had under contract, a substantial portion. He closed on the purchase of that remainder after he received notice of the District's intention to issue the permit in question but prior to the City's filing its Petition For Formal Hearing. The purchase price of the property in question was $9,000,000.00 which carries an interest payment on the financed portion of $52,000.00 per month. The wells pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are as follows: # Cons. Depth Cas. Lin. Diam. Cap. Loc. 1 1978 1185' 200' 220-490' 12" 2000 gpm SE 2. 1988 1320' 210' 210-480' 16" 3000 gpm SE 9. 1974 1130' 390' 16" 3000 gpm C 10. 1976 1232' 231' 283-400' 16" 3000 gpm NW 11. 1979 1120' 210' 260-480' 12" 2000 gpm NW 12. 1976 1180' 480' 12" 2000 gpm SW 3. 1989 1434' 460' 16" 3000 gpm SE 5. 1989 1374' 610' 16" 3000 gpm W 8. 1989 1292' 548' 16" 3000 gpm NW 13. 1989 1310' 635' 16" 2000 gpm NE Well No. 8 was used as the pump test well for the constant rate discharge test and Well No. 13 was the deep observation well for that test. Wells 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have all been previously permitted by the District and No's 1, 2, 9 and 10 are currently permitted under two other permits, while 11 and 12 were permitted under a different permit. Wells No. 3, 5, 8 and 13 have been authorized for construction but not, as yet, to produce water. Wells 4, 6 and 7 have not yet been constructed. The intention is to drill them to a depth of 1,300 feet and case them to 600 feet. Each will have a pump capacity of 3,000 gpm. Number 4 will be in the southeast portion of the tract, number 6 in the central portion, and number 7 will be located just north of number 6. Wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 currently have a combined permitted maximum daily rate of 13,680,000 gallons under permits number 204467.03 for 1 and 2, and 204630 for 9 and 10. The former was issued on December 29, 1987 and will expire on December 29, 1993, and the latter, issued on October 7, 1981, will expire on that same day in 1991. The permit previously issued for wells 11 and 12 authorized withdrawal at a maximum daily rate of 2,160,000 gallons. That permit, number 204374, expired on September 9, 1986 and was not renewed. After the City filed its Petition challenging Mr. Harloff's proposed permit, Mr. Harloff, on June 26, 1989, filed an amended application to withdraw water at an average annual rate of 10.99 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 48.96 million gallons. This amended application refers to an additional proposed well, Number 13. The District, however, had previously approved wells 3 - 8 and 13, and pursuant to this authorization, wells 3, 5, 8, and 13 were built. Mr. Harloff submitted additional amendments to his application on August 7 and 9, 1989. The former requests a seasonal average daily rate of 25.34 mgd and a seasonal maximum daily rate of 32.79 mgd. The latter requests a seasonal average rate of 26.18 mgd, an annual average rate of 15.18 mgd, and a seasonal maximum rate of 31.56 mgd. In that regard, a seasonal rate is the same as an annual rate, (average or maximum) when applied to a growing season as opposed to a year. The additional amendments to the application were evaluated by District staff who, on August 18, 1989, issued a revised staff report and a proposal to issue to Mr. Harloff a consumptive use permit authorizing an average annual withdrawal of 11.1. mgd, an average seasonal withdrawal of 15.6 mgd, and a seasonal maximum withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. The proposed permit also contains terms and conditions which, the District contends, will, inter alia, permit Mr. Harloff to withdraw more water than he is currently authorized without additional adverse impact on the City's Verna Wellfield. It is to some of these terms and conditions that Mr. Harloff objects. Since the issuance of the revised staff report and intent to issue, the parties have negotiated on the various terms and conditions in question and have agreed to some and the amendment of others. Mr. Harloff has no objection to conditions number 1, 2, 3, 7 - 14, 23, 24, 26, 28 - 30, 32, and 34 & 35. The parties agree that other conditions, as indicated herein, should be amended as follows: Condition 19, on the third line, should be changed to read, " up to 20 inches tapering to 12 inches." Condition 22, on the second line, should be changed from "30 days" to "10 days". Condition 25, on the first line, should be changed from "within 60 days" to within 120 days". Condition 31, on the third line, starting with "following month" should be changed to "following months: January, April, July and October". Also, under Sampling Frequency, "Monthly" should be changed to "Quarterly". Condition 33, on the ninth line, insert the work "economically" before the word "feasible" in the phrase "specific operation and irrigation improvements are feasible". Mr. Harloff objects to conditions 4, 5, 15 - 17, 20 & 27. He does not object to the proposed new standards for new wells. Taken together, the parties then disagree only on the requirement for abandonment or refurbishment of existing wells and the quantities of water Mr. Harloff will be allowed to draw. The City supports the District's position on both issues. The City of Sarasota owns and operates a public water system to serve between 50 to 75 thousand people located in Sarasota County. The primary source of water for this system is the Verna Well field which is also owned by the City and which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the City's water needs. The City also operates a reverse osmosis, (R.O.) water desalinization facility, and has back-up wells at St. Armond Key and at the Bobby Jones Wellfield. The Verna Wellfield is located about 17 miles east of the Sarasota city limits on approximately 2,000 acres of land in northeastern Sarasota County. It consists of two tracts of land: Part "A", which is approximately 1/2 mile wide by 4 miles long; and Part "B", which is approximately 1 mile square located about 500 feet southeast of Part "A". The Verna Wellfield's permitted allocation is based on whether the R.O. facility is producing at capacity. If it is, the Verna daily allocation is 7 mgd, and if not, 9.5 mgd. The R.O. facility's capacity is 4.5 mgd and the backup wells have a capacity of 1.7 mgd. The wellfield contains 39 permitted production wells, 30 of which are in Part "A" and 9 of which are in Part "B." One of them, well 30, is currently inactive. The wellfield has been in operation as a part of the City's public water system since September 1966. When the Verna Wellfield was constructed in 1965-1966, its original design specified casing on most wells down to 140 feet with pump bowl settings at 125 feet. Each pump was to have a total dynamic head, (TDH) of 200 feet. Over the years, the City has decreased the TDH of the pumps at Verna from 200 feet to 175 feet. This has resulted in a reduction of the pumps' ability to produce water with sufficient pressure to carry it to the discharge point. This decline has been caused by an increase in withdrawal of water regionally, and not solely because of withdrawals from the Verna Well field. Verna is impacted by the use of water outside the boundaries of the wellfield. The City has an ongoing program calling for the refurbishment of 2 to 3 wells per year at the Verna Wellfield. It is the City's intent to convert the pumps to 200 feet TDH on all well refurbishments in the future. In August 1977, a program requiring permits for the consumptive use of water was implemented in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties. At that time, the Verna Wellfield had a production rate of 6.9 mgd annual average daily rate. On January 6, 1978, the City applied for a permit for Verna and on April 3, 1979, the District issued permit number 27804318 to allow the City to draw water from the Verna Wellfield. The City applied for a renewal of that permit in October 1983 and thereafter, in January 1985, the District authorized the continued withdrawal of water from Verna by the issuance of permit 204318 which, at Condition 18, placed limitations on the City's use of water from the wellfield. Specifically, the permit limited withdrawals from Verna to: ...6,000,000 gallons per day average and 7,000,000 gallons per day maximum, except during those times when ... [the R.O. process is reduced or to facilitate maintenance or repairs]. At such times, ... [withdrawals) may be increased to provide additional supplies not to exceed 8,000,000 gallons per day average annual and 9,500,000 gallons per day maximum. This condition clearly provides for additional supplies to be drawn to increase the Verna Well field production to a total of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 mgd, respectively, not in addition to the regular permitted amount, by those quantities. The City's permit has been neither suspended nor revoked nor is any violation enforcement action currently under way. The current permit expires January 9, 1991. The water pumped from the Verna wells is held in a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at the wellfield. This reservoir, which is topped at approximately 22 to 23 feet, electronically controls the pumping activity at the well field by turning on and shutting off pumps, in series, as the water level in the reservoir rises and falls. The water, when needed, is transmitted to another reservoir near the City's treatment plant in downtown Sarasota by gravity flow through a 30" diameter, 92,000 foot long pipe. The flow rate is approximately 5,000 gpm normally. When the treatment plant needs more water, a pump at the well field forces the flow at a rate of between 7,200 to 8,200 gpm, depending upon the level of water in the receiving reservoir. A flow of 8,200 gpm would draw 11.8 mgd from the wellfield. The operating capacity of the Verna Wellfield, in August 1988, was 17.9 mgd. Harloff's experts assert, and there is no concrete evidence to rebut it, that if all wells at Verna were pumping during a 24 hour period in May 1989, the reservoir could have been maintained at full level. However, though there is a manual override of the automatic reservoir/pump control system, it is unrealistic and unwise to expect full production on a 24 hour basis for any lengthy time period. Water under both Mr. Harloff's property and the Verna Well field is found at various levels known by different names. These include, in order of descent, the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer extends from the surface down to between 20 and 60 feet below the surface. A 20 foot thick bed of clay separates the water in this aquifer from that in the aquifer immediately below it, the Intermediate Aquifer, which extends from approximately 80 feet down to approximately 420 feet below the surface. In the lower part of the Intermediate Aquifer, permeability decreases until a confining unit separating the bottom of the Intermediate Aquifer from the top of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is formed. There is such a confining unit between 420 and 500 feet. There is no well-defined confining unit between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. There is, however, a substantial difference in the transmissivity in each zone. "Transmissivity" is defined as the amount of water that will exist through a section of the aquifer that is the same width from the top to the bottom. The lower the transmissivity rate, the deeper the cone and the narrower the radius of effect. The higher the rate, the shallower the cone and the broader the radius. The Lower Floridan Aquifer has an extremely high transmissivity. Its top is found at a range of from 1,050 to 1,200 feet below the surface on Mr. Harloff's property. The water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is of higher quality than that in the Lower. It is more readily usable for drinking than that in the Lower, but the Lower water is quite acceptable for agricultural purposes. What confining layer exists between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers is made up of relatively impermeable anhydrides and gypsum. Because of this, there is little likelihood of the highly mineralized water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer rising into the better quality water in the Upper. If, therefore, water for agricultural purposes is drawn from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, with its high transmissivity and narrower cone radius, and if the wells utilized to procure this water are cased down to within the Lower aquifer, there is little chance of a negative impact on the better quality water, used for drinking by the City, within the Upper Floridan and Intermediate Aquifers. Mr. Hardin, an expert geologist and hydrogeologist testifying for Mr. Harloff, concluded, utilizing certain commonly accepted computer models, that Mr. Harloff's requested additional withdrawals would not have a significant effect on the Verna Wellfield's ability to produce water sufficient for the City's needs. This conclusion was based on 1989 seasonal use figures including an average rate of 21.95 mgd, a maximum rate of 27.04 mgd, and a maximum rate of 29 mgd under a "run time" calculation and the fact that during that period, the City was able to pump at least its permitted quantity from its wells at Verna. The City and the District do not accept this conclusion as reasonable, however, because, they claim, the withdrawal figures cited are not meter readouts but estimates based on the number of acres farmed and the number of pump operating hours during the period in question. The City's experts contend the data used by Hardin and Prochaska in their opinions is not that which other experts in the field would reasonably rely upon. They do not appear to be unrealistic, however, and, therefore, Mr. Hardin's opinion is accepted as but one factor to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson, also a Harloff expert hydrogeologist, claims the requested withdrawals would result in only an additional 1.7 foot drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying the Northeast corner of the Verna Well field. To be sure, this is only one small portion of the wellfield in issue. There has, however, been a continuing history of declining groundwater levels in this area over the past several years. After the 1975 drought, the City started to experience declining water levels at Verna which, because of the reduction in ability to produce water, required a lowering of the pump elements in some wells, and also caused the City to develop an R.O. facility in an effort to reduce dependence on well water. This drop in capability occurred again during the 1985 drought and this time the City modified the pump motors to shut off prior to cavitation and initiated a schedule of operating times for wells, so that water is drawn from different and geographically separated areas in a sequence designed to allow periodic regeneration of an area's supply. Nevertheless, water supply remains a concern at Verna, and the problems previously experienced continue to occur during periods of drought. In May 1989, the Verna Wellfield was periodically "unable" to meet it's short term peak demands at times even though all operating wells were pumping. This means that at the times in question, more water was being drawn from the Verna reservoir than could be replaced by pumping activities. It does not mean that the reservoir ran dry and water could not be furnished to the treatment plant. However, this condition is serious and indicative of a more serious shortage in the future unless appropriate safeguards are instituted. Mr. Balleau, the City's expert in hydrology and hydrogeology, and the District's experts all believe the Verna Wellfield is in trouble. It is operating well beyond its design range and the imposition of additional demands on it would seriously and adversely affect its ability to produce water. This position is supported by the facts and found to be accurate. There appear to be several options open to the City to contend with the Verna problem potential. These include: drill deeper wells at Verna to tap the Lower Floridan Aquifer. (This will produce the lower quality water found there and require additional treatment facilities. construct a linear wellfield along the pipeline from Verna to the treatment facility. (This will require additional permitting to draw the water, high construction and operating costs, and still result in low quality water requiring treatment. redevelop the downtown wells currently supplying the R.O. facility. (This will require satisfaction of regulatory issues, adversely impact on the users of the upper aquifers, possibly result in poor water quality and in contamination from nearby landfills.) develop a new well field southeast of Verna. (This will experience regulatory issues and high construction costs, with an unknown water quality result.) buy water from Manatee County. (This is expensive, may result in transmission and compatibility problems, and would be only a short term solution. lower pump assemblies; replace existing pumps and modify the pump circuits. (These are all unreliable, short term solutions of minimal benefit.) Mr. Harloff and the City/District disagree on the appropriate amount of water needed for the successful growing of the crops produced by his operations. Both agree, however, that the heaviest demands for water come in the spring growing season including April and May. Tomatoes require the most water. Peppers require nearly as much. This is because the short root systems require a higher water table in the soil to supply needed moisture. In its analysis of Mr. Harloff's application, the District, referring to tables developed for the purpose of allocation and relating to Harloff's watering history during the period from August 15, 1988 to June 7, 1989, subtracted the fall season recorded application of 20.7 acre-inches from the total 10 month figure of 50.92 acre-inches and concluded he would need 30.22 acre-inches for peppers during the spring, 1989 season. Unless shown to be totally unreasonable, however, (not the case here), the applicant's water need figures should be accepted. Mr. Harloff's operation constitutes an important part of Manatee County's agricultural economy, and agriculture utilizes 68.9 percent of the land in the county. Agricultural products sold in Manatee County in 1987 were valued at $145,655,000.00, which ranked Manatee County third among all Florida counties in vegetable production. Agriculture is the fourth largest employer in Manatee County, employing an average of 4,692 people per month. Through his farm operation alone, Harloff employes as many as 1,050 people, with 200 employed on a full-time basis. Experts estimate that the loss of the Harloff operation would cause a reduction of between 16 and 18 million dollars in agricultural sales in the county with an additional loss in jobs and income to his suppliers. This estimate is not at all unreasonable. Florida produces approximately 95 percent of all tomatoes grown in this country for the fresh tomato market during the winter growing season. Tomatoes are the single largest vegetable crop grown in the state and accounted for 39.7 percent of the total value of vegetables produced in Florida during the 1987-1988 growing season. Mr. Harloff produced 4.8 percent of the total shipment of tomatoes from this state during that period. Water, primarily through irrigation, is an indispensable portion of the farming operation for this crop. Mr. Harloff currently irrigates the majority of his non-citrus crops by use of a "semi-closed ditch irrigation system", as opposed to a "drip system." The drip system is considerably more efficient than the semi-closed system having an efficiency rating, (amount of water actually used by the plants) of between 80 to 90 percent, as opposed to 40 to 60 percent for the other. While Mr. Harloff could reduce his water needs considerably and achieve substantial savings on pump fuel by conversion to a drip system for all or a part of his crops, such an undertaking would be quite costly. One of the conditions proposed by the District for the approval of Harloff's permit, as amended, is the refurbishment of several of the existing wells utilized by Mr. Harloff to make them more efficient and to promote the withdrawal of water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, in which there appears to be adequate water and from which the Verna Well field does not draw. Currently, Mr. Harloff has seven wells which do not meet the standards of this proposed condition. They are not drilled to 1,300 feet below mean sea level and are not cased to 600 feet. To bring these wells into compliance, they would have to be drilled to the 1,300 foot level, or to a level which has a specific capacity of 400 gpm, and the casings in each would have to be extended to 600 feet. Extending the casings would be a complicated procedure and Harloff's experts in the area cannot guarantee the procedure would successfully achieve the desired end. Assuming the retrofit was successful, the cost of the entire process would be approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 per well. In addition, the process would, perforce, require reducing the diameter of the well from 10 to 8 inches, thereby necessitating increasing the pump capacity to produce sufficient water. The cost of this is substantial with an appropriate new pump costing somewhere between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each. Consequently, the anticipated cost of bringing the existing wells up to condition standards would be between $25,000.00 to $31,000.00 per well, while the cost of constructing a new well is between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 per well. Mr. Harloff feels it would be more prudent for him to replace the existing wells rather than to retrofit them. This may be correct. Harloff experts also claim that extending the casings on the existing wells down to 600 feet would not provide a significant benefit to the aquifer nor cause any significant reduction in drawdown impact at Verna. The District and City experts disagree and, taken on balance, caution and the interests of the public indicate that a conservative approach is more appropriate. While Mr. Harloff proposes to convert the areas served by wells 1, 9, 11, and 12 to the growing of citrus which requires much less water than tomatoes, this would not be sufficient mitigation to offset the need for some modification if large amounts of water will still be drawn. The entire area under the District's jurisdiction has been experiencing a water shortage due to a lack of rainfall. As a result, in June 1989, the District adopted a resolution identifying an area, including the area in question here, as a "water use caution area." This was done because the Floridan Aquifer has been subjected to large seasonable drawdowns of the potientiometric surface, the level to which water in a confined aquifer can rise in a well which penetrates that acquifer. This drawdown is directly related to increased water use in the area, much of which is for agricultural purposes. As a result of the District's action, special conditions on well construction for consumptive use applicants have been imposed on a permit by permit basis to insure, as much as possible, that the applicant uses the lowest quality water appropriate for his intended purpose. These conditions are not unreasonable. While accepting the District's and City's conclusion that his wells, if permitted, would have some impact on the Verna Wellfield, Mr. Harloff does not concede that the impact is significant. Specifically, the difference in impact resulting from an increase from his currently permitted use of 13.68 mgd seasonal maximum and his requested use of 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum for wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 would be a maximum increased drawdown of 1.1 feet at the Intermediate aquifer and 1.8 feet at the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Both figures relate to that portion of the wellfield found in the northeast corner of Part A. If the anticipated usage for crops predicted by Mr. Harloff's experts for the spring of 1989 is accurate, the drawdown would be 0.2 feet for the intermediate aquifer and 0.4 feet for the Upper Floridan Aquifer measured at the northeast corner of Part B of the Verna We1lfield. Harloff's experts contend that additional impacts for the spring of 1989 included, the increased usage will not have a significant effect on Verna's ability to produce its permitted daily maximum withdrawal of 9.5 mgd. While this is an educated speculation, it should be noted that during May 1989, the Verna field was able to produce up to 8.3 mgd without using all wells during any 24 hour period. This does not consider, however, the problems encountered by the City as indicated by the wellfield personnel, and the fact that some of the City wells are not pumping water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Roger Harloff be issued a consumptive use permit, No. 204467.04, as modified, to reflect authorization to draw 15.18 mgd annual average, not to exceed 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum, conditioned upon compliance with the conditions found in the conditions portion of the permit, as modified to conform to the quantities as stated herein, and to include those requirements as to acre-inch and crop-acre limitations, well usage and abandonment schedules, well modification standards, and record keeping, as are contained therein. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-0574 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: City of Sarasota, joined by the District 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29-33. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. & 36. Accepted. 37. & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on opponent's satisfaction of its burden of proof. 42-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misstatement of fact. Water service was never interrupted. The deficiency was in the City's inability to keep its wellfield reservoir filled. 47-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 57-62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 64-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. Rejected. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Rejected. Accepted. Irrelevant. 81-84. Rejected. 85. & 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87 & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90 & 91. Accepted and incorporated herein. 92. & 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Roger Harloff 1-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14 & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 & 30. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not proven. 35 & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39-41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 & 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted. 45 & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Accepted. 50 & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. & 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58-60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61 & 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 67-68. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but an interpretation of party po Accepted. Rejected. 72 & 73. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert and Gramovot, P.A. 705 East Kennedy- Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Background In 1983, Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. (Concerned Citizens), an intervenor in this case, filed a petition toe initiate rulemaking for single source reclassification of groundwater under the existing provisions of Rule 17-3.403, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In this manner, Concerned Citizens sought to have existent potable waters in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties classified Class G-I groundwater, and to thereby provide them the most stringent water quality protection accorded groundwaters of the state. At a public meeting in February 1985, the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) deferred action on the petition of Concerned Citizens, and directed the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) to review the existing G-I rule, prepare proposed revisions, and present its recommendations to the ERC. Following the ERC directive, the Department held numerous public meetings and workshops to explore different approaches to groundwater protection. As a consequence, it prepared the proposed revisions to Rules 17-3.021, 17-3.403, 17-3.404, and 17- 4.245, F.A.C., at issue in these proceedings. On October 31, 1986, the Department duly noticed the proposed rules in volume 12, number 44, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice interested parties that a public hearing would be held on December 16, 1986, before the ERC. 1/ On December 16-17, 1986, the ERC held a public hearing at which time it considered the rules recommended by the Department. During the course of this meeting, the ERC approved and adopted the rules with certain changes. These changes were duly noticed in volume 13, number 3, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 16, 1987. Petitioners and Intervenors Petitioners, Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc., and Alliance for Rational Groundwater Rules (Case No. 86-4492RP), and Petitioners Aloha Utilities, Inc.; Interphase, Inc.; Phase 1 Homes, Inc.; A.C. & R., Inc.; Tahitian Development, Inc.; Great Cypress Mobile Village, Inc.; and Barrington, Ltd. (Case No. 86- 4705R), filed timely petitions to challenge the validity of the proposed rules, which petitions were consolidated for hearing. Petitions for leave to intervene were granted on behalf of Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.; Florida Land Council, Inc.; and Pasco County. These Intervenors' interests were aligned with those of petitioners. Petitions for leave to intervene were a1so granted on behalf of West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority and Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. These Intervenors' interests were aligned with those of the Department and the ERC. Petitioner, Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc. (Adam Smith), is the owner/developer of a 3,800-acre development of regional impact (DRI) to be known as Trinity Communities. This development, which has been in the acquisition and planning stages for almost 5 years, is currently undergoing DRI review and Adam Smith anticipates that it will receive its development order by September 1987. The Trinity Communities development is located predominately in Pasco County, with just over 250 acres of its lands located in Pinellas County. These properties are predominately open pasture land, and are bordered on the north, east and west by roads and on the south by Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. As proposed, the Trinity Communities development will include 1100 acres of parks, golf courses, and other open areas. The remaining lands will be developed to accommodate 9500 dwelling units, as well as industrial and commercial uses to service the community, over a 20-year period. At today's market value, the property represents an investment of approximately 28 million dollars. Abutting the Trinity Communities development is the Eldridge-Wilde Well Field. This well field is covered by consumptive use permits issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and contains major public community drinking water supply wells as defined by the rules at issue in this proceeding. Of these wells, 5 are located within 9.63 feet and 181.5 feet of the proposed development's property line, and 5 are located with 204.72 fee and 297.5 feet of its property line. Petitioner, Alliance for Rational Groundwater Rules (Alliance), is an association of landowners who united to educate themselves about the proposed rules. The proof failed, however, to establish whether Alliance had ever elected any officers or directors, or the magnitude of its membership. Consequently, the proof failed to establish that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, were substantially affected by the proposed rules, and that the relief requested by it was of a type appropriate for it to receive on behalf of its members. Petitioner, Aloha Utilities, Inc. (Aloha Utilities), is a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide water and sewer service to two separate service areas in southern Pasco County. Currently, Aloha Utilities operates an 850,000 gallon per day (gpd) sewage treatment facility (Aloha Gardens) and a 1.2 million gpd sewage treatment plant (Seven Springs). It also operates 10-11 producing wells, at least 7 of which are permitted by SWFWMD to withdraw at least 100,000 gpd. One of these wells is located approximately 1/4-1/2 mile from an Aloha Utility sewage treatment plant. At least 3 of Aloha Utilities' wells which are permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd or more, will service or are servicing the Riverside projects and Aloha Gardens Unit Number 12 project discussed infra. Consequently, the proof establishes that Aloha Utilities operates a major public community drinking water supply system as defined by the subject rules. The Aloha Gardens facility is under a Department order to expand its effluent disposal capacity. To satisfy the Department's order and the need for increased disposal capacity, Aloha Utilities commenced condemnation proceedings 8-12 months ago to secure the needed property. While the condemnation proceeding is not yet completed, Aloha Utilities has already expended considerable sums for engineering studies and attorney's fees in its efforts to acquire the property. That property is located approximately 1/2 mile from an existing well that is permitted for an average daily flow of at least 100,000 gpd. The effluent disposal capacity of the Seven Springs facility is also being expanded to meet existing and future demand. In April 1987, Aloha Utilities acquired a 27-28 acre parcel of land immediately adjacent to its existing facility. Upon these lands, Aloha Utilities proposes to construct percolation ponds, a rapid rate land application effluent disposal process. As sited, these ponds would be located 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from a well permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. 2/ Petitioners, Interphase, Inc., Phase 1 Homes, Inc., and Tahitian Development, Inc., are corporations with common management which are developing three separate but geographically proximate projects in Pasco County. These projects will be, or are, serviced by Aloha Utilities. Interphase, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 100- acre tract known as Riverside Village Unit Number Four. This property is currently being developed to include 57 acres dedicated to single family use and 43 acres dedicated to multifamily use, and will require the installation of stormwater facilities and underground sewage transportation facilities. Two wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more are located 1/2 mile and 1/3 mile, respectively, from this development. Interphase, Inc., is also the owner of a 17-acre parcel of vacant land in Pasco County that is zoned commercial. This property is located within 400 feet of Aloha Utilities' Seven Springs sewer treatment plant, and its development will require the installation of underground sewage transportation facilities. Phase 1 Homes, Inc., is the owner/developer of a project known as Riverside Village Townhouses. This project is fully developed and is currently serviced by Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development are two wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Tahitian Development, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 40-acre tract known as Riverside Villas. Twenty of these acres have been developed and some of the units sold. The remaining 20 acres are currently under development. In developing its remaining 20 acres, Tahitian Development would be required to install stormwater drainage systems and sewage transportation lines to connect with Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development are wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Tahitian Development also owns a 40-acre parcel in Orange County which it plans to develop for light industrial uses such as an industrial park or an office complex. Such development would result in at least a 40 percent impervious surface, including building tops, within that 40-acre parcel, and require the installation of a sewage transportation system and a stormwater drainage system. Petitioner, A.C. & R., Inc., is the owner/developer of a project in Pasco County known as Aloha Gardens Unit Number 12. The project, which currently is represented by 40-50 developed lots, is located just north of the Aloha Gardens sewage treatment facility, and is serviced by Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development that is permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Petitioner, Great Cypress Mobile Village, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 149 unit mobile home park in Pasco County. Twenty of these units are completed and ready for occupancy. Completion of the project will require the installation of additional sewer lines. Located at the interior of the property is a sewage treatment plant owned by Northern Utilities which services the project, and within 600 feet of the project's boundary there is a well which services that utility. The capacity of that well was not, however, demonstrated in these proceedings, nor was it shown whether such well was part of a community water system. Petitioner, Barrington, Ltd. is a party of unknown capacity, origin, or interest. No evidence was presented on its behalf to demonstrate that its substantial interests would be affected by the proposed rules. Intervenor, Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG), a Florida corporation, is an association of Florida's electric utilities, and is composed of 37 members. The FCG has, as part of its internal organization, an environmental committee whose purpose is to participate in regulatory development and provide mutual member assistance with regard to water related matters. This committee was authorized by the FCG executive committee to participate in the development of the rules at issue in these proceedings, as well as Intervene in these proceedings, to represent and protect the interests of FCG members. The FCG participated in the development of the subject rules by the Department, and was granted full party status by the ERC during that rulemaking process. The members of FCG are owners and operators of electric power generating facilities. These facilities“ include the power plant and ancillary facilities such as substations. Incident to the operation of these facilities are wastewater discharges associated with the production of electricity and stormwater discharges. One of these facilities, Gainesville Regional Utilities' Deer Haven generating station is located across Highway 441 from a major community drinking water supply well. Intervenor, Florida Land Council, Inc., a Florid corporation, is composed of 12 primary members who own large tracts of land in interior Florida, and who are engaged primarily in agribusiness. The Land Council's purpose is to protect the asset value of its members property and, because of that purpose, it is concerned with environmental regulations, growth management regulations, land use regulations, and comprehensive planning. To protect its interests, the Land Council sought leave to intervene in these proceedings. There was, however, no proof that any lands owned by any member of the Land Council were proximate to any major public community drinking water well. Intervenor, Pasco County, is the owner/operator of 25 wastewater treatment plants with capacities In excess of 100,000 gallons per day, and has under construction, or in the design stage, additional facilities with capacities in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. The construction of these new facilities will require the installation of new lines for the collection of wastewater. Pasco County's current, as well as its planned, wastewater treatment facilities will utilities a rapid rate land application effluent disposal process. Within a mile of any wastewater treatment plan operated by Pasco County can be found a major public community drinking water well as defined by the rules at issue in these proceedings. Pasco County also owns and operates wells within the county with permitted withdrawal rates exceeding 100,000 gpd, and participates in the ownership and management of their wells with permitted withdrawal rates exceeding 100,000 gpd through West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority. Pasco County currently has plans to add new production wells in the county with an average daily pumpage in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Intervenor, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (West Coast), is an interlocal government body created in 1974 to develop, store, and supply water to its member governments so that all citizens within the areas served by the authority may be assured an adequate supply of water. Member governments served by WCRWSA are Hillsborough County, Pasco County, and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. Wellfields operated by West Coast are the Starkey Wellfield located in west central Pasco County, which serves the citizens of New Port Richey and Pasco County; the South-Central Hillsborough Regional Wellfield located in south-central Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough, County; the crossbar Ranch Wellfield located in north-central Pasco County, which principally serves the citizens of Pinellas, County; the Cypress Creek Wellfild located in south-central Pasco County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and western Pasco Counties and the City of St. Petersburg; the Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough County; the Section 21 Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg; and, the Come-Odessa Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg. 3/ Each of the wellfields operated by West Coast are public community water systems, and contain wells permitted to withdraw in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Collectively, these wellfields serve a total population of 800,000 persons. Intervenor, Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. (Concerned Citizens), is a not-for-profit corporation, was chartered in 1981, and has 350 members who obtain their drinking water from operational community water supply wells permitted for over 100,000 gallons per day in Inverness, Crystal River, Floral City, Sugar Mill Woods, Beverly Hills, and Rolling Oaks, Citrus County, Florida. The purpose of Concerned Citizens is to protect the natural resources of Citrus County through planning and zoning regulations, and local and state legislation and regulations. It was granted party status by the ERC. General aspects of the proposed rules The proposed rules establish new eligibility criteria for designation of an aquifer segment as Class G-I groundwater. Under the existing rule, the ERC could reclassify an aquifer or portion of an aquifer as G-I within specified boundaries upon a finding that: The aquifer or portion of the aquifer is the only reasonably available source of potable water to a significant segment of the population; and The designated use is attainable, upon consideration of environmental, techological, water quality, institutional, and social and economic factors. Under the proposed revisions, an aquifer segment could be classified by the ERC as G-I provided it was: ...within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined aquifers or from leaky confined aquifer... and, upon consideration of: ...environmental, technologial, water quality, institutional (including local land use comprehensive plans), public health, public interest, social and economic factors. As with thee existing rule, the proposed rules require that rulemaking procedures be followed to actually designate a G-I aquifer or aquifer segment at any particular location. The scheme envisioned by the proposed rules is to provide protection to "major community drinking water supply wells", community water systems that are permitted by consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater, by preventing contaminants from entering the groundwater within a circumscribed radius of the wells. To accomplish this purpose, the proposed rules establish a methodology whereby two zones of protection would be established around such wells if they were withdrawing waters from unconfined aquifers (an aquifer exposed to the atmosphere) or leaky confined aquifers (an aquifer in which groundwater moves vertically from the water table to the top of the aquifer in five years or less). The first zone (the inner zone) would be based on a fixed radius of 200 feet. The second zone (the outer zone) would be based on a radius, calculated under the rule's methodology, of 5 years groundwater travel time. Within the inner zone, discharges would be prohibited. Within the outer zone, certain developments which discharge to groundwater would be prohibited or restricted. A major emphasis of the proposed rules is to restrict discharges to groundwater within the zones of protection. For example, the rules eliminate the zone of discharge within the zones of protection, and require that new discharges to groundwater of treated domestic effluent meet the groundwater criteria specified in rule 17-3.404, F.A.C., prior to discharge. 4/ Additionally, such wastewater treatment facilities would be required to pre-treat industrial wastewater, provide daily monitoring to insure proper treatment plant process control, and provide 24 hour a day attendance of a wastewater operator under the general supervision of a Class A certified wastewater operator. New underground lines for the transport of domestic raw wastewater would be required to be constructed so that no more than 50 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per mile per day could leak into the ground. Within the 5 year zone of protection, there are no restrictions on stormwater discharges for residential developments. However, discharges from new stormwater facilities serving an area forty acres or larger with a forty percent impervious surface, excluding building tops, are required to monitor the discharge. Construction and operation of new sanitary landfills would be prohibited. As previously noted, to be eligible for reclassification as a G-I aquifer, the aquifer or aquifer segment under consideration must be leaky confined or unconfined. Whether the aquifer is leaky confined or not will be determined through application of the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae contained in the proposed rules, and the zones of protection will be established by reference to the "r" formula contained in the proposed rule. To date, neither the Department nor any party has applied the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae to identify wells hat are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers, nor has anyone delineated any zones of protection by application of the "r" formula. The Department has, however, identified those areas of the state at which it is likely that major community drinking water supply wells are withdrawing from such aquifers. Based on this identification, the Department has contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to "map" the Middle-Gulf region (Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties) by applying the "Vv" and "Tv" formulas to each well permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd or more to determine if it is withdrawing from such aquifers and, if so, to delineate proposed zones of protection around such wells or wellfields through application of the "r" formula. The USGS is currently mapping the Middle-Gulf region. Pertinent to this case, the Department has identified all of Pasco and Pinellas Counties, the northern half of Hillsborough County, and most of Orange County including Orlando, as areas within which wells are most probably withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers, and for which aquifers the Department will seek G-I reclassification. Under the circumstances, the parties have established, except as heretofore noted, that there is a reasonable likelihood that the proposed rules will substantially affect their interests. The rule challenge The gravamen of the protestant's challenge is that certain definitions and formulae continued within the proposed rule are vague, ambiguous, or not supported by fact or logic. The Protestants' also challenge the adequacy of the economic impact statement. The Protestants concerns are addressed below. Definitions Rule 17-3.021, as amended, would define "Confined Aquifer", "Leaky Confined Aquifer", and "Unconfined Aquifer", as follows: (7) "Confined Aquifer" shall mean an aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable beds or by beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself. For the purpose of G-I, it shall mean an aquifer confined from above by a formation(s) which restricts the movement of groundwater vertically from the water table to the top of the confined aquifer for a period of more than five years * * * (16) "Leaky Confined Aquifer" shall mean, for the purposes of G-I, an aquifer confined from above by a formation(s) which allows groundwater to move vertically from the water table to the top of the leaky confined aquifer in five years or less. * * * (34) "Unconfined Aquifer" shall mean an aquifer other than a confined aquifer. For the purpose of G-I it shall mean an aquifer other than a confined or leaky confined aquifer. 5/ Protestants contend that the definition of "confined aquifer" and "leaky confined aquifer" are vague and meaningless because they are "defined by use of the phrase being defined". Accordingly, they conclude that proposed rule 17-3.021(7) and (16) must fall because they are without thought and reason, irrational and vague. Protestants further contend that since the definitions of "confined aquifer" and "leaky confined aquifer" are flawed, proposed rule 17-3.021(34), which defines unconfined aquifer, must also fall. The Protestants' contentions are not persuasive. If one were restricted to the definition of "confined", "leaky confined" and "unconfined" aquifer to glean their meaning, the rules might be considered vague. However, these definitions are, as they specifically provide, "for the purpose of G-I" and they must be read in context with the balance of the rule. When so read, it is apparent that "top of the confined aquifer" or "top of the leaky confined aquifer" is the top of the aquifer that has been calculated as confined or leaky through manipulation of the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae. Under the circumstances, the subject definitions are not vague, arbitrary or capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(20) provides: "New Discharge" shall mean, for the purpose of G-I, a discharge from a new installation; or a discharge from an existing permitted installation that has been altered, after the effective date of G-I reclassification, either chemically, biologically, or physically or that has a 211 22 different point of discharge, and which causes a significantly different impact on groundwater. Protestants contend that the definition of "new discharge" is vague, arbitrary and capricious because existing installations would be classified as new dischargers, and subject to the more stringent requirements of the proposed rules, whether the alteration of their discharge significantly improved or adversely affected groundwater. As proposed, the rule would so define new discharge, and it is not vague or ambiguous. The proof demonstrated, however, that the Department only proposed to define, as new dischargers, those existing installations whose altered discharge caused a significantly different negative impact on groundwater. The Department conceded this point, and offered no proof to demonstrate the reasonableness of classifying existing installations that improve their discharge as new discharges. Under the circumstances, proposed rule 17-3.021(20) is arbitrary and capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(35) defines "underground storage facility or underground transportation facility as follows: "Underground storage facility" or "underground transportation facility" shall mean that 10 percent or more of the facility is buried below the ground surface. This proposed rule is, however, only pertinent to proposed rule 17-4.245, which addresses the permitting and monitoring requirements for installations discharging to groundwater. Pertinent to this case, proposed rules 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d) establish construction requirements for the following facilities within the five year zone of protection: Underground storage facilities. An underground storage facility includes any enclosed structure, container, tank or other enclosed stationary devices used for storage or containment of pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S. or any contaminant as defined in Sect ion 403.031(1), F.S. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to include septic tanks, enclosed transformers or other similarly enclosed underground facilities.... Underground facilities for transportation of wastewater or pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S. or any contaminant as defined in Section 403.031(1), F.S. excluding natural and liquified petroleum gas. Underground facilities for transportation of waste effluent or pollutants or contaminants include piping, sewer lines, and ducts or other conveyances to transport pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S., and contaminants as defined in Section 403.031(1), F.S.... Protestants contend that the proposed rules are contained in two separate chapters of the Florida Administrative Code with no bridge between them. Under such circumstances, they contend the rules fail to adequately define either facility in either chapter, and that the rules are therefore vague, arbitrary and capricious. Protestants' contention is not persuasive. Proposed rule 17-3.021(35) defines "underground storage facility" or "underground transportation facility" as meaning that 10 percent or more of the facility is buried below the ground surface. Proposed rules 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d) address what type of facility is included within the terms "underground storage facility" and "underground transportation facility." Notably, Rule 17-4.021, F.A.C., provides: Definitions contained in other chapters of the Department's rules may be utilized to clarify the meaning of terms used herein unless such terms are defined in Section 17-4.020, F.A.C., or transfer of such definition would defeat the purpose or alter the intended effect of the provisions of this chapter. Under the circumstances of this case, the rules are appropriately read together. So read, the construction requirements for "underground storage facilities" and "underground transportation facilities", as required by proposed rule 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d), are applicable if 10 percent or more of the containment device used for the storage or transport of pollutants is buried below the ground surface, and the proposed rules are not vague, arbitrary or capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(39) defines "Zones of Protection" as follows: "Zones of Protection" shall mean two concentric areas around a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) drawing from a G-I aquifer whose boundaries are determined based on radii from the well or wellfields of 200 feet and five years groundwater travel time respectively. Protestants contend that the definition of "Zones of Protection" is vague, arbitrary and capricious because nowhere within the proposed rules is "G-I aquifer" defined. protestants' contention is not persuasive. Proposed rules 17-3.403(1) and (7) adequately explain what is meant by "G-I aquifer", and proposed rule 17-3.403(8) sets forth the metodology for calculating the zones of protection. The definition of "Zones of Protection", set forth in proposed rule 17-3.02(39) is not vague, arbitrary or capricious, because of any failure to define "G-I aquifer." Mapping Priorities When considering whether to reclassify an aquifer or aquifer segment as G-I, proposed rule 17-3.403(5)(e)2 requires that the aquifer or aquifer segment: Be specifically mapped and delineated by the Department on a detailed map of a scale which would clearly depict the applicable zones of protection. Maps will be grouped and submitted for reclassification generally on a regional basis. Mapping priorities shall follow the Commission directive of February 27, 1985. The remaining areas of the state will be mapped by the Department as time and resources allow. The mapping priority directive referred to in purposed Rule 17-3.403(5)(e)2a, was an oral directive of the ERC that Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties, referred to as the Middle-Gulf region, be mapped first. That directive has not been reduced to writing and, consequently, a copy thereof has never been available for inspection. Categories of G-I Aquifers and determination of zones and protection Proposed rules 17-3.403(7) and (8), respectively, set forth the eligibility criteria for reclassification as G-I aquifers and the methodology whereby the boundaries of the zones of protection are established. To this end, proposed rule 17- 3.403 (7) provides: Categories of G-I aquifers. For aquifers or aquifer segments to be eligible for potential reclassification as G-I aquifers one of the following criteria must be met: That the aquifer or aquifer segment under consideration be within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined aquifers or from leaky confined aquifers.... (b)(. reserved.) Proposed rule 17-3.403(8) provides: Determination of the boundaries of the zones of protection. (a) The boundaries of the zones of protection shall be based on radii from the wellhead or wellfield (if closely clustered, so that the five year zones of protection are overlapping) measured in 200 feet for the inner zone and five years for the outer zone. The radius of the outer zone shall be determined using the following formula: percent.x4n where Q = permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day); T = five years (1825 days); 3.14 = mathematical constant pi; r = radius (feet); h distance from the top of the producing aquifer to the bottom of the hole (feet); n effective porosity. Protestants contend that the foregoing provisions of the proposed rules are vague, arbitrary and capricious because the wells that would be subject to and around which a zone of protection would be established cannot be identified or, if identifiable, do not comport with the Department's intent or interpretation. Protestant's concerns are not without merit. To be eligible for consideration as a G-I aquifer, proposed rule 17-3.403(7) requires that the aquifer segment be within the zones of protection of a "major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s). Proposed rule 17- 3.021(17) provides that "major public community drinking water supply" shall mean: those community water systems as defined in Section 17-22.103(5), F.A.C., that are permitted by consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater. Community water system" is defined by Section 17-22.103(5) as: a public water system which serves at least IS service connections used by year- round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. Facially then, the proposed G-I rules are applicable to "community water system" that hold a consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater", and which are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers. Notably, the rule does not ascribe the 100,000 gpd permitted rate of withdrawal to each well, but to a permit held by a community water system. Accordingly, under the literal reading of the proposed rules, each well covered by the consumptive use permit would be subject to a zone of protection regardless of its individually permitted rate, so long as it was withdrawing from an unconfined or leaky confined aquifer. While there may be legitimate reasons to designate zones of protection around wells, regardless of their individual permitted rate when the community water system holds a consumptive use permit to withdraw groundwater at a 100,000 gpd average, the Department advanced none. To the contrary, the Department contended that zones of protection were only to be established around a well that was permitted to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater. Under the circumstances, the provisions of proposed rules 17-3.403(7) and (8) are arbitrary and capricious. 6/ The "Vv" and "Tv" formulae Proposed rule 17-3.403(7)(a) prescribes the methodology where by vertical travel time will be calculated, and therefore whether a particular aquifer will be classified as confined or leaky confined. To this end, the proposed rule provides: ... Determination of vertical travel time for leaky confinement will be by application of the following formulae: Vv= Kv h/nl where: Vv= vertical velocity (feet/day). Kv= vertical hydraulic conductivities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials (feet/day). h= head difference between water table in the surficial aquifer and the potentiometric surface of the producing aquifer (feet). n = effective porosities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials. 1 = distance from the water table to the top of the producing aquifer (feet). Tv= 1/Vv 365 where: Tv= vertical travel time (years). 1 = same as above. Vv= same as above. The "Vv" formula and the "Tv" formula are valid formulae, and are commonly used by hydrogeologists to calculate the vertical velocity and vertical travel time of groundwater. As proposed, the formulae present a reasonable methodology for computing the vertical velocity and vertical travel time of groundwater if the well is producing from one aquifer. The formulae cannot, however, as hereafter discussed, be reasonably applied if tee well is producing from multiple aquifers or if another aquifer intervenes between the surf aquifer and the producing aquifer. While not the most prevalent occurrence in the state wells in the Middle-Gulf regions often do penetrate more than one aquifer and do produce water from more than one aquifer. The rule defines the "Kv" element of the "Vv" formula as the "vertical hydraulic conductivities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials (feet/day)." This is a reasonable definition and will produce a scientifically valid result provided the well does not penetrate multiple aquifers. Should the well penetrate multiple aquifers, the values derived for vertical velocity ("Vv") and vertical travel time ("Tv") will not be accurate since the hydraulic conductivities of the intervening aquifers are not, by the rule definition, factored into the calculation of "Kv". Under such circumstances, whether an aquifer was classified as confined or leaky confined would not be determined by a valid "Kv" but, rather, by chance. Protestants also contend that the rule is vague, arbitrary and capricious because it does not specify the methodology by which "Kv" is to be calculated. There are, however, methodologies commonly accepted by hydrogeologists to derive a scientifically valid "Kv", whether the well penetrates one or more than one aquifer. The infirmity of the rule is not its failure to specify a methodology, but its to include data necessary to produce a meaningful result. The rule defines the "n" element of the Vv formula as "effective porosities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials." This is a reasonable definition and will, though the application of commonly accepted methodologies, produce a scientifically valid result. 7/ The rule defines the element "Delta h" in the Vv formula as the "head difference between the water table in the surficial aquifer and the potentiometric surface of the producing aquifer (feet)", and defines the element "1" as the "distance from the water table to the top of the producing aquifer (feet)." These elements are utilized in the formula to calculate a gradient, and must be measured using the same points of reference to yield a meaningful result. To this end, the proof demonstrates that the definitions are reasonable since they utilize the same points of reference, and that when applied in accordance with accepted hydrogeologic practice will produce a scientifically valid gradient. (See Department exhibit 7). Protestants contend, however, that the definitions of "Delta h" and "1" are vague, arbitrary and capricious because they do not specify when the measurements should be made, do not define "producing aquifer", and do not define "top" of the producing aquifer. For the reasons that follow, Protestants' contentions are found to be without merit. While a water table is a dynamic surface subject to frequent, if not daily fluctuation, resulting from variations in rainfall and the demands of man, and while a potentiometric surface is likewise a dynamic elevation that changes with time and season, protestants failed to demonstrate that there was any particular date or dates that would be most appropriate to make such calculations. Rather, protestants contended that unless such measurements were taken contemporaneously, any derivation of "Delta h" and "1" would not be reliable. While such might be the case, the rule does not mandate a divergence from the accepted hydrogeologic practice of taking such measurements contemporaneously. While the rule does not define "producing aquifer," it is an accepted hydrogeologic term and not subject to confusion. The only confusion in this case was the introduction of the issue of multiple producing aquifers and protestants' contentions that this rendered the Vv formula vague, arbitrary and capricious since it did not factor in such a consideration. Protestants' contention does not, however render the term "producing aquifer" vague. The sole purpose of the Vv and Tv formulas are to determine whether the aquifer from which water is being produced is leaky confined. To establish this, the formulae are applied to calculate whether the vertical travel time is five years or less. If a well is withdrawing water from more than one aquifer it may be necessary to calculate Vv and Tv for each aquifer to discern which of those aquifers are within the 5 year vertical travel time threshold, and therefore subject to G-I reclassification. To this end the rule is not vague, and would adequately address the multiple producing aquifer scenario. While the rule doe not define "top" of the producing aquifer, this term is an accepted hydrogeologic term and is not subject to confusion. In application there may, however, be disagreements among hydrogeologists as to where this line should be established because geologic boundaries are fine gradations, and not sharp lines which would lend themselves to the designation of precise points of reference. This is not, however, a failure of the rule, but a peculiarity of nature, and is subject to scientific proof. Notably, protestants did not demonstrate that "top" of the producing aquifer could be defined with reference to a fixed point. Under the circumstances, "top" of the producing aquifer is a reasonable reference point. Zones of Protection Proposed rule 17-3.408 provides: Determination of the boundaries of the zones of protection shall be based on radii from the wellhead or wellfield (if closely clustered, so that the five year zones of protection are overlapping), measured in 200 feet for the inner zone and five years for the outer zone. The radius of the outer zone shall be determined using the following formula: QT 2 3.14 hn where Q = permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day); T = five years (1825 days); 3.14 = mathematical constant pi; r = radius (feet); h distance from the top of the producing aquifer to the bottom of the hole (feet); n effective porosity. For the purpose of this calculation the following effective porosities for representative Florida aquifers will be used: Floridan .05 Sand and Gravel .2 Biscayne .15 Surficial .2 The Department shall use more site-specific values for "Q", "n", or "h" when available for designation of the zones of protection by the Commission. Proposed rule 17-3.403(8)(a) provides that the inner zone of protection shall be based on a radius from the wellhead or wellfilled, as appropriate, of 200 feet. While denoted as an arbitrary radius, the 200 foot radius was not derived without fact or reason. Rather, it was a result reached at the workshops after consideration of existing regulations that establish buffer zones of 200-500 feet between a public water supply and a pollution source. Conceptually, the 200 foot zone was adopted because it is so small and so close to the well that it essentially constituted a zone of protection of the well head by preventing contaminants from moving into the well opening directly or the annular space around the well casing. Accordingly, the 200 foot zone has a reasonable basis. Its actual delineation is, however, as flawed as that of the five year zone discussed infra. The "r" formula defines the outer zone of protection, and calculates it as a radius equal to the distance groundwater would flow in five years toward the well. The basis for the "r" formula is the formula used to calculate the volume of a cylinder. That formula, V = pi r2 h, yields a simple volumetric measurement without any consideration of velocity. By the introduction of the element "n" (effective porosity), the "r" formula introduces a velocity component which would, properly applied, produce a radius equal to the distance groundwater would flow in 5 years. 8/ As proposed, however, the rule would establish a meaningless line around a well. Under the proposed rule, the Department would calculate "r" based on specified effective porosities ("n") for the Floridan, Biscayne, sand and gravel, and surficial aquifers absent site specific data. The Department is, however, under no requirement to generate site specific data, and currently is mapping the Middle-Gulf region based on the values established by the rule. Absent chance, the areas mapped will bear no relationship to groundwater travel time. The lithology of an aquifer and the surrounding layers is varied and diverse, and directly affects the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. By assuming "n", the "r" formula ignores the varied lithology, and produces a radius that would seldom, if ever, represent the actual rate at which groundwater moved toward any well. 9/ The zone thus circumscribed is an illusion since the groundwaters and contaminants within it may move at a rate significantly greater than or less than 5 years travel time. Notably, the Department has conducted no study or test to validate its proposed methodology. The element "Q" in the "r" formula is defined as the "permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day)." Protestants contend that such definition is vague, arbitrary and capricious because the Department proposes to rely on consumptive use permits issued by the various water management districts to derive "Q", and such permits would not necessarily provide the requisite data. While the proof demonstrates that "Q" cannot always be derived by reference to a consumptive use permit, this does not render the definition of "Q" vague, arbitrary, or capricious. Rather, "Q" is a factual matter, and subject to a factual derivation through reference to consumptive use permits and other site specific data. The element "T" in the "r" formula is defined as "five years (1825) days." By its inclusion, the Department proposes to circumscribe the outer zone of protection at five years groundwater travel time. The concept of a zone of protection is premised on the theory that restrictions should be placed on discharges to groundwater within an area proximate to a public water supply for public health and safety concerns. The five year standard, which is found throughout the rules, was based on the theory that if a contaminant was introduced to groundwater a period of time should be allowed to discover the contamination and remove it or make provision for an alternate water supply before the contaminant reached the public water supply. The five years proposed by the rule was not, however, founded on fact or reason. During the workshops that under scored the proposed rule, the time factor was the subject of considerable discussion and ranged from less than two years to greater than ten years. Based on its own in-house search, the Department initially proposed a 10-year standard. That search revealed that it took 10 to 15 years between the time a contaminant was discovered and cleanup could commence, and between seven and eight years between the time a contaminant was introduced into groundwater and it discovery. Notwithstanding the results of its own in-house search, the Department, in the face of debate, elected to "compromise" and propose a five-year standard. Such standard was not the result of any study to assess its validity, and no data, reports or other research were utilized to derive it. In sum, the five- year standard was simply a "compromise", and was not supported by fact or reason. As previously noted, the lithology of an aquifer and the surrounding layers is varied and diverse, and directly affects the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. The effective porosity of those materials in the Floridan aquifer canvary from to .4 at various places. The rule proposes, however, to use an effective porosity for the Floridan aquifer of .05 to establish "r." The value ascribed to "n" is a critical value, as previously discussed in paragraph 65. It also has a profound impact on the aeral extent of the zone of protection. For example, assuming "Q" equals 3 million gallons and "h" equals 600 feet, an "n" of .02 would result in a radius of 4,406 feet or 1,400 acres, an "n" of .03 would result in a radius of 3,578 fee or 934 acres, an "n" of .05 would result in a radius of 2,787 feet or 560 acres, and an "n" of .2 would result in a radius of 1,393 feet or 140 acres. While an effective porosity of 05 for the Floridan aquifer may be a reasonable value at a particular site, it is not a value that can be reasonably ascribed to the Floridan in general. For this reason, and the reasons heretofore set forth, the rule's specification of an effective porosity of .05 for the Floridan aquifer is unreasonable. Proposed rule 17-3.403(8)(a), sets forth the manner in which the zones of protection will be drawn around a well or wellfield. That proposed rule provides: For well fields whose individual zones of protection overlap due to clustering, a single zone of protection will be calculated in the following manner: Using the permitted average daily withdrawal rate of the wells with overlapping zones of protection, the area on the surface overlying the aquifer equal to the sum of the areas of the five year zones of protection of the individual wells, shall be used to define the area which encircles the perimeter of the wellfield. In cases where a zone of protection of a single well protrudues beyond the calculated perimeter or when the configuration of the wellfield is irregular, the perimeter will be shaped to accommodate the configuration. The surface are encircling the perimeter of the wellfield shall not exceed the total surface area of the overlapping zones of protection for individual wells. In the case of unclustered wells within a wellfield, individual zones of protection around each well will be calculated. As previously discussed, the proposed G-I rules are facially applicable to "community water systems" that hold a " consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater," and which are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers. Under proposed rule 1773.403(8)(a), the five-year zone of protection would be drawn around each of these wells. If the wells are located so close to each other that the five year zones of protection are overlapping (clustered), those wells would be deemed a wellfield by rule definition and a five year zone of protection would be established around it. The proposed rule's description at how to determine and configure a zone of protection around a wellfield is however, vague and ambiguous. While the rule provides that when the configuration of the wellfield is "irregular", the perimeter will be shaped to accommodate the configuration", it sets forth no standard by which the perimeter will be established. Effectively, the rule vests unbridled discretion in the Department to establish the configuration of a wellfield. The Economic Impact Statements Pursuant to the mandate of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, the Department prepared economic impact statements for the proposed revisions to Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The economic impact statements were prepared by Dr. Elizabeth Field, the Department's chief economist, an expert in economics. Dr. Field developed the economic impact statements by examining the proposed rules and discussing their potential impact with Department staff. Additionally, Dr. Field attended the public workshops that were held concerning the proposed rules, and solicited input from those participants. The Florida Home Builders Association and the Florida Petroleum Council submitted data for her consideration, but none of the petitioners, although some were represented at such workshops, responded to her requests for information. The economic impact statements prepared by Dr. Field to address the proposed rules conclude that, apart from the cost to the Department for mapping, there are no direct costs or economic benefits occasioned by the rules. Dr. Field's conclusion was premised on the fact that the proposed rules only establish the eligibility criteria for reclassification of an aquifer to G-I and the standards for discharge to that aquifer. Under the proposed rules, further rulemaking would be required to actually designate a specific aquifer as G-I, and delineate a zone of protection. 10/ Pertinent to this case, proposed rule 17-3.403, provides: The intent of establishing G-I eligibility criteria is to determine which aquifer or aquifer segments qualify for potential reclassification to G-I aquifers. Adoption of these criteria does not imply nor does it designate aquifer or aquifer segments as G-I. Such designation can only be achieved through reclassification by the Commission after eligible segments have been mapped by the Department. (6)... the following procedure shall be used to designate Class G-I aquifers: Rulemaking procedures pursuant to Chapter 17-102, F.A.C., shall be followed; Fact-finding workshops shall be held in the affected area; All local, county, or municipal governments, water management districts, state legislators, regional water supply authorities, and regional planning councils whose districts or jurisdictions include all or part of a proposed G-I aquifer shall be notified in writing by the Department at least 60 days prior to the workshop; A prominent public notice shall be placed in an appropriate newspaper(s) of general circulation in the area of the proposed G-I aquifer at least 60 days prior to the workshop. The notice shall contain a geographic location map indicating the area of the zones of protection and a general description of the impact of reclassification on present and future discharges to groundwater. A notice of a G-I workshop shall be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly prior to the workshop(s). At least 180 days prior to the Commission meeting during which a particular zone of protection will be considered for reclassification, the Department will provide notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly and appropriate newspaper(s) of the intended date of the Commission meeting. The Commission may reclassify an aquifer or aquifer segment as a G-I aquifer within specified boundaries upon consideration of environmental, technological, water quality, institutional (including local land use comprehensive plans), public health, public interest, social and economic factors. When considering a reclassification an aquifer or aquifer segment shall: ....(Be within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined or from leaky confined aquifers.).... Be specifically mapped and delineated by the Department on a detailed map of a scale which would clearly depict the applicable zones or protection. Maps will be grouped and submitted for reclassification generally on a regional basis. Mapping priorities shall follow the Commission directive of February 27, 1985. The remaining areas of the state will be mapped by the Department as time and resources allow. (Emphasis added). While, if and when applied, the proposed rules would certainly have a direct economic impact as a consequence of a reclassification of an aquifer to G-I and the designation of a zone of protection, as well as the standards for discharge to that aquifer, such costs at this stage are not direct or are not quantifiable. When mapped and the zones of protection identified, a reasonable assessment of the economic cost or benefit of the proposal can be addressed. This is specifically reserved by the Commission whereby its decision to reclassify an aquifer as G-I will, pursuant to proposed rule 17-3.403(6) follow rule making procedures and be based on consideration of economic factors. This result obtains whether the affected party is a small business or some other entity. In reaching the conclusion that the economic costs or benefits of the proposed rules, apart from the cost of mapping, do not at this stage have a direct or quantifiable impact, I have not overlooked the "announcement effect" that is occasioned by the announcement of a governmental agency to regulate an activity. Such announcement certainly has a chilling effect on the community that may reasonably be impacted. The economic impact is, however, speculative or not quantifiable in the instant case. Further, the proof does not demonstrate any incorrectness or unfairness in the proposed adoption of the rules occasioned by the EIS prepared in this case.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a permit to Out of Bounds, Inc. (Out of Bounds, or applicant), to construct, operate, and close a construction and demolition debris disposal facility (C&D facility) in Hernando County.
Findings Of Fact On September 8, 2008, Out of Bounds applied to DEP for a permit to construct, operate, and close an unlined C&D facility on 26 acres located at 29251 Wildlife Lane, Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida, to be known as the Croom C&D Debris Landfill and Recycling Facility. There were four requests by DEP for additional information, which was provided, and the application was complete on September 3, 2009. In 1994, a previous owner of the property was issued a permit to construct, operate, and close an unlined C&D facility on the property. That owner did not proceed with construction, and the permit expired in 1999. The Out of Bounds application was for a new permit, not for the renewal of an existing permit. Robert McCune owns property adjacent to the proposed C&D facility. He and his wife reside on the property, keep horses in stables on the property, and use the property for horseback riding business, which includes hosting public horseback riding events. Hernando SSK was formed by David Belcher and one or more others to continue the business being operated by Paige Cool when she died during this proceeding. The business is conducted on ten acres of property Cool owned approximately one mile west of the proposed C&D facility. Belcher is one of two co-personal representatives of Cool’s estate. Belcher and his wife hold a mortgage on the property. When the estate is finalized, the Belchers plan to assign their mortgage to Hernando SSK. It is not clear who will own the property after the estate is finalized, or how Hernando SSK will be authorized to continue the business on the property. Western pleasure and trail-riding horses are boarded on the Cool property, which is known as At Home Acres. The business also has access to 20 adjoining acres to the east, which are used for grazing. Access to the horseback riding trails in the Withlacoochee State Forest is conveniently located just across Wildlife Lane from the property, to the north. A manager resides in a double-wide trailer on the property, and another trailer and a barn to the east of it are leased out. There is a potable water well on the property, which is the source of drinking water for the manager and lessees. Well Setback In the application process, Out of Bounds disclosed two potable water wells within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area. The application provided that those wells would be converted to non-potable use. Out of Bounds did not disclose the existence of a third potable water well, on property owned by Daniel Knox, which is within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area. When the Knox well was brought to the attention of DEP, Out of Bounds admitted that the well was permitted for potable use but took the position that it was not for potable use because it was not in use, was not connected to a source of electricity, and appeared to be abandoned. Daniel Knox and his brother, Robert Knox, had the Knox well dug and permitted in 1979 in anticipation of using it as the source of potable water for a residence to be built on the property for their parents and sister. The Knoxes have not yet built a residence on the property, but it still is their intention to do so and to use the well as the source of potable water. Since its construction, the well had been maintained and operated periodically using a gasoline-powered generator so that it will be ready for use when needed. During the application process, Out of Bounds also did not disclose the existence of a fourth potable water well within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area on property once owned by Larry Fannin and now owned by his daughter and son-in- law, Robert McCune. The McCune well was permitted and installed in mid-2005 while the sale of the land from Fannin to the McCunes was pending. The intended purpose of the well was to provide potable water for the use of the McCunes when they started to reside on the property. Despite this intent, and unbeknownst to the McCunes, Fannin had the well permitted as an irrigation well. In mid-2008, the McCunes began to reside on their property. At first, they resided in a mobile home. They ran pipes from the well to the mobile home to provide drinking water. Eventually, later in 2008, they began construction of a residence on the property and ran pipes from the well to the house to provide drinking water to the house. The well was being used for drinking water before the Out of Bounds application was complete. (They also use water from the well from time to time for irrigation purposes--i.e., when they host horseback-riding events on weekends, they truck water from the well to their horseback-riding arena to apply to the ground to control dust.) Groundwater flows from the disposal area of the proposed landfill to the west and southwest. The Knox and McCune wells are down-gradient of the groundwater flow from the proposed disposal area. Out of Bounds represented at the hearing that it would accept a permit condition that no C&D debris, but only clean debris, would be disposed within 500 feet of the Knox and McCune wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(15)-(16) and (24). However, there was no evidence of new designs, plans, or operations that would be used to meet such a permit condition. Liner and Leachate Collection Existing unlined C&D facilities in the Southwest District report various parameters that exceed groundwater quality standards and criteria. These include arsenic, benzene, iron, aluminum, nitrate, ammonia, vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, 3- and 4-methyl phenols, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Arsenic and benzene are primary (health-based) groundwater quality standards. The others are secondary standards that relate to taste, odor, and aesthetics. The likely source of the reported arsenic violations in the Southwest District is wood treated with chromate copper arsenate (CCA). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(11). Out of Bounds proposes to not accept CCA-treated wood and to use a trained “spotter” to exclude CCA-treated wood from the landfill. This is an appropriate measure to prevent arsenic violations, and is now required for C&D facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(7)(d), (8), and (20). It was not clear from the evidence whether the C&D facilities in the Southwest District with arsenic violations accepted CCA-treated wood. Even if they did, the operational plan proposed by Out of Bounds to exclude CCA-treated wood and to use a trained spotter is not a guarantee that no CCA-treated wood will enter the landfill. A C&D facility would not be expected to dispose of material that would result in benzene contamination. The reported benzene violations suggest that unauthorized material contaminated with benzene nonetheless makes its way into C&D facilities in the Southwest District. The evidence was not clear whether a trained spotter was used at those facilities. Whether or not a spotter was used at those facilities, having a trained spotter would not guarantee that no benzene-contaminated material will enter the landfill proposed by Out of Bounds. Out of Bounds suggested that ammonia violations result from C&D facilities accepting yard trash. However, there was no evidence of a connection between acceptance of yard trash and ammonia violations. The operational plan proposed by Out of Bounds to “cover as you go” is the accepted best practice to control hydrogen sulfide odor, which comes from wet drywall. Out of Bounds suggested that its cover plan would prevent any sulfate violations, but there was no evidence to prove it. There was no evidence as to whether the C&D facility proposed by Out of Bounds would be substantially different from the other existing C&D facilities in DEP’s Southwest District. Absent such evidence, Out of Bounds did not provide reasonable assurances that its proposed facility would not cause groundwater quality violations. The site for the C&D facility proposed by Out of Bounds is internally drained. There are no surface waters onsite or within a mile of the site. There was no evidence of a surficial aquifer above the Floridan aquifer. Rainfall entering the Out of Bounds property migrates downward into the Floridan aquifer. Once in the aquifer, there is a horizontal component of groundwater water flow in a generally southwest direction, towards the Knox and McCune wells. Contaminated leachate from the proposed C&D facility would migrate with the groundwater. Out of Bounds suggests that a thick clay layer under the site of its proposed facility would prevent the downward migration of groundwater into the Floridan aquifer. There are several reasons why the clay layer does not provide the reasonable assurance of a liner that contamination from the proposed landfill would not reach the Floridan aquifer. Clay is much more permeable than a geomembrane meeting DEP’s specifications for use as a liner. The clay on the proposed site is on the order of at least a thousand times more permeable. (Out of Bounds appeared to confuse the permeability of such a geomembrane with the allowable permeability of the geosynthetic clay layer or compacted clay layer underlying the geomembrane. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(4)(f).) In the application process, Out of Bounds relied on the clay layer for purposes of sinkhole prevention and mitigation, not for reasonable assurance that no liner was needed. The limestone formation underlying the site is highly variable, with numerous pinnacles; for that reason, the thickness of the clay layer also is highly variable, making it difficult to excavate the proposed landfill with complete assurance that the clay layer would not be penetrated. To provide reasonable assurance for purposes of sinkhole prevention and mitigation, Out of Bounds proposed to leave or create a clay layer at least six feet thick underlying the bottom of the proposed landfill. Because the site is in an area of high recharge to the Floridan aquifer and drains entirely internally, the clay layer alone does not provide reasonable assurance that there will be no downward migration of contaminated groundwater to the Floridan aquifer. Reasonable assurance requires a liner and leachate collection system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP deny the application for a C&D facility made by Out of Bounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronda L. Moore, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John R. Thomas, Esquire Law Office of John R. Thomas, P.A. 233 Third Street North, Suite 101 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3818 Timothy W. Weber, Esquire Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A. Post Office Box 41100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743-1100 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
