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.
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service At the end of the test year (calendar year 1979), the utility provided water and sewer service to approximately 2,577 customers, most of whom reside in two mobile home parks. Of that number, seven testified at the hearing. Two were concerned with the magnitude of the increase sought by the utility, one complained of an odor emanating from the sewage treatment plant, and the remainder described the water as being discolored and having a bad taste. There were no complaints about poor water pressure or interruptions in service. At present, there are no citations or corrective orders with regard to the utility's water plant. Its sewage treatment facility is being operated pursuant to a temporary operating permit granted by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The effluent from the sewage treatment facility is meeting all applicable standards. Rate Base Petitioner has proposed an average water rate base of $311,028 and a year-end sewer rate base of $426,373 (Exhibit No. 4). However, it proposes to include in water rate base additional costs associated with the construction of a water storage tank. This increases the utility's proposed average water rate base to $376,118. The Commission urges a number of adjustments to rate base which collectively have the effect of reducing the amounts proposed by the utility. These adjustments affect plant in service, construction work in progress, accumulated depreciation and working capital allowance, and should be accepted. First, a reduction in water plant and an increase in sewer plant are required to correct certain costs recorded in the wrong system account. It is also necessary to increase water plant and sewer plant to reflect the capitalization of certain costs that were improperly expensed. Second, the proposed inclusion in rate base of costs associated with the (1) automatic switching for chlorine feed and chlorine scale, (2) chlorine emergency repair kit, and (3) a 500,000 gallon concrete storage tank is improper because these expenditures are substantially beyond the scope of the test period and are not "required by (a) duly authorized governmental authority." Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes. Third, because of the adjustment to plant in service, it is also necessary to adjust accumulated depreciation. Finally, revisions to the operation and maintenance expenses discussed hereinafter necessitate a mechanical adjustment to the utility's working capital allowance. The following schedules portray the adjusted rate bases for water and sewer operations, and a brief description of each of the adjustments made in arriving at those amounts. Ferncrest Utilities, Inc. Average Water Rate Base Year Ended December 31, 1979 COMPANY ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTED BALANCES Utility Plant in Service $ 625,030 (1) $ 625,030 Construction Work in Progress 209,985 (200,375) (2)9,610 Accum. Depreciation (95,911) - (3) (95,911) CIAC (376,191) - (376,191) Working Capital Allowance 13,205 (244)(4) 12,961 Income Tax Lag -0- (234) (234) Adjusted Rate Base $ 376,118 $ 175,265 During the hearing, the utility revised its rate base exhibit to reflect the changes in plant in service discussed in the main body of this order (Exhibit No. 4). Accordingly, no adjustment is shown on the schedule. Reduces construction work in progress by eliminating the expected costs associated with the automatic switchings for chlorine feed and chlorine scale, chlorine emergency repair kit, and a 500,000 gallon concrete storage tank. During the hearing, the utility agreed with the change in accumulated depreciation occasioned by the revisions in plant in service in item (1)(Exhibit No. 4). Therefore, no adjustment is shown on this schedule. Restates the working capital allowance to reflect one-eighth of operation and maintenance expenses. Ferncrest Utilities, Inc. Year End Sewer Rate Base Year Ended December 31, 1979 COMPANY ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTED BALANCES Utility Plant in Service $1,373,224 - (1) $1,373,224 Construction work in Progress 2,285 (2,285)(2) -0- Accum. Depreciation (180,902) - (180,902) CIAC (780,457) - (780,457) Working Capital Allowance 12,223 (428)(3) 11,795 Income Tax Lag -0- (603) (603) Adjusted Rate Base $ 426,373 $ 423,057 The utility revised its rate base exhibit during the hearing in accordance with the plant in service adjustments discussed above (Exhibit No. 4). Accordingly, no adjustment is reflected on the schedule. Reduces construction work in progress by eliminating those expected costs associated with the automatic switchings for chlorine feed and chlorine scale and a chlorine emergency repair kit. Restates the working capital allowance to reflect one-eighth of operation and maintenance expenses. Net Operating Income On Exhibit No. 13, the utility shows an operating loss of $39,241 for its water operations and an Operating loss of $14,857 for its sewer operations for calendar year 1979. The utility then adjusts its results of operations by including the additional revenues required to earn a fair rate of return, and additional operating and maintenance expenses that it contends should be recognized. As adjusted, Ferncrest portrays an operating income of $54,236 and $61,483 for its water and sewer operations respectively. Certain adjustments are required, however, which affect revenue, operation expense, maintenance expense, depreciation expense, taxes other than income and income taxes. Revenues must first be reduced to reflect only that amount which is being recommended hereinafter. Operation expense should be restated to (1) reflect the expenses in the proper system account, (2) show the proper accrual, (3) remove expenses that should be capitalized, (4) recognize additional expenses not reflected in test year operations, and (5) correct improper amortization periods and pro forma adjustments. Maintenance expense must necessarily be corrected to transfer out charges improperly recorded therein. Depreciation expense should be recalculated using an average depreciable base for water operations and a year-end depreciable base for sewer operations in accordance with the rate bases used above. Finally, an adjustment to gross receipts taxes and income taxes is required to conform such taxes to the appropriate amount of revenues being recommended herein. The adjusted operating incomes of the utility and a description of the adjustments made in arriving at those amounts are shown on the following schedule. FERNCREST UTILITIES, INC., Operating Income - Water Year Ended December 31, 1979 ADJUSTED COMPANY ADJUSTMENTS BALANCE Operating Revenues Operating Expenses: 178,221 (33,349) (1) $144,872 Operation $ 98,298 (2) 98,298 Maintenance 7,342 (1,957) (3) 5,385 Depreciation 3,367 - (4) 3,367 Taxes other than Income 12,211 (833) (5) 11,378 Income Taxes 2,766 (1,595) (6) 1,171 Total Operating Expenses $ 123,985 119,599 Operating Income $ 54,236 $ 25,273 Revenues are adjusted downward to reflect only that amount being recommended herein. The utility has agreed to utilize the amount of operation expenses reflected above (Exhibit No. 13) . Therefore, no adjustment is shown on the schedule. Reduces maintenance expense by eliminating the pro forma annual cost of motor maintenance, and amortizing certain repairs over a 3-year period (Exhibit No. 15, Schedule 1; Exhibit No. 17, Schedule B) Because the utility has agreed to the revision of depreciation expense stated above, the actual adjustment is not reflected on the schedule (Exhibit No. 13). Restates gross receipts taxes owed by the utility to conform with the recommended revenue increase (Exhibit No. 13) Conforms income taxes with increase in revenues. Ferncrest Utilities, Inc. Operating Income - Sewer Year Ended December 31, 1979 ADJUSTED COMPANY ADJUSTMENTS BALANCE Operating Revenues $ 181,672 (4,109) (1) $ 177,563 Operating Expenses Operation 90,312 (273) (2) 90,039 Maintenance 7,474 (3,150) (3) 4,324 Depreciation 7,478 - 7,478 Taxes other than Income 11,006 (102) (4) 11,704 Income Taxes 3,119 (105) (5) 3,014 Total Operating Expenses 120,109 116,559 Operating Income $ 61,493 $ 61 004 Adjusts revenues to reflect the actual amount being recommended heroin (Exhibit No. 13) Reduces operation expenses by using a 2-year amortization period for recalibration of a motor in lieu of charging all expenses to test year operations alone, and reclassifying STP deodorant costs to A/C 704 (Exhibit No. 15, Schedule 2). Revises maintenance expense by eliminating the pro forma annual cost of motor maintenance (Exhibit No. 17, Schedule A) Adjusts taxes other than income to reflect the appropriate amount of gross receipts taxes related to the recommended increase in revenues (Exhibit No. 13). Conforms income taxes with increase in revenues. COST OF CAPITAL The utility's application reflects it had a deficit in its equity accounts and no outstanding long-term debt as of the end of the test period. It did have approximately $600()00 in short-term debt which it characterized as "demand monies." It intends to roll over the short-term debt by borrowing $600,000 from The Dania Bank at 14 percent interest rate. The utility's capital structure would then consist of 100 percent debt at a cost rate of 14 percent. It was this return that was initially used by the utility in developing its revenue requirements. However, Commission approval is required in order to consummate that loan agreement. Such approval was denied by Order No. 9539, dated September 15, 19-30, in Docket No. 800577-US. On reconsideration the Commission approved the application by Order No. 9665, dated November 26, 1900, provided the utility use $120,000 of the proceeds as cumulative preferred stock. Accordingly, the pro forma capital structure will consist of 16.65 percent equity and 83.15 percent long term debt, By agreement of the parties, a cost rate of 14 percent should be assigned to the debt component and a 16 percent cost rate assigned to equity. The overall resulting cost of capital is 14.42 percent, and that rate should be used in determining the utility's revenue requirements. REVENUE REQUIREMENTS Given the above cost of capital, a grant of $68,540 in additional annual water revenues and $83,663 in additional annual sewer revenues should enable Ferncrest to earn a fair return on its utility operations. RATE STRUCTURE Residential water customers are now assessed a minimum monthly charge which includes a minimum number of gallons and a one-sept excess rate over that minimum gallonage. A declining block type of rate structure is used for general service water customers. Residential sewer customers with 5/8" x 3/4" meters pay a flat rate each month irrespective of usage, while those with larger meter sizes have the same structure as do residential water customers. General service sewer rates are based upon a declining block rate structure. The base facilities charge advocated by the Commission is superior to the rate designs presently used. Under this type of structure, a minimum charge will be assessed to recover the fixed or base costs of providing service, such as depreciation, taxes and a portion of billing and collecting expenses. Thereafter, a variable charge will be made for the gallons actually consumed. Because this type of rate structure offers greater control to the customer as to the amount of his bill, and allocates costs in a more equitable manner, it should be adopted. During the test year, a $5.50 fee was collected from approximately 50 customers per month who did not pay their bills in a timely fashion. This revenue ($3,300 on an annual basis) should be treated as miscellaneous revenue in designing the new rates. The utility reguests approval of a new tariff provision that governs the use of oversized lines and facilities constructed for developers (Exhibit No. 10) This provision is necessary in order to prescribe the deposit requirements for main extensions, and should be approved. The utility owns and operates a sewage collection and sewage treatment system which provides sewage treatment and disposal services to an adjacent travel park. As a result of this discharge, Ferncrest incurs chemical costs that exceed its applicable tariff rates. It proposes to amend its tariff to permit the recovery of such costs from the travel park (Exhibit No. 1) . Without this provision, the general body of ratepayers would be required to subsidize a portion of the operations. Accordingly, it should be accepted. The Commission proposes that language be added to the tariff which states: "During the period that service is not being furnished to the premises, a monthly standby charge equivalent to the base facility charge will be made. If service is terminated and resumed at the same address to the same customer within twelve months from the date of termination, an amount equal to the base facility charge for the period of the service termination will be collected as a condition precedent to the restoration of service." This change is necessary in order for the utility to recoup the fixed costs incurred in maintaining service to the customers, and it should be incorporated into the tariff. Finally, because an average rate base has been used for water operations and a year-end rate base for sewer operations, rate allocations for the systems should be based upon average and year-end customers and consumption respectively.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ferncrest Utilities, Inc. be granted in part and that the utility be authorized to file new tariffs to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission that will generate $68,540 and $83,663 in additional annual gross revenues for the utility's water and sewer operations. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility file appropriate tariff sheets in conformity with the Rate Structure portion of this Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the bond or letter of credit filed by the utility be returned for cancellation. This Recommended Order entered on this 12th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose, Esquire Suite 103, 1020 E. Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerome L. Hall, Esquire Suite 304, 200 S.E. 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Marta M. Crowley, Esquire 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service The utility was providing sewer service to 2,535 residential customers and 32 general service customers as of December 31, 1973. Of that number, nine testified at the hearing. Five of these customers were concerned with the magnitude of the percentage increase requested by the utility. The other four were dissatisfied with the existing rate structure for sewer service whereby a flat rate is charged irrespective of water consumption. The change to a base facilities type rate structure recommended hereinafter will satisfy the concerns of the latter group of customers. The utility has consistently complied with all requirements of the state and federal regulatory agencies. In 1978, it received an award from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation as the best operated Class C II Waste Water Treatment Plant in the Southwest District of Florida. During the test year, only 7 complaints were received by the utility of which the majority concerned tree roots in the sewage system. All were resolved to the customers' satisfaction. No service problems presently exist. Based on the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that the utility's sewer service is satisfactory. Rate Base Petitioner has proposed a rate base of $2,458,567 for its sewer operations for the year ending December 31, 1978, which is the test year in this proceeding (Exhibit No. 3). The respondent agency has recommended seven adjustments to rate base, none of which were contested by the utility. These adjustments affect plant in service, construction work in progress, accumulated depreciation, contributions in aid of construction (CIAC), accumulated depreciation on CIAC, working capital allowance, and income tax lag. The use of 13-month average balances in lieu of year-end balances in recomputing plant in service, accumulated depreciation, contributions in aid of construction (CIAC), and accumulated depreciation on CIAC is necessary because the utility did not experience unusual or extraordinary growth during the test period. Citizens of the State of Florida v. Hawkins, 356 So 2d 258 (Fla. 1978). The capitalization of certain costs previously expensed conforms with generally accepted accounting principles and is required by the Uniform System of Accounts as adopted by Rule 25-10.04, Florida Administrative Code. Construction work in progress has been excluded from rate base because it relates to a construction project begun after the close of the test year. The final adjustment is a mechanical step mandated by various adjustments to operation and maintenance expenses recommended hereinafter. The following schedule reflects the adjusted rate base of the utilities sewer operations, and a description of each of the adjustments made in arriving at that amount. Spring Hill Utilities Average Rate Base Year Ending December 31, 1978 ADJUSTED UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS TEST YEAR Plant in Service $2,432,461 (462,479)(1) $1,969,992 Const. Work in 450,429 450,429 (2) -0- progress Accum. Deprec. (388,092) 29,556 (3) (358,536) CIAC ( 51,506) 16,870 (4) ( 34,636) Accum. Deprec-CIAC 3,238 (676)(5) 2,562 Working Capital 12,198 (446)(6) 11,752 Income tax lag (161) (14,448)(7) ( 14,609) RATE BASE $2,458,567 $1,576,515 Adjusts plant in service by (a) recalculating the balance to reflect a 13-month average balance in lieu of a year-end balance, and (b) capitalizing the costs of a dehumidifier and sprinkler system previously expensed. Removes construction work in progress for sewer lines, lift stations and-related items in the utility's housing area No. 3 that pertain to post-test period operations and that will be revenue producing plant in the future. Adjusts accumulated depreciation to reflect the use of a 13-month average balance rather than a year end balance. Restates contributions in aid of construction from a year-end balance to a 13-month average balance. Adjusts the balance in the accumulated depreciation on CIAC account to reflect the use of a 13-month average balance in lieu of a yearn-end balance. Restates the working capital allowance to reflect one-eighth of operation and maintenance expenses. Adjusts income tax lag to reflect the tax lag resulting from the additional revenues being recommended. Net Operating Income Exhibit No. 3 shows adjusted test year gross operating revenues of $392,062 for sewer operations. Net operating income for the same time period was $171,608. The respondent agency has proposed four adjustments which collectively decrease the utility's net operating income to $142,843. The adjustments affect operation and maintenance expenses, depreciation expense, interest, and income tax expense. The adjustment to operation and maintenance expense reclassifies to the plant account certain costs improperly recorded as expenses, normalizes test year operations by spreading painting costs over a 3- year period, and eliminates testing costs no longer incurred by the utility. Depreciation expense has been overstated because of the use of an improper annual accrual rate, and the erroneous application of such rate to contributed property. See Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes. Interest expense should be recorded as a non- operating expense pursuant to Rule 25-10.04, supra. An increase in income tax expense is required to compensate the utility for the added tax liability occasioned by the additional revenues being recommended. The adjusted net operating income for the test year and a description of the adjustments made in arriving at that amount are shown oil the following schedule. Spring Hill Utilities Net Operating Income Year Ended UTILITY December 31, 1978 ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTED TEST YEAR Operating Revenues Operating Expenses: Oper. & Maint. $392,062 97,582 -0- (3,564)(1) $392,062 94,018 Depreciation 61,178 (12,924)(2) 48,254 Other Taxes 33,902 -0- 33,902 Other Interest 661 (661)(3) -0- Income Taxes 27,131 45,914 (4) 73,045 TOTAL $220,454 $174,495 $240,219 NET OPERATING INCOME $171,608 $142,843 Adjusts operation and maintenance expenses by (a) removing the cost of a dehumidifier and sprinklers that were improperly expensed, (b) amortizing the cost of paintingsupplies over a 3-year period in lieu of charging all costs to test year operations alone, and (c) eliminating costs related to monthly testing services. Recomputes depreciation expense by (a) using a 2.5 percent composite rate on average depreciable plant in service, and (b) eliminating depreciation expense on the average balance of CIAC. Deducts interest expense from operating expenses in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts as adopted by Rule 25-10.04, Florida Administrative Code. Increases income tax expense to reflect the additional taxes associated with the recommended increase in revenues. Cost of Capital The utility has not requested a change in Its cost of capital. The Commission last prescribed a rate of return of 9.58 percent for the utility in Order No.6596, dated March 28, 1975, in Docket No. 74664-WS. Because no significant changes in capital costs have occurred since this time, and the requested revenues produce a return lower than that presently authorized, the subject of of return is not at issue. Revenue Requirements When applied to the adjusted rate base, the requested revenues produce an overall rate of return of 9.10 percent on sewer operations, which is below the present authorized rate of return of 9.58 percent. Accordingly, the utility should be permitted to file revised tariff sheets to generate this amount of additional annual gross revenues on a permanent basis. Rate Structure Sewer charges are now assessed on a flat rate basis. This means a customer pays a flat rate each month for sewer service regardless of consumption. This type of rate structure does not allow a customer to control the amount of his bill through personal consumption measures, nor does it allocate the fixed costs to provide service in a fair and impartial manner. A base facilities charge will remedy these two deficiencies. Under this type of rate structure, a minimum charge will be assessed to recover the fixed or base costs for providing sewer service, such as depreciation, taxes and a portion of billing and collecting expenses. Thereafter, a variable charge for each thousand gallons used will be made to recover the costs of purchased water, transmission and treatment expenses, and a portion of billing, collecting and customer accounting expenses. Because this type of rate structure offers greater control to the customer as to the amount of his bill, and allocates costs in an equitable manner, it should be accepted. The utility has requested authority to increase its minimum deposit for sewer service from $10 to $20. The present minimum deposit is predicated upon the rate level that existed prior to this application being filed. With the approval of higher rates, the average customer bill will also rise. Be cause the customer deposit is intended to guarantee the payment of customer bills, a higher deposit is necessary to provide the utility with adequate protection for the higher level of monthly charges. The utility should be authorized to file revised tariff sheets consistent with Rule 25-10.72(1), Florida Administrative Code, to increase its minimum deposit to the requested level.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Deltona Utilities, Inc., Spring Hill Division, 1639 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida 33512, be granted and that the utility be authorized to file new tariffs to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission that will generate additional annual gross sewer revenues of $99,296. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement a base facilities charge in structuring its sewer rates. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be permitted to increase its customer deposits for sewer service from $10 to $20. It is further RECOMMENDED that the bond filed by the utility be returned for cancellation. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED on this 7th day August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: E. Austin White, Esquire 3250 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 William H. Harrold, Esquire 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of DELTONA UTILITIES, INC., SPRING HILL DOCKET NO. 790503-5 (CR) DIVISION, for an increase in sewer ORDER NO. 9607 rates to its customers in Hernando ISSUED: 10-24-80 County, Florida. DOAH CASE NO. 80-1194 / The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: ROBERT T. MANN, Chairman JOSEPH P. CRESSE GERALD L. GUNTER JOHN R. MARKS, III WILLIAM T. MAYO Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 5, 1980, in Spring Hill, Florida, on the application of Deltona Utilities, Inc. for an increase in its sewer rates in Hernando County, Florida. APPEARANCES: E. AUSTIN WHITE Attorney at Law 3250 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 On behalf of the Applicant, Deltona Utilities, Inc. WILLIAM H. HARROLD Staff Counsel 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 On behalf of the Florida Public Service Commission Staff and the Public generally. The Hearing Officers Recommended Order was served on August 7, 1980. Timely exceptions thereto were filed on August 22, 1980. After consideration of the evidence, we now enter our order.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's facility is a public water system subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) pursuant to Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, or whether it is exempt from those regulations by virtue of Rule 17-22.102 if the facility is subject to regulation by DER, whether Respondent should take the corrective actions set forth in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action and should pay DER's expenses incurred in the pursuit of this case. DER presented the testimony of Cliff McKeown, a potable water engineer, and Linda Frohock, planning manager for the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DER had Exhibits 1-4 admitted into evidence. Respondent, Lex Thompson, presented his own testimony and that of Hugh Kelly. The parties have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. They have been considered and a ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact DER is the Florida administrative agency which has the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of the Florida Safe Water Drinking Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent is a natural person and citizen of the State of Florida. Respondent owns and is responsible for the construction of a potable water distribution main extension ("the facility") which serves a subdivision known as High Bluff Acres-near the community of Midway in Gadsden County, Florida. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On February 1, 1980, Respondent was issued construction permit number DS20-27385 for the facility. The construction permit described the facility as a potable water distribution main extension to the Talquin Electric Company's Midway water- system. The project was to be constructed with approximately 940 linear feet of four inch PVC valves and appurtenances. Specific condition number 15 of the permit restricted operation of the extension until department approval was issued. This approval would be granted upon receipt of certification by the engineer of record as to construction in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and receipt of two satisfactory bacteriological analyses. DER has not received this information and had not issued an approval for use of the facility. The construction permit expired on September 1, 1981. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent modified the facility by constructing it with 550 feet of one inch to one and one-half inch PVC water mains. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER conducted an inspection of the facility on February 23, 1982. The facility was found to be in use without final DER approval. By letter dated February 26, 1982, DER notified Respondent of his non-compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested Respondent to submit specified compliance items. (See Prehearing Stipulation). In October of 1982, DER personnel contacted Respondent . by telephone. Respondent agreed to obtain a permit renewal and modify the unauthorized water line as soon as funds in the form of rent were released by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). On November 1, 1982, DCA notified DER that payments were being made. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On June 8, 1983, DER notified Respondent of his non- compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested a reply on actions to be taken to correct the deficiency. By letters dated October 18, 1984, and December 17, 1984, DER notified Respondent that the facility was not approved for use. Respondent was further requested to inform DER as to the status of the facility. DER received no response to these requests. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility was not constructed in accordance with DER-approved plans, and DER has issued no written approval or consent for alterations to the system. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent placed the facility in service without submitting a certification of completion and a copy of satisfactory bacteriological results to DER for approval and clearance. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility is not designed to provide maximum hourly system demand without development of distribution pressure lower than 20 psi. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER has incurred costs and expenses in the pursuit of this case in the amount of $453.50. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent's facility consists of distribution and storage facilities only and does not have any collection or treatment facilities. It obtains all its water from and is not owned or operated by the Talquin Electric System. Further, Respondent is not a carrier which conveys passengers in interstate commerce. (See Prehearing Stipulation) The public water distribution system constructed by Respondent is connected to twenty dwelling units in twelve structures. The High Bluff Acres subdivision is a government- subsidized, but privately-owned, low-income housing development, wherein DCA, acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), subsidizes the payment of rent for the housing. Respondent entered into several agreements on behalf of Salter, Stephens and Thompson, with the DCA to rehabilitate existing structures at High Bluff Acres and thus qualify for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Assistance Program (HAP) established by HUD. The purpose for entering into the HAP contracts is to provide low cost housing to low income persons. These agreements were entered into over a period of several months during 1981 and 1982. Upon satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation pursuant to the agreements, Respondent entered into a HAP contract for each structure in High Bluff Acres, for a total of twelve structures (20 dwelling units). The HAP contract establishes the contract rent that can be allowed for each individual dwelling unit in a structure (the contract covers one structure). The contract rent is calculated according to a formula established by HUD for such purposes, and includes monetary allowances for utilities or other services which are provided by the owner. It does allow the lessor to recover his capital expenses in rehabilitating an individual housing unit. DER Exhibits 3 and 4 are two of the twelve HAP contracts entered into by the Department of Community Affairs and Respondent, Lex Thompson. Each of these contracts has an Exhibit B which is entitled "statement of services, maintenance and , utilities to be provided by owner." These exhibits show that Respondent has agreed to provide water to the units under the HAP contract. Contract rents paid to Respondent as authorized agent for the partnership include an allocation of money to reimburse Respondent for providing water to the tenants in the dwelling units. However, subsequent to Thompson's and DCA's entering into the contracts for payment of these rental subsidies, Respondent notified DCA that he had incurred additional capital expenses. Since his rental payments were already at the maximum allowable rate, however, Respondent did not seek to modify the aforementioned contracts because the amendment would not result in any greater payment of monies to him. At no time has Respondent amended the terms of the HAP contracts with respect to provision of water to the tenants at High Bluff Acres. He is still receiving the reimbursement for provision of water to tenants. The general partnership which had been receiving contract rents for the dwelling units was dissolved in May, 1985, and the contracts for each structure were assigned to various individuals. Respondent, individually, owns one structure and his wife owns another. DER has received no potable water quality or quantity complaints regarding the High Bluff Acres subdivision. Moreover, the potable water system existing in the High Bluff Acres subdivision does not constitute a present threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein order the following corrective actions: That within 45 days, Respondent shall hire an engineer registered in Florida to design a new distribution system for High Bluff Acres or modifications to the existing system, and submit a completed application to the Department for a permit to construct or modify the system. That within 60 days of issuance of the permit, Respondent shall have the distribution system installed, tested(including pressure testing, bacterial testing, disinfectant-testing) and shall have the engineer sign and seal the plans indicating to the Department that the system conforms with the approved plans, and both DER and American Water Works Association standards. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be ordered to pay the Department's costs and expenses in the amount of $453.50, and that same be paid to the Department by cashier's check within 30days. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESL1NG 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 4th day of November, 1985 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 13). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 4 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 17). Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 18). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 19). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 22). Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 21). Rulings on Respondents Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 1). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 2). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 3). Proposed Finding of Fact 4, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 4). The second sentence is rejected as being unsupported by the evidence and irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 5). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 6). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 7). Proposed Finding of Fact 8, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 8). The remainder of Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 9 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 12). Proposed Finding of Fact 10 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 14). Proposed Finding of Fact 11 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Facts 19 and 20). Proposed Finding of Fact 12 is rejected as unsupported by the evidence, irrelevant and conclusory. Proposed Finding of Fact 13 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 23), except that it is rejected as it relates to a potential threat because that portion is unsupported by the competent, credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Clare E. Gray, Esquire Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William L. Hyde, Esquire 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) should issue a consumptive use permit (CUP) in response to Application Number 99052 filed by the City of Titusville and, if so, what CUP terms are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Area II and III Wellfields On February 10, 1998, the District issued CUP 10647 to the City of Titusville, authorizing the withdrawal of an annual average of 6.5 mgd from the City's Area II and Area III Wellfields, 5.4 from Area II and 1.1 from Area III. These wellfields are owned and operated by the City and are located within its municipal boundaries. They produce water from the SAS. The Area II Wellfield is located near I-95 in the northeastern portion of the City and consists of shallow wells primarily constructed between 1955 and 2002. It consists of 53 production wells, of which 31 are considered to be of primary use. The City replaced 16 Area II production wells in 1995 and 4 production wells in 2000 and is currently considering the replacement of 4 additional wells. The Area III Wellfield is located in the south-central portion of the City’s service area. It consists of 35 production wells, of which 18 are considered to be of primary use. Petitioners contend that both the "safe yield" (the quantity of water the City can withdraw without degrading the water resource) and the "reliable yield" (the quantity of water the City can dependably withdraw) of the Area II and III Wellfields are the permitted limits of 5.4 and 1.1 mgd, respectively. The City and the District contend that saline intrusion into the SAS has reduced the safe and reliable yields to significantly less than the permitted amounts at this time. Historically, the Area II Wellfield was the most productive wellfield. Prior to 1988, the City relied entirely on the Area II Wellfield and pumped almost 5 mgd from it at times. Since then, several Area II wells have shown signs of water quality degradation that has resulted in a reduction in pumping to better stabilize water quality levels. For the past five years, the City has only pumped approximately 3 mgd on an annual average basis from the Area II Wellfield. Chloride concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l have been recorded in 16 Area II production wells. Chloride concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l have been recorded in 22 Area III production wells. About 10 wells in the Area II and III Wellfields have been abandoned because of water quality degradation. At the Area II Wellfields there are 10 wells whose use is impaired because of water quality issues. At the Area III Wellfields there are 15 wells whose use is impaired because of water quality issues. Area III has had serious chloride problems, with concentrations at or near 200 mg/l for much of the mid-90's. In the Area III Wellfield, the Anastasia wells have the best water quality. However, these wells have also seen increasing concentrations of chlorides, with one well over 200 mg/l. According to information introduced into evidence by the City, it appears that Area III began to have chloride problems primarily due to over-pumping.5 The City pumped far in excess of permit limits from Area III during the early 1990's, including almost twice the permit limit in 1990 and 1.5 times the limit in 1991. While chlorides were between 77 and 92 mg/l in 1990-92, they began to rise in 1993 and were between 192 and 202 mg/l for the rest of the decade. Area III production declined in 1997 to approximately 0.66 mgd and declined further to a low of approximately 0.5 mgd in 1999. In 2000, chlorides fell to approximately 138 mg/l and then rose to approximately 150 mg/l in 2002-04, while production gradually rose to close to the permit limit in 2002 and 2003, before dipping to 0.75 mgd in 2004. In 2005, production was back up to 1 mgd, and chlorides were approximately 87 mg/l. During the five years from 2001 through 2005, the City has pumped an annual average rate of approximately 1 mgd from Area III. In contrast, Area II has not been over-pumped during the same time period. Area II production generally declined from a high of 4.146 mgd in 1992 to a low of 2.525 mgd in 2000, except for an increase of approximately 0.25 mgd between 1997 and 1998. During this time, chlorides generally declined from a high of 124 mg/l in 1993 to approximately 68 mg/l in 2000, with the exception of a rise to approximately 111 mg/l in 1999. Area II production then generally increased through 2003 to approximately 3.000 mgd, where it remained in 2004 before declining to approximately 2.770 mgd in 2005. Area II chlorides were approximately 113 mg/l in 2001, 109 in 2002, 86 in 2003, 76 in 2004, and 83 in 2005. During the five years from 2001 through 2005, the City has pumped only an annual average rate of 2.86 mgd. In 1995, the City entered into a contract with the City of Cocoa requiring the City to pay for at least 1 mgd each year, whether the City actually takes the water or not (the "take-or-pay" clause). Using the Cocoa water allowed the City to reduce production from Area III without a corresponding increase in production from Area II. Water conservation measures implemented since 1998, including conservation rates, have since reduced per capita water use. In 2002, the contractual take-or-pay requirement was reduced to 0.5 mgd. After 2002, purchases of Cocoa water have amounted to 0.576, 0.712, and 0.372 mgd on an annual average basis. As a result, since at least 1990 Area II has not been required to produce at its permitted limit. It is not clear exactly what the City believes to be safe and reliable yields at this time from Areas II and III. In its PRO, the City took the position that the total reliable yield is 3.5 to 4 mgd, of which 2.25 to 2.5 mgd is attributable to the Area II Wellfield and 0.75 mgd is attributable to the Area III Wellfield. However, its consultant, Mr. Patrick Barnes, testified that the City's current reliable yields are 3 mgd from Area II and 1 or 1.1 mgd from Area III. He testified that the safe yield from Area II would be approximately 3.5 mgd. The District has not formulated an opinion as to the exact of amount of water that can be produced from the Area II and III Wellfields on a sustainable basis. However, the District believes that recent production levels, which have resulted in a stabilization of chloride concentrations, may be the most production that can be sustained from these facilities without adverse water resource impacts. That would mean approximately 4.5 mgd on an annual average basis from Areas II and III combined. It might be possible for the City to expand the reliable yield of the Area II Wellfield by constructing additional wells or through some other measures. But Brevard County’s North Brevard Wellfield, located immediately north of the City’s Area II Wellfield, utilizes the same SAS used by the Area II Wellfield, and Brevard County recently received an increased permitted allocation from the District for this facility. This would limit the City’s ability to expand the current production of water from the Area II Wellfield. Other limitations on expansion of production from Areas II and III include: the relatively high risk of contamination of the SAS from pollution sources such as underground petroleum storage tanks; the limited space available in an increasingly urbanized area for the construction of new wells; the chronic bio-fouling and encrustation of wells due to the high iron content of the SAS; and the low specific capacity of each production well. For these reasons, it is not clear at this point in time whether it is possible to sustain more water production from Areas II and III than the City has pumped in recent years. B. Area IV Application and TSR On March 6, 2001, the City of Titusville submitted its application to modify CUP 10647. Included in this application was a proposal to add a new Area IV Wellfield in northwest Brevard County to pump up to 2.75 mgd from the UFAS. The District issued a series of seven Requests for Additional Information in between April 5, 2001, and March 23, 2004. On December 15, 2004, the District issued its initial TSR for the CUP modification application. That TSR proposed to authorize the use of 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the proposed Area IV Wellfield and 3.3 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the existing Area II and Area III Wellfields to serve a projected population of 56,565 in 2008. There was no request to extend or renew the permit, which expires February 10, 2008. Miami Corporation filed a petition challenging this TSR. On May 13, 2005, the City submitted a revised application for a separate Individual CUP for the Area IV Wellfield, rather than modifying its existing CUP 10647 to include the new wellfield, with a permit expiration of December 31, 2010. On May 25, 2005, the staff issued a revised TSR. That TSR proposed a new permit to authorize up to 2.75 mgd of groundwater from the UFAS and 0.178 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the proposed Area IV Wellfield to serve a projected population of 59,660 in 2010. The revised TSR noted that the proposed permit expiration date for the Area II and Area III Wellfields would remain February 10, 2008. Vergie Clark filed a petition challenging the revised TSR, as did Miami Corporation. After various notices on the TSR and the revised TSR to interested persons in Brevard County, in August 2005 the District issued additional notice to interested persons in Orange, Seminole and Volusia Counties. As a result, all required public notices have been issued. On March 14, 2006, the City again revised its application, and on May 1, 2006, the District issued its second revised, and final, TSR--which is the TSR now at issue. The TSR at issue recommended that a CUP be issued to Titusville for 2.75 mgd of groundwater from the UFAS and .18 mgd of groundwater from the SAS for wetland hydration and aquifer recharge from the Area IV Wellfield on an annual average basis to serve a projected population of 63,036 in 2010. This TSR provided that the proposed permit would expire December 31, 2010. TSR at Issue Water Use Allocation The CUP recommended by the TSR would only grant the City a water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield for 2009 and 2010. The recommended CUP would allow the City to withdraw water from the Area IV Wellfield at an annual average rate of 2.75 mgd during those years for public supply. (Other Condition 4) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 3.85 mgd during the four consecutive months of the dry season, which can occur during any time of the year. If 3.85 mgd is withdrawn during this four-month period, the withdrawal rate for the remaining 8 months cannot exceed 2.21 mgd. (Other Condition 8) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 4.41 mgd during any single month. (Other Condition 7) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 6.5 mgd during any single day during a severe drought, when the existing sources (meaning Areas II and III) cannot be used without inducing water quality degradation or exceeding permitted quantities. (Other Condition 9) The CUP recommended by the TSR would allow the City to withdraw water from the SAS extraction wells at an annual average rate of up to 0.178 mgd in 2009 and 2010 for wetland hydration and surficial aquifer recharge. (Other Condition 6) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the withdrawal of water from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields to a combined annual average rate of 5.79 mgd in 2009 and a combined annual average rate of 6.01 mgd in 2010. The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the withdrawal of water from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields to a combined maximum daily rate of 8.88 mgd in 2009 and 9.0 mgd in 2010. (Other Conditions 5, 9) The CUP recommended by the TSR would reduce Titusville's combined annual average and maximum daily allocations from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields in 2009 and 2010 by an amount equivalent to the quantity of water purchased from the City of Cocoa during each year. (Other Conditions 5, 9) Other Condition 10 in the recommended by the TSR notifies the City that nonuse of the water supply allocated by the CUP for two years or more is grounds for revocation by the District's Governing Board, permanently and in whole, unless the City can prove that its nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the City's control. Permit Duration The CUP recommended by the TSR would not allow the City to withdraw water from the Area IV Wellfield earlier than January 1, 2009; as indicated, it would expire on December 31, 2010. (Other Conditions 2, 4). Saline Water Intrusion The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to implement the proposed saline water monitoring plan by sampling and analyzing Saline Water Monitor Wells SWMW 1-6 and UFAS production wells 401, 403, 405, 407, 409, 411, 413 and 415 quarterly for water levels, chloride and total dissolved solids. (Other Condition 11) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to modify the allocation granted to the City in whole or in part or to otherwise curtail or abate the impact in the event of saline water intrusion. (Other Condition 14) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to cease withdrawal from any UFAS production well, if any quarterly water sample from that well shows a chloride concentration exceeding 250 mg/l. That same condition would limit the operation of any UFAS production well with a quarterly sample exceeding 250 mg/l to six hours per day with a minimum 24 hours recovery between pumping cycles if subsequent samples contain chloride concentrations between 200 mg/l and 249 mg/l. (Other Condition 25) Environmental Impacts and Avoidance and Minimization The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to implement the proposed environmental monitoring plan for hydrologic and photo- monitoring at 16 wetland sites within one year of permit issuance and to establish a baseline prior to the initiation of groundwater withdrawals. That same condition requires the City to collect water level data at each wetland site either on a daily or weekly basis and report to the District every six months in District-approved, computer-accessible format. (Other Condition 12) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to revoke the permit in whole or in part or to curtail or abate impacts should unanticipated adverse impacts occur to wetlands, lakes and spring flow. (Other Condition 23) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to require the City to implement the proposed avoidance and minimization plan should unanticipated impacts occur to Wetland A4-2 (a shallow marsh near the middle of the wellfield) within 90 days of notice by the District. That same permit condition authorizes the District to require the City to submit a wetland rehydration plan for any other adversely affected wetland within 30 days of notice by the District and to implement the plan without 90 days of approval by the District. The District would require the City to implement avoidance measures before the wetlands are actually allowed to suffer adverse impacts. (Other Condition 24) Impacts to Other Existing Legal Users of Water The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to require mitigation of any unanticipated interference to existing legal users of water due to withdrawals from the Area IV Wellfield. Mitigation may include installation of a new pump or motor, installation of additional drop pipe, new electrical wiring, connection with an existing water supply system, or other appropriate measures. (Other Condition 15) Water Conservation Measures and Reuse The City is implementing extensive water conservation measures. The City’s water conservation plan includes public education measures (e.g., televised public service announcements, helping to create water conservation videos and distributing them to the public, commissioning an award winning native plant mural, providing exhibits and speakers for public events), toilet and showerhead retrofits, and a water conservation based rate structure. A water conservation rate structure provides the potable water customer with an economic incentive to use less water. The most common conservation rate structure is a tiered-rate whereby the cost per gallon of water increases as the customer uses more water. While the District reviews the rate structure to evaluate whether it will achieve conservation, it does not mandate the cost per gallon of water. An audit of the City’s potable water distribution system was conducted and recent water use records were evaluated to determine if all necessary water conservation measures were in place. The audit indicated that the potable water system has small unaccounted-for water losses, approximately 6.5 percent, and relatively low residential per capita water use. The City has implemented a water conservation plan that implements rule requirements; as a result, the City has provided reasonable assurance that it is implementing all available water conservation measures that are economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible. The City cannot use reclaimed water to meet its potable water demands associated with direct human consumption and food preparation. However, reclaimed water can be used to replace that part of the City’s allocation that is associated with irrigation-type uses. The City has operated a reclaimed water reuse system since 1996. It is projected that 67 percent of the available wastewater flows will be utilized by 2010 for irrigation, with the remainder going to a wetland system during wet weather periods when irrigation demands are low. The City is using reclaimed water to the extent it is economically, environmentally and technologically feasible. In the case of public supply, the District looks to the amount of water requested for each person in a projected population in determining whether the water will be used efficiently. The metric that the District normally considers when conducting this part of the evaluation is the per capita usage. Population Projections and Per Capita Water Use As indicated, the proposed CUP would expire on December 31, 2010. Although the City and District would anticipate an application for renewal to be filed, demand for water projected beyond December 31, 2010, is not relevant to the need for the proposed CUP. In the case of public supply, projected demand for water usually is calculated by multiplying the projected population times per capita water use. Gross per capita (“GPC”) use in gallons per day (gpd) is the type of metric normally used to project demand for public supply of water. It is based on residential use and all other water uses supplied by the utility, including commercial, industrial, hotel/motel, and other type uses. That includes supply necessary to meet peak demands and emergencies. DEP requires that every public water supply system have an adequate water supply to meet peak demands for fire protection and health and safety reasons. If peak demands are not met, a major fire or other similar catastrophe could depressurize a public water system and possibly cause water quality problems. Projections of need for water in the future must take into account peak demands and emergency needs. Water used for those purposes is included in the historical average daily flows (ADF) from which historical GPC is derived. Unless there is good information to the contrary, in projecting GPC one assumes that those uses will increase roughly in proportion to the residential use. City's Projection Contending that the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) does not estimate or project population for municipalities, and that BEBR projections are based on historical trends that would under-project population in the City, the City used a different source and method to project population in the City's water service area on December 31, 2010. For its method, the City had Courtney Harris, its Planning Director, project the number of dwelling units that would be developed and occupied in 2011, calculating the additional people associated with each unit (based on the 2000 Census, which identified 2.32 as the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the City), and adding the resulting number to the City’s existing service area population as of 2005. The City's method yielded various results depending on when proposed developments in the City were reviewed. Ultimately, the City projected a population of 60,990 at the end of 2010. The City's method depends on the ability of its Planning Director to accurately predict the timing of new residential construction and sales, which is not easy to do (as indicated by the different results obtained by the City over time), since there are many factors affecting residential development and the real estate market. The ultimate predictions of the City's Planning Director assume that residential development will continue at an extraordinarily high pace although there already was evidence of downturn. The City's method also assumed that all new units will be sold (which, again, is contingent on market conditions) and fully occupied (although a 90 percent occupancy rate would be a more realistic.) The method also does not account for decreases in population in a number of areas in the Titusville service area (while overall population increased, mostly as a result of growth that has been occurring in a single census tract.) The City's witnesses then calculated a per capita water use rate by averaging the actual rates for the 11 years from 1995 through 2005, which resulted in projected per capita water use rate of 100.35, and a projected demand of 6.12 mgd at the end of 2010. The justification for averaging over 11 years, instead of the last five years, was that the last five years have been unusually wet, which would depress demand to some extent. However, using 11 years also increased the average water use by taking into account the higher use rates common before conservations measures, including conservation rates, went into effect (in particular, 123.75 gpd for 1995, 122.36 gpd for 1996, and 109.94 gpd for 1998.) Since 1998, and implementation of the conservation rates and other measures, water use rates have been significantly lower. While the average over the last 11 years was 100.35 gpd, the average over the last five years (from 2001- 2005) was just 92.15 gpd. Averaged since 1998, the City's water use rate has been 93.34 gpd. While wetter-than-normal conditions would be expected to depress water use to some extent due primarily to decreased lawn irrigation, many of the City's water customers have private irrigation wells for this purpose. Besides, Mr. Peterson, the City's Water Resources Manager, testified that not many of the City's water customers use potable water for lawn irrigation due to the new conservation rates. Petitioners' Projection Miami Corporation's population expert, Dr. Stanley Smith, is the Director of BEBR. Dr. Smith projected the population for the City's service area by first developing an estimate of the population of the water service area in 1990 and 2000 using block and block group data, and then using those estimates to create estimates from 2001-2005. Dr. Smith then projected population in the City's water service area using a methodology similar to what BEBR uses for county projections. Dr. Smith's methodology used three extrapolation techniques. He did not use a fourth technique, often used at BEBR, called shift-share, because he believed that, given Titusville's pattern of growth, using shift-share might produce projections that were too low. In developing his final projections, Dr. Smith also excluded the data from 1990 to 2000 because growth during that period was so slow that he felt that its inclusion might result in projections that were too low. Dr. Smith's approach varied slightly from the typical BEBR methodology in order to account for the fact that the City's growth has been faster since 2000. Dr. Smith applied an adjustment factor based on an assumption also used by the City's expert that 97.3 percent of the projected population within the City's water service area in 2010 would be served by the City. Using his method, Dr. Smith projected the population of the Titusville water service area to be 53,209 on December 31, 2010. Based on recent population estimates, Dr. Smith believes that, if anything, his projections are too high. It was Dr. Smith's opinion from the data that the annual increases for Titusville and the Titusville water service area peaked in 2003 and that they had been declining since that time. That was especially true of 2006, when the increase was the smallest that it had been for many years. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Drake, calculated a per capita water use rate by averaging the actual rates for the most recent five years (2002-2006), which resulted in a per capita water use rate of 89.08 gpd, and a projected demand of 4.74 mgd at the end of 2010. He also calculated a per capita water use rate for 2006, which came to 88.65 gpd, which would give a slightly lower projected demand of 4.72 mgd. Ultimate Finding of Projected Water Demand Based on all the evidence, it is found that Dr. Smith's projection of the population that will use City water on December 31, 2010, is more reasonable than the City's projections. The City and District contend that, regardless of the calculated per capita water use rate, it is appropriate to base the City's allocation on a rate of 100.35 gpd because 90 to 100 gpd is very conservative per capita water use rate for a public water supply utility. However, the allocation should be based on the best estimate of actual demand, not a general rate commonly assumed for water utilities, even if conservative. The City and District also contend that it is appropriate to base the City's allocation on a higher use rate because the climatic conditions experienced in the City over what they considered to be the most recent five years (2001- 2005) have been average-to-wet. More rainfall generally means less water use, and vice-versa, but the greater weight of the evidence proved that the City's demand for water has not varied much due to climatic conditions in recent years (after implementation of conservation measures, including conservation rates.) (City Exhibit 19, which purported to demonstrate the contrary, was proven to be inaccurate in that it showed significantly more water use during certain drier years than actually occurred.) However, in 2000--which was after the implementation of conservation rates and also the City's driest year on record (in approximately 75 years)--the water use rate was approximately 97.5 gallons per person per day. An average of the last eight years (1999-2006), which would include all years clearly responsive to the conservation rates as well as the driest year on record, would result in a per capita water use rate of approximately 92.8 gpd, and a projected demand of approximately 4.94 mgd by December 31, 2010. The District argues in its PRO that, because a CUP water allocation is a legal maximum, it would be inappropriate to base the City's water allocation on demand during a wet or even an average year (which, it says, would set the permittee up to violate its permit requirements 50 percent of the time). If, instead, the City's water allocation were based on demand during 2000, the driest year on record, projected demand would be approximately 5.2 mgd on December 31, 2010. Those calculated water allocations--i.e., either the 4.94 mgd or the 5.2 mgd--would then be compared to the probable safe and reliable yield of 4.5 mgd from Areas II and III to determine the deficit on an annual average basis. Allowing a reasonable margin of error for the uncertainties of the predictions involved, a reasonable maximum annual average allocation for the proposed Area IV Wellfield would be 0.75 mgd. Mr. Jenkins suggested in rebuttal that, if the need for water is less than that set out in the proposed CUP in the TSR at issue, a CUP should nonetheless be issued but with lower water allocations. While the evidence supports a reduction of the annual average limit from 2.75 mgd to 0.75 mgd, there was insufficient evidence to show how the other water allocation limits in the proposed CUP should be changed. For the past 12 years, the City of Titusville has been able to purchase water under a contract with the City of Cocoa to meet all of its demands, including any peak or emergency water demands. Under the take-or-pay provision in the contract currently in effect, the City must pay for 0.5 mgd and presumably would take and use at least that amount so long as the contract remains in effect. This would reduce the City's projected water supply deficit through the end of 2010, and the City could rely on the Cocoa contract to cover any additional demand through the end of 2010 without Area IV. However, under the contract, the City can give notice on or before April 1 of the year in which it intends to terminate the contract effective October 1 of the same year. If a CUP for Area IV is issued, the City could terminate the current contract effective as early as October 1, 2008. It also is possible that the contract could be negotiated so that its termination would coincide with the time when the Area IV Wellfield becomes operational if not near October 1 of the year. As indicated, even if the contract remains in place, to the extent that the City receives water from the City of Cocoa for potable use during either 2009 or 2010, the allocations under the proposed TSR will be reduced an amount equivalent to the quantity provided to the City by Cocoa in that year. Finally, as indicated, the existing CUP for Areas II and III is set to expire in February 2008. Although it is anticipated that the City will apply to renew the existing CUP for Areas II and III, and that the District will approve a renewal at some level, it is not clear how much production will be approved for Areas II and III for the years 2009 and 2010. Meanwhile, the CUP proposed for Area IV provides that the combined annual groundwater withdrawals for public supply for the Areas II, III, and IV may not exceed 5.79 mgd for 2009 and 6.01 mgd in 2010. Based on the findings in this case, those figures should be reduced to no more than 5.2 mgd, and it must be anticipated that a similar condition would be placed on any renewal of the existing CUP for Areas II and III as well. Site Investigation At the time the City decided to apply for a CUP for Area IV, it was known that the UFAS in much of Brevard County was not suitable as a source of potable water supply, but there was believed to be a tongue of the UFAS in the northwest corner of the County and extending towards the southeast, and narrowing in that direction, that might be suitable for that purpose, particularly in the upper part of the aquifer. Because there was insufficient information to adequately evaluate the whether proposed Area IV, which was located along the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Right-of-Way (ROW), could be used for that purpose, the City’s consultant, Barnes, Ferland and Associates (BFA), designed a drilling and testing program to collect site-specific information in order to characterize the groundwater quality, identify the thickness of the freshwater zone in the UFAS, and determine hydraulic parameters for the groundwater system. In addition, DRMP conducted an environmental assessment of the Area IV Wellfield and surrounding property. The drilling and testing program designed by BFA for the Area IV Wellfield was similar to other hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the region with respect to wellfields operated by the City of Edgewater, the City of New Smyrna Beach, the City of Ormond Beach, the Orlando Utilities Commission and Orange County. The drilling and testing program for the Area IV Wellfield included Time-Domain Electromagnetic Mapping ("TDEM") performed by SDII Global, a consultant retained by the District. TDEM is not typically used for the hydrogeologic investigation of a new wellfield. The TDEM technique involves estimating the depth to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentration in the groundwater system using electrical resistivity probes. The technique was applied at four locations along the FEC Right-of- Way. In addition to the TDEM study, BFA installed three test production wells along the FEC ROW, collected lithologic samples with depth, performed borehole aquifer performance and step drawdown tests at two test sites and recorded water quality with depth through grab and packer samples. The northernmost test production well was Test Site 1, which corresponds to Area IV production well 401. The middle test production well was Test Site 3, which corresponds to either Area IV Well 412 or Area IV Well 413. The southernmost test production well was Test Site 2, which is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the southernmost Area IV production well. Test Sites 1 and 2 were constructed first and Test Site 3 was drilled later because of unfavorable water quality conditions encountered at Test Site 2. Test Site 1 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 430 feet southeast of the Volusia-Brevard County line. At Test Site 1, BFA installed a test-production well (UF-1D), a UFAS monitor well (UF-1S), and a SAS monitor well (SA-1) in 2001. In 2005 BFA installed two additional SAS monitor wells (MW-1 and RW-1) near Test Site 1. The test production well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet below land surface and then back-plugged to a depth of 250 feet below land surface and cased to a depth of 105-110 feet below land surface. Test Site 2 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Volusia-Brevard County line. At Test Site 2, BFA installed a single UFAS Monitor Well (UF-2S). The monitor well was drilled to a total depth of 210-220 feet below land surface. Test Site 3 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the Brevard-Volusia County line. At Test Site 3, BFA installed a test production well (UF-3D), a UFAS monitor well (UF-3S), and a SAS monitor well (SA-3). The test production well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet below land surface and then back-plugged to a depth of 210 below land surface.. Since Test Site 3 is either Area IV Well 412 or 413, and assuming production well 415 will be located 1,200 feet southeast of Test Site 3, this means that Test Site 2 is located at least one mile southeast of the southernmost Area IV production well. Test Sites 4 and 6 are located approximately three miles southeast of Brevard-Volusia County line. SAS test production wells were constructed at both sites to a total depth of about 20-30 feet below land surface. The site-specific hydrogeologic data collected by BFA as part of the drilling and testing program verified the groundwater basin and flow direction shown in Figure 15 of City Exhibit 523. DRMP’s environmental assessment of the Area IV Wellfield spanned the period from 2002 through 2006. In Spring 2002, DRMP evaluated areas within the predicted 0.2 foot drawdown contour by assessing wetland vegetation, photographing wetlands, noting wetland hydrologic conditions, investigating soil condition and wildlife utilization and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Fall 2002, DRMP evaluated potential monitoring sites both on and off Miami Corporation's property by assessing wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, investigating soil conditions and wildlife utilization, evaluating surrounding land use and natural communities and locating suitable control sites. In Fall 2003, DRMP evaluated potential wetland monitoring sites near the southernmost Area IV production wells by assessing wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, investigating soil conditions and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Spring 2005, DRMP assessed wetlands surrounding the Area IV Wellfield by evaluating wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, photographing wetlands, investigating soil conditions, evaluating surrounding land use and natural communities and collecting GPS points. In Fall 2005, DRMP investigated the Clark property by evaluating wetland vegetation and hydrologic conditions, photographing wetlands, investigating soil conditions and wildlife utilization and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Spring 2006, DRMP developed a revised environmental monitoring plan and avoidance and minimization plan based on the new SDI MODFLOW Model by locating the final wetlands monitoring sites, developing the hydrologic and vegetative monitoring protocol, establishing the scope of the baseline study, reviewing the preliminary pipeline routing, construction and discharge inlet structures and preparing and submitting plan documents to the District. DRMP evaluated the occurrence of listed animal and plant species in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield as part of its environmental assessment. DRMP reviewed the Natural Areas Inventory for the Area IV Wellfield site, which identifies occurrences of listed species within a designated area. Additionally, DRMP made note of animal and plant species during the site visits in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. DRMP evaluated the Farmton Mitigation Bank as part of its environmental assessment. DRMP reviewed the permit files for the Farmton Mitigation Banks, including the annual environmental monitoring reports prepared by Miami’s consultants. In 2005, DRMP conducted a field assessment of the Clark property including a thorough investigation of the fish pond, which Petitioners claim was adversely impacted during one or more of the APTs conducted by the City at the Area IV Wellfield. It was not necessary for the City’s environmental consultants to visit each and every wetland in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield. Typically, only representative wetland sites are visited during the environmental assessment process. The scope of the City's hydrologic and environmental investigation of the Area IV Wellfield was adequate and consistent with industry standards and the District protocol for testing aquifers and characterizing aquifer performance and groundwater quality at the site. Nonetheless, Petitioners contend that there were serious deficiencies in the investigation's implementation and that additional investigation should have been performed. Hydrostratigraphy The SAS at the Area IV Wellfield is 40-to-50 feet deep and is composed primarily of unconsolidated sand, shell and silt. The intermediate confining unit (ICU) at the Area IV Wellfield consists of the Hawthorne Group and ranges in thickness from 40 to 60 feet. The top of the ICU is located 40- 50 feet below land surface and the bottom of the ICU is located 100 feet below land surface. This unit is composed of varying amounts of sand, shell, silt, indurated sandstone, clay, and some limestone. It tends to restrict the movement of water from the SAS to the UFAS. The UFAS at the Area IV Wellfield is a fairly homogenous limestone unit, which starts approximately 100 feet below land surface and extends to about 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level. It consists of the Ocala Group and grades into the upper portion of the Avon Park Formation. The middle confining unit (MCU) at the Area IV Wellfield starts at approximately 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level and ends approximately 1,000 feet below land surface. It comprises a denser, fine-grained dolomitic limestone within the Avon Park Formation. The MCU restricts the movement of water between the UFAS and LFAS. The location of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield was determined by examining cuttings and video logs collected during drilling performed at Test Sites 1 and 3 and by measuring various properties of the aquifer with down-hole geophysical techniques. The MCU can be distinguished from the UFAS by the presence of both dolomite and limestone. The lithologic log for Test Site 1 indicates the presence of gray/tan limestone between 450 and 460 feet below land surface and light/gray limestone and dolomitic limestone between 460 and 470 feet below land surface. The lithologic log for Test Site 3 indicates the presence of tan dolomitic limestone between 450 and 460 feet below land surface and tan limestone and dolomitic limestone between 460 and 470 feet below land surface. After examining the video log for Test Site 1, Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Thomas Missimer, noted a “lithologic change” at 477 feet below land surface. Other characteristics of the MCU are a lower resistivity and a sharp decrease in flow. The data collected at Test Site 1 shows a reduction in resistivity at approximately 470 feet below land surface. The flow meter log for Test Site 1 exhibits a decrease in flow at approximately 450 feet below land surface. Petitioners’ experts, Thomas Missimer, Alge Merry, and Bruce Lafrenz contend that the top of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield is located deeper than 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level. This contention is based on regional reports, the geophysical logs reported by BFA, and one of the packer tests conducted at the bottom of the test wells that showed a pumping rate of 85 gpm. The greater weight of evidence indicates the top of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield starts at the elevation identified by BFA. The regional reports are not based on data collected from the immediate vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield. Additionally, the BFA's professional geologists who determined the top of the MCU included Joel Kimrey, who was the former head of the local USGS office, and had more experience with the hydrogeology of the MCU in Brevard and Volusia than any of the Petitioners’ geologic experts. Also, the BFA geologists had access to the drill cuttings, which were unavailable to the Petitioners’ experts when they made their determination. Finally, the pumping rate recorded during the packer test could be explained by an area of higher permeability within the MCU. More likely, the packer may have been partially open to the bottom of the UFAS. The Lower Floridan Aquifer System (LFAS) starts at about 1,000 feet below land surface and ends approximately 2,300 feet below land surface. Head Difference Data Head refers to the pressure within an aquifer. In an unconfined aquifer, it is the water table. In a confined or semi-confined aquifer, it is the level to which water would rise in a well penetrating into the aquifer. Head difference refers to the numerical difference between two water levels either in different aquifer at the same location or different locations in the same aquifer. In the context of the Area IV Wellfield, static head difference is the difference between the elevation of the water table in the SAS and the elevation of the potentiometric surface of the UFAS under non-pumping conditions at the same location. The static head difference reflects the degree of confinement in the ICU. If the static head difference between the SAS and UFAS is a large number, this indicates a high degree of confinement between the two systems. BFA took static head measurements at SAS and UFAS monitor wells located at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 in January 2004, April 2004, and July 2006 and calculated the head difference based on those measurements. District expert, Richard Burklew, was present when the measurements were taken in April 2004 and July 2006 and verified the readings made by the City’s consultants. During all three sampling events a downward head gradient was noted at each site, which means the water table had a higher elevation than the potentiometric surface of the UFAS. In January 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 6.2 feet, 5.5 feet and 5.9 feet, respectively. In April 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1 and 3 were 8.1 feet and 8.1 feet, respectively. Finally, in July 2006, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 8.6 feet, 6.6 feet and 9.3 feet, respectively. The average of those observed head differences was 7.46 feet. At the time the head difference measurements were taken in July 2006, the region had experienced a rainfall deficit of 17 inches over the prior 12 months. Petitioners contend that the rainfall deficit may have skewed that head difference observation. However, according to the District’s expert, Richard Burklew, this would not necessarily have affected the head difference measurements because the hydrologic system would seek equilibrium, and the head difference would be the same. BFA collected static head difference measurements from Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 during both wet and dry seasons. The measurements do not show significant differences between seasons. Head difference data collected from hundreds of other Florida locations also do not show significant differences between seasons. This suggests that static head difference remains fairly constant at the Area IV Wellfield year round. Water level measurements taken by the City’s consultants from the wells on Clark’s property and reported in City Exhibit 52 do not determine static head difference between the SAS and UFAS because the exact construction of the wells was unknown, the completion depth of certain wells was unknown, the operational history of the wells was unknown, and the putative SAS well was located several hundred feet away from the UFAS well. For example, the depth of one of the wells is reported as 57 feet, which could easily be located in the ICU. If that is the case, then the head difference measured by comparing to the water level in this well would only be the head differential between the ICU and the UFAS. Finally, the Clark property is located in a more elevated region than Test Sites 1, 2, and 3, which means the water table will be lower and the head difference will be less than at the Area IV Wellfield. Water level measurements reported in the driller’s completion log for Wells 4175, 4176, 4177, and 5230 on Miami Corporation’s property do not determine static head difference between the SAS and UFAS because critical information concerning the construction of these wells is unknown. Additionally, the wells are much shallower than test production wells at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. The water level measurements reported in the driller’s completion log for Wells 4175, 4176, 4177, and 5230 are not necessarily inconsistent with head difference measurements collected by BFA at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. The head differences at these four well sites could be 6, 4, 7, and 6 feet, respectively, depending how the water measurements were made. Also, the measurements made by a driller could not be expected to be as accurate as measurements made by trained hydrologists. Further, if the soils in the vicinity of Well 4177 indicated a depth to water table of 5 feet below land surface, that would not necessarily be inconsistent with the head difference measurements collected by BFA at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. Depth to Water Table The depth to water table is defined as the difference between the land surface elevation and the head value in the SAS. The water table in the Area IV Wellfield area is consistently close to land surface and often above land surface. The construction of numerous above-grade forest roads and roadside ditches on the property surrounding the Area IV Wellfield has had the effect of impounding surface water and raising the water table near land surface. The Area IV Wellfield and vicinity have a variety of soil types. The predominant wetland soil type is Samsula Muck, which is classified as a very poorly drained soil with a water table either at or above land surface. The predominant upland soil type is Myakka Fine Sand, which is characterized by a water table within a foot of land surface during four months of the year and within 40 inches of land surface during remainder of the year. The average depth to water table at the Area IV Wellfield is approximately 1 foot based on soil types. SAS levels at the three Farmton Mitigation Banks were measured at piezometers installed by Miami Corporation’s consultants from 2001 through 2005. This data confirms the water table at the Area IV Wellfield is consistently close to land surface and frequently above land surface. It indicates the depth to water table is typically less than 3 feet and in many cases within a foot or two. Also, it does not matter whether any of the piezometers were located near wetlands because they show seasonal variation in water levels, where the water table changes from slightly above land surface to below land surface over the course of a year. A water table depth of 6-14 feet below land surface is not realistic at the Area IV Wellfield based on soil conditions and vegetation communities. Such a depth to water would be indicative of a landscape composed primarily of xeric scrub communities with few, if any wetlands. These types of communities do not exist near the Area IV Wellfield. Aquifer Performance Tests The flow of water through an aquifer is determined by three primary hydraulic coefficients or parameters: transmissivity; storage; and leakance. An aquifer performance test (APT) is a pumping test where water is removed from the well at a set rate for a set period of time and drawdown is measured in the well and in neighboring monitor wells to calculate the hydraulic properties of the hydrologic formation. The main hydraulic properties determined through an APT are transmissivity, leakance, and storativity. These properties are used to characterize the water production capabilities of the hydrologic formations. These properties are also used in groundwater modeling to project impacts for longer periods of time and larger distances. Aquifer parameters can be determined from an aquifer performance test using analytical "curve-matching" techniques or a groundwater flow model such as MODFLOW. Curve-matching techniques involve the creation of a curve through measurement of drawdown and the matching of that curve to standard curves derived using analytical equations. Hydraulic conductivity or “K” is the term used to describe the ability of a hydrogeologic unit to conduct fluid flow. It is usually expressed in terms of horizontal hydraulic conductivity or “Kx” and “Ky” and vertical hydraulic conductivity or “Kz.” Transmissivity is the term used to describe the rate of movement of water for a given thickness of a hydrogeologic unit. It is the hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer times its thickness. Storativity is the term used to describe the amount of water that is released from any aquifer for a given unit change in head, or the compressability of the aquifer system. This value can normally be determined during a 4-5 day aquifer performance test. Specific yield is the term used to describe the long- term capacity of an aquifer to store water. This value cannot normally be determined during a 4-5 day aquifer performance test. Leakance is the term used to describe the vertical movement of water from above or below a given unit in response to changes in head or pumpage. APTs are standard practice for evaluating the suitability of a new area for development as a wellfield. Three APTs were conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3. No aquifer performance tests were conducted at Test Site 2. Petitioners question whether the APTs for the Area IV Wellfield were conducted by BFA in accordance with the applicable standard of care in the hydrogeologic profession. The District’s expert, Richard Burklew, believes the three APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3 were adequate for purposes of determining appropriate aquifer parameters. Two APTs were conducted by BFA at Test Site 1. The first test was conducted on January 30-31, 2001, when Well UF-1D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 44-48 hours, and Wells UF-1S and SA-1 were used as monitor wells. The second test was conducted on April 8-12, 2003, when Well UF-1D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 96 hours, and Wells UF-1S and SA-1 were used as monitor wells. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,300 ft2/day and a storativity of about 0.00036 on the basis of the 2001 APT at Test Site 1. They were unable to calculate a leakance value because the drawdown data did not reasonably fit the curve- matching techniques. For that reason, BFA performed another APT at Test Site 1 in 2003. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,300 ft2/day, a storativity of 0.00045, and a leakance of 0.00029 day-1 on the basis of the 2003 APT at Test Site 1. One APT was conducted by BFA at Test Site 3 on April 10-13, 2001. Well UF-3D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 70 hours, and Wells UF-3S and SA-3 were used as monitor wells. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,450 ft2/day, a storativity of 0.0002, and a leakance of 0.00026 on the basis of the 2001 APT at Test Site 3. However, because of problems with the test, leakance was not considered a good match for the analytical techniques. Leakance values determined by BFA from the APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3 were based on the application of analytical curve-matching techniques. The leakance values determined through the conventional type curve-matching techniques employed by BFA are typically higher than the actual leakance values. They are also inherently limited because they assume the calculated leakance is due entirely to the ICU rather than a combination of the ICU and MCU as is the case at the Area IV Wellfield. The analytical techniques employed by BFA were unable to calculate separate leakance values for the ICU and the MCU. The best way to determine leakance values for each of these confining units was to use a MODFLOW model and observed head difference data. This was done by the City’s consultant, SDI, and is described in greater detail, infra. In January 2004, several APTs were conducted using two SAS wells referred to as Test Sites 4 and 6. These test sites are located more than 3 miles from the Clark property. Constant rate and variable rate APTs were conducted at both sites. During the constant rate tests, 230 gpm or about 0.33 mgd was pumped from the SAS well. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 2,500 ft2/day for the surficial aquifer at those locations. Water Quality Data Consistent with the general understanding of the freshwater groundwater tongue extending from Volusia into Brevard County, the TDEM performed by SDII Global indicated that the depths to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations decrease as one proceeds south along the FEC ROW. For example, the depths to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations were 442 feet and 542 feet, respectively, at the northernmost test site, which is somewhat north of the City’s Test Site 1. The depth to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations were 406 feet and 506 feet, respectively, at the southernmost test site, which is somewhat south of the City’s Test Site 2. Sixteen water quality grab samples were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 1 was drilled, beginning at 120 feet below land surface and ending at 500 feet below land surface. This type of sampling is referred to as drill-stem testing. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 480 feet below land surface were 59 mg/l and 879 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples did not exceed 250 mg/l until a depth of 460 feet below land surface was reached. Six water quality grab samples (drill-stem tests) were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 2 was drilled, beginning 120 feet below land surface and ending 210 feet below land surface. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 210 feet below land surface were 124 mg/l and 845 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples did not exceed 250 mg/l until a depth of 180 feet below land surface. Fourteen water quality grab samples (drill-stem tests), were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 3 was drilled, beginning at 120 feet below land surface and ending at 500 feet below land surface. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 500 feet below land surface were 45 mg/l and 90 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples never exceeded 90 mg/l. A packer test is a procedure used to isolate a particular well interval for testing. It is performed using an inflatable packer on the drill stem, which is placed at the interval to be blocked. The packer is inflated with water or air to isolate the interval to be sampled. A packer test can be used to collect water samples for analysis. Several water quality grab samples were collected in packer tests at specific depth intervals at Test Site 1. At the interval of 331-355 feet below land surface one sample was taken with a chloride concentration of 672 mg/l. At the interval of 331-400 feet below land surface, one sample was taken with a chloride concentration of 882 mg/l. Finally, at the interval of 442-500 feet below land surface two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 2,366 mg/l and 2,2712 mg/l. Several water quality grab samples were collected in packer tests at specific depth intervals at Test Site 3At the interval of 270-295 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 74 mg/l and 450 mg/l. At the interval of 340-400 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 64 mg/l and 134 mg/l. Finally, at the interval of 445-500 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 1,458 mg/l and 2,010 mg/l. No packer test samples were collected at Test Site 2, where it was clear that water quality was too poor to be used as a fresh groundwater source. The packer test samples collected at Test Sites 1 and 3 were collected using a higher pumping rate than typically recommended by the DEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Consequently, the chloride concentrations in these samples are probably higher than the chloride concentrations found in the undisturbed groundwater at those depths. Since the packer sits on top of the borehole and restricts flow from above, it generally is reasonable to assume that a packer test draws more water from below than from above the packer. However, if transmissivity is significantly greater just above the packer, it is possible that more water could enter the packer from above. Seven water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2001 APT at Test Site 1. The chloride concentrations in the first and last grab sample were 59 mg/l and 58 mg/l, respectively. Seven water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2001 APT at Test Site 3. The chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 19 mg/l and 52 mg/l, respectively. Nine water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2003 aquifer performance test at Test Site The field-measured chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 56 mg/l and 55 mg/l, respectively. The laboratory measured chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 66 mg/l and 74 mg/l, respectively. The average chloride concentration for the water samples collected during the three APTs at Test Sites 1 and 2 was about 50 mg/l. Water is composed of positively charged analytes (cations) and negatively charged analytes (anions). When cations predominate over anions, the water is said to have a positive charge balance; when anions predominate over cations, the water is said to have a negative charge balance. Theoretically, a sample of water taken from the groundwater system should have a charge balance of zero. However, in real life this does not occur because every sample contains some small trace elements that affect its charge balance. Therefore, in the field of hydrogeology, a positive or negative charge balance of 10 percent or less is accepted as a reasonable charge balance error, and this standard has been incorporated in the permit conditions recommended by the District for the City’s permit. With one exception, all the water quality samples collected by BFA from Test Sites 1-3 had an acceptable charge balance. The one exception was a sample collected from the packer interval of 270-295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 with a chloride concentration of 74 mg/l. This sample has a positive charge balance of 32.30 percent. The sample collected from the packer interval of 270- 295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 has an overabundance of cations probably caused by grouting and cementing of the packer prior to taking the sample. Since chloride is an anion and not a cation, any error associated with this sample would not effect the validity of the 74 mg/l chloride concentration measured in this sample. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that two samples were collected from the same well at a packer interval of 340-400 feet below land surface with acceptable charge balances and they contained chloride concentrations of 64 mg/l and 134 mg/l. The District’s experts, Richard Burklew and David Toth, believe the 450 mg/l chloride concentration measured in a sample taken from the packer interval of 270-295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 is a faulty measurement and should be discarded as an outlier. Dr. Toth testified that the sodium to chloride ratio indicates there was a problem with this measurement, which would call into question the reported chloride value. In 2004 and 2005, the City collected SAS water quality samples from Test Sites 4 and 6 and Monitor Wells MW-1 and RW-1 near Test Site 1. The samples were analyzed for all applicable water quality standards, which might preclude use of water from the SAS extraction wells to directly augment wetlands. The analyses found that the SAS water quality near the proposed extraction wells was very similar to the SAS water quality near the Area IV production wells and that water could be applied to the wetlands without any adverse water quality consequences. Area IV UFAS Flow Patterns and Basin Boundaries Although the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) potentiometric surface maps do not show any data points in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield, and they are not sufficient by themselves to formulate opinions regarding the future operation or impacts of the proposed wellfield, Petitioners contend that these potentiometric surface maps demonstrate that the freshwater found in the UFAS at the Area IV Wellfield is due to local freshwater recharge only and not freshwater flow from the northwest. They point to a regional report indicating that there is a groundwater basin divide just north of the Area IV Wellfield. This report is based on a 1980 USGS potentiometric surface map. However, another regional report indicates that the groundwater basin divide occurs south of the Area IV Wellfield. This report is likely based on a 1998 USGS potentiometric surface map. Because of the lack of data points in rural northwest Brevard County, the City did not rely on any groundwater basin divide maps, but rather collected site specific information regarding the proposed Area IV Wellfield. The District’s expert and the Petitioners’ own expert (the sponsor of Petitioners' potentiometric surface map exhibits) noted several errors in the flow direction arrows added by Petitioners to the maps. In addition, after reviewing the potentiometric surface maps presented by Petitioners, the District’s expert concluded that, in addition to local freshwater recharge, the predominant flow into the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield is generally from the northwest and southwest. To confirm his opinion, the District’s expert examined the head difference data collected in July 2006. At well UF-1S, the UFAS observation well at site 1, the elevation in the well was 16.27 NGVD. At site 3, which is southeast of site 1, the elevation in the UFAS observation well was 15.68 NGVD. At site 2, which is southeast of site 3, the elevation in the UFAS well was 13.87 NGVD. Since water generally flows from the highest to lowest head measurements, these measurements indicated that water would have been flowing from the northwest to the southeast in the vicinity of Area IV. However, the potentiometric surface can change both seasonally and yearly; likewise, the basin boundaries may also change. SAS and UFAS Drawdown Predicting drawdown in the SAS and UFAS in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is important to several permitting criteria, including interference with existing legal uses and impacts on wetlands, both of which relate to the public interest. During the permit application review process, the City submitted a succession of models to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed Area IV Wellfield would not result in unacceptable drawdown. Initially, BFA prepared and submitted groundwater flow simulations of the Area IV Wellfield prepared using an analytical model known as the “Multi-Layer/SURFDOWN Model.” Although the District initially accepted the submission as providing reasonable assurance to support the District's initial TSR, Miami Corporation petitioned and criticized the City's model as not actually providing reasonable assurance, both because of its predicted SAS drawdown and because it was an analytical model (which can only represent simple conditions in the environment, assumes homogenous conditions and simple boundary conditions, and provides only a model-wide solution of the governing equation). By comparison, a numerical model allows for complex representation of conditions in the environment, heterogeneous conditions and complex boundary conditions, and cell-by-cell iterative solutions of the governing equation that are typically performed by a computer. Over the past 10 to 15 years, a numerical model called MODFLOW has become the standard in groundwater modeling throughout the United States and much of the world. All of the Florida water management districts utilize MODFLOW or are familiar with it, so it is a model of choice today for groundwater flow modeling. Despite Miami Corporation's petition, the City and the District maintained that reasonable assurance had been given that operation of Area IV would not result in unacceptable drawdown. Miami Corporation's petition was scheduled for a final hearing in June 2005 that was continued until September 2005 after the first revised TSR was issued in May 2005. The final hearing was continued again until February 2006 to allow discovery and hearing preparation by Vergie Clark, who filed her petition in July 2005. As the case proceeded towards a February 2006 final hearing on the pending petitions, the City eventually made what actually was its second attempt to develop a calibrated MODFLOW model of the Area IV Wellfield. Unbeknownst to the District, BFA already had attempted to develop a MODFLOW Model of the Area IV Wellfield in 2004, with the assistance of Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. (WHI) (which later was retained as Petitioners’ consultant in this case in a reverse of the Hartman client switch). When BFA ended its efforts with WHI, their efforts to calibrate a MODFLOW model for Area IV that would predict acceptable drawdown was unsuccessful, and none of those modeling efforts were submitted or disclosed to the District. In the fall of 2005, the City turned to another consultant, SDI, to attempt to develop a calibrated MODFLOW Model of the Area IV Wellfield. SDI initially prepared a so- called MODFLOW model equivalent of the Multi-layer/SURFDOWN Model prepared by BFA. It was presented to District staff at a meeting held in January 2006 for the purpose of demonstrating to District staff that the MODFLOW model equivalent of the Multi- layer/SURFDOWN Model generated results for the Area IV Wellfield that were not very different from the results obtained by BFA using their Multi-layer/SURFDOWN Model. Petitioners criticized several weaknesses in the MODFLOW equivalent model and maintained that the modeling efforts to date did not give reasonable assurance of no unacceptable SAS drawdown. By this time, the District had decided to retain Dr. Peter Huyakorn, a renowned modeling expert. Based on his recommendations, the District required the City to produce a calibrated MODFLOW model of Area IV (as well as numerical solute transport modeling, which will be discussed below). The scheduled final hearing was continued until September 2006 to allow time for this work to be completed, discovered, and evaluated. After the continuance, the City had SDI prepare a calibrated MODFLOW model to predict the drawdown that would result from operation of Area IV. SDI produced such a model in March 2006. This model predicted less drawdown. Specifically, a steady-state simulation of a 2.75 mgd withdrawal from the proposed 15 UFAS production wells and a 0.18 mgd withdrawal from the four proposed SAS extraction/wetland augmentation wells predicted the maximum drawdown of the surficial aquifer to be less than 0.5 foot (which, as discussed infra, would be acceptable). (UFAS drawdown, which is not an issue, was predicted to be an acceptable 12 feet.) But Petitioners questioned the validity of the model for several reasons, including its suspect calibration. Dr. Huyakorn also had questions concerning the calibration of SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, but subsequent work by SDI satisfied Dr. Huyakorn and the District, which issued the TSR and proposed CUP at issue in May 2006 based in part on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, despite Petitioners' criticisms. The final hearing was continued until September 2006 to give Petitioners time to complete discovery on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model (as well as the City's new solute transport modeling, which is discussed, infra). To calibrate its March 2006 MODLFOW, SDI first used a transient MODFLOW model to simulate data from the 4-day aquifer performance test (APT) from the Area IV Wellfield sites (the transient APT calibration). (A transient model is used to analyze time-dependent variable conditions and produces a time- series of simulated conditions.) Then, after calibrating to the APT data, SDI used a steady-state, non-pumping MODFLOW model (a time-independent model used to analyze long-term conditions by producing one set of simulated conditions) to simulate the static head difference between the SAS and UFAS (the steady- state head difference calibration). If the head difference simulated in the steady-state calibration run did not match the measured head difference, the ICU leakance was adjusted, and then the revised parameters were rechecked in another transient APT calibration run. Then, another steady-state head difference calibration run was performed in an iterative process until the best match occurred for both calibration models. In order to achieve calibration, SDI was required to make the ICU leakance value several times tighter than the starting value, which was the value derived in the site-specific APT using conventional curve-matching techniques (and relatively close to the values ascribed to the region in general in the literature and in two regional models that included Area IV near the boundary of their model domains--namely, the District's East Central Florida (ECF) model, which focused on the Orlando area to the south and west, and its Volusia model, which focused on Volusia County to the north). SDI's calibrated ICU leakance value derived from calibration to observed static head differences is more reliable than an ICU leakance value derived from an APT using conventional curve-matching techniques. That leaves a question as to the quality of the static head difference measurements used for SDI's calibration. BFA took static head measurements at SAS and UFAS monitor wells located at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 in January 2004, April 2004, and July 2006. On each occasion, a downward head gradient was noted at each site, meaning the water table (i.e., the SAS) had a higher elevation than the potentiometric surface of the UFAS. In January 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 6.2 feet, 5.5 feet and 5.9 feet, respectively. In April 2004, the measured head differences at Test Sites 1 and 3 were 8.1 feet and 8.1 feet, respectively. In July 2006, the measured head differences at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 8.6 feet, 6.6 feet and 9.3 feet, respectively. The average of these observed head differences for the Area IV Wellfield was 7.46 feet. BFA's static head difference measurements included both wet and dry seasons. The measurements do not show significant differences between seasons and suggest that static head difference remains fairly constant at the Area IV Wellfield year round. This is typical of head difference data collected from hundreds of other Florida locations because the hydrologic systems seek equilibrium. Petitioners questioned taking an average of the head difference measurements because the region had experienced a rainfall deficit of 17 inches over the 12 months prior to time the measurements in July 2006 were taken. By itself, a rainfall deficit would not affect head difference measurements because the hydrologic system would seek equilibrium. But there was evidence of a possibly significant rainfall near Area IV not long before the July 2006 measurements. If significant rain fell on Area IV, it could have increased the static head differences to some extent. But there was no evidence that such an effect was felt by Area IV. Petitioners also contend for several other reasons that the static head differences used by SDI as a calibration target were "not what they are cracked up to be." They contend that "limited spatial and temporal extent . . . renders them inappropriate calibration targets." But while the site-specific static head difference measurements were limited, and more measurements at different times would have increased the reliability of the average static head difference used in SDI's steady-state calibration, the head difference measurements used were adequate. For a groundwater model of Area IV, they were as good as or better than the head differences used by Petitioners' expert modeler, Mr. LaFrenz of Tetratech, who relied on SAS and UFAS head levels from the regional-scale ECF model, which were measured by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in May and September 1995. Petitioners also contended that the measured head differences used by SDI for the steady-state calibration of the March 2006 MODFLOW model were significantly higher than other measured head differences in the general vicinity of Area IV. One such location is Long Lake, which has saltwater and an obviously upward gradient (i.e., a negative head difference between the SAS and UFAS), whereas SDI's MODFLOW depicts it as having a five-foot downward gradient (positive head difference). However, all but one of those measurements (including from Long Lake) were from locations five or more miles from Area IV. In addition, the accuracy of the measurements from the closer location (and all but one of the more distant locations) was not clear, so that the seemingly inconsistent head differences measurements may not be indicative of actual inconsistency with the head difference measurements used by SDI. Petitioners also accused the City and its consultants of "playing games with specific yield" to achieve calibration with a tighter-than-appropriate ICU leakance value. But the City and the District adequately explained that there was no merit to the accusations. It was appropriate for SDI to use just the relatively small specific storage component of SAS storativity (the 0.001 value) in its transient calibration runs, instead of the larger specific or delayed yield component. Storativity is not utilized at all in the MODLFOW steady-state calibration runs and steady-state simulations. Based on the foregoing, it is found that Petitioners' factual disputes regarding SDI's calibrated ICU leakance value do not make the City's assurance of no unacceptable drawdown provided by its MODFLOW simulations unreasonable. That leaves several other issues raised by Petitioner with regard to the SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. In calibrating its MODFLOW model, SDI utilized a value for the MCU leakance that was twice as leaky as the published literature values for the area, which Petitioners claim would reduce simulated SAS drawdown. Although the use of a higher MCU leakance value in the model may result in a prediction of less SAS drawdown, the actual effect, if any, on the predicted drawdown, was not made clear from the evidence. In any event, an MCU leakance value for Area IV calibrated to site-specific data is more reliable than regional values. Petitioners also accused the City and its consultants of using inappropriate or questionable boundary conditions, topography, and depth to the water table. They also contend that incorrect topography--namely, a nonexistent five-foot ridge or mound northwest of Area IV--provides an artificial source of water for SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. But the boundary conditions for SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model were clear from the evidence and were appropriate; and SDI's topography and water table depth were reasonably accurate (and on a local scale, were as or more accurate than the USGS topographic maps Petitioners were comparing). Besides, Dr. Huyakorn ran the Tetratech model with SDI's leakance value instead of Tetratech's value and got virtually the same drawdown results, proving that differences in topography between the two models made virtually no difference to the drawdown predictions of either model. As for the so-called "flow from nowhere," particle-tracking simulations conducted by experts from both sides established that, with pumping at 2.75 mgd, no water would enter the Area IV production zone from anywhere near the five-foot ridge area for at least 100 years. This gave reasonable assurance that the five-foot ridge or mound had no effect on the simulated results from SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. Petitioners also contend that the City's failure to simulate drawdown from pumping during the dry season, as opposed to a long-term average of wet and dry seasons, constituted a failure "to provide reasonable assurances as to the conditions that can be expected as a result of the anticipated operation of the wellfields." But the evidence was clear that long-term, steady-state groundwater model simulations are appropriate and adequate to provide reasonable assurance for CUP permitting purposes. See "Drawdown Impacts," infra. By definition, they do not simulate transient conditions such as dry season pumping. The SDI model predicts a maximum drawdown, from a 2.75 mgd withdrawal from all fifteen UFAS production wells and a 0.18 mgd withdrawal from the four SAS extraction wells, of slightly less than 0.5 feet in the SAS and of 12.0 feet in the UFAS in the immediate vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield. SDI’s model predicts a drawdown of 0.11 feet (approximately 1 inch) in the SAS and a drawdown of 2.2 feet in the UFAS at Ms. Clark’s property, which is located approximately 1 to 1.5 miles north of the Area IV Wellfield. It is found that SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model for Area IV is the best such model in evidence. That is not to say that the drawdown predicted by SDI's model is a certainty. The other models were not proven to be better than SDI's, but they did demonstrate that simulated results would vary significantly in some cases if SDI's calibration and calibrated ICU leakance values were incorrect. Having more good hydrologic information would have made it possible to reduce the uncertainties present in SDI's model, but it is found that SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model was sufficient to give reasonable assurance as to SAS and UFAS drawdown from pumping at 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd from the SAS for wetland augmentation. Drawdown Impacts As indicated, once drawdown is predicted with reasonable assurance, both interference with existing legal uses and impacts on wetlands, which relate to public interest, must be evaluated. Interference with Legal Uses Using SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, the City gave reasonable assurance that the drawdown predicted from pumping at 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd from the SAS for wetland augmentation will not interfere with existing legal users. The nearest existing legal users are located about one mile northwest and two miles east/southeast of the nearest proposed production well. The City’s MODFLOW modeling scenarios indicate that maximum drawdown in the SAS will be less than 0.5 feet and minimal (at most 2.2 feet) in the UFAS at the nearest active existing legal users. Obviously, drawdown would be much less at 0.5 to 0.75 mgd from the UFAS (with probably no wetland augmentation required). As indicated, the drawdown predicted by SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model is not a certainty. Although not likely based on the more persuasive evidence, if actual drawdown approximates the drawdown predicted by the Tetratech model, there could be interference with existing legal users. (The Tetratech model predicts that the long-term average reduction in the water table of approximately 1.6 feet of drawdown near the center of the wellfield and drawdown of 0.4 feet to 0.5 feet extending out more than a mile from the proposed Area IV Wellfield.) There probably still would be no interference with existing legal users with pumping at 0.5 to 0.75 mgd from the UFAS (with probably no wetland augmentation required). In the event of that much actual drawdown and unanticipated interference from the City’s pumping, “Other Condition” 15 of the proposed permit requires that it be remedied. See Finding 36, supra. There is no reason to think such interference could not be remedied. Environmental Impacts from Drawdown Miami Corporation’s property in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is a mosaic of pine flatwoods uplands interspersed with wetlands. The wetlands are mostly cypress swamps, with some areas of hardwood swamp, marshes, and wet prairies. Miami Corporation's property is managed for timber and is also used for cattle grazing and hunting. Miami Corporation has constructed a network of roads and ditches on its property, but overall the wetlands are in good conditions. The areas east and west of the proposed Area IV Wellfield consist of cypress strands, which are connected wetlands. Compared to isolated wetland systems, connected wetlands are typically larger, deeper, and connected to waters of the state. They tend to have hardwood wetland species. Connected wetlands are less vulnerable to water level changes brought about by groundwater withdrawals because they tend to be larger systems and have a greater volume of water associated with them. They are able to withstand greater fluctuations in hydroperiods than isolated herbaceous wetland systems. Isolated wetland systems are landlocked systems. They tend to be smaller in size and shallower than connected wetland systems. Isolated systems tend to be more susceptible to changes in hydrology than larger connected systems. The upland plant communities present near the proposed Area IV Wellfield include pine flatwoods that have been altered by Miami Corporation's timber operations. There is a large area surrounding the Area IV Wellfield to the north that consists of forest regeneration after timbering. There was evidence of the presence of the following listed animal species at the site of the proposed Area IV Wellfield: wood storks, roseate spoonbills, ibis, bald eagles, Sherman fox squirrels, American alligator, sandhill cranes, wood storks, black bear, and indications of gopher tortoises. The habitat in the vicinity also supports a number of other listed species that were not observed. The following listed plants species were also observed during the environmental assessment and site visits: hooded pitcher plants, water sundew, pawpaw and yellow butterwort. Ms. Clark’s property adjoins a cut-over cypress swamp on the western side of her property, and there is also a small man-made fish pond in her backyard. Some clearing has taken place in the wetland system on the back portion of Ms. Clark’s property. What appears to be a fire break on Ms. Clark’s property encroaches upon the wetland system. The wetlands on Ms. Clark’s property have experienced some human activities such as trash dumping and clearing, which have resulted in a degradation of those systems. Some trees within the wetland systems on the back portion of Ms. Clark’s property have been logged. For the most part, the hydrology appears to be normal. However, some invasive species have encroached upon the system due to the clearing that has taken place. There was no evidence of listed plant or animal species present on Ms. Clark’s property. If drawdown is of the magnitude predicted by the SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, unacceptable environmental impacts from drawdown would not be anticipated. At 0.5 or 0.75 mgd, there clearly would not be any unacceptable environmental impacts. In addition, “Other Condition” 12 of the proposed permit requires the City to perform extensive environmental monitoring. The environmental monitoring plan proposed for the Area IV Wellfield provides reasonable assurance that changes to wetland hydrology and vegetation due to groundwater withdrawals will be detected before they become significant. “Other Condition” 12 of the proposed permit prohibits the City from pumping any water from the production wells until the monitoring network is in place. The baseline monitoring will give a clear indication of the existing conditions prior to the production wells coming on-line. Once the production wells are online, the City will continue the same procedures that they conducted prior to the production wells coming online. This will allow the City and the District to monitor the effects of pumping. The City’s proposed environmental monitoring plan is adequate to detect drawdown impacts and is consistent with environmental monitoring plans that have been developed for other wellfields throughout the State of Florida. Since the City has given reasonable assurance that there will not be environmental harm from drawdown, the proposed permit does not propose mitigation. If unanticipated harm is detected, “Other Condition” 24 of the proposed permit requires the City to implement an avoidance and minimization plan to rehydrate the wetlands and restore the water levels to normal levels and natural hydroperiods by augmenting the water in the affected wetlands with water pumped from SAS wells and piped to the affected wetlands. “Other Condition” 24 includes specific timeframes for implementing wetland rehydration in the event unanticipated impacts were to occur. In addition, the City could, on its own, change its pumping schedules. If an impacted wetland is near a particular well, the City could reduce or shut off water withdrawals from that well and thereby restore water levels in the wetland. Direct augmentation of wetlands has been used at other facilities such as those of Tampa Bay Water and Fort Orange. The direct augmentation at these other sites appears to be effective. Direct augmentation of wetlands has proven to be a feasible means of offsetting adverse changes in wetlands due to groundwater withdrawals, at least in some circumstances. There is a viable source of water that can be utilized to augment these wetland systems, namely a large canal south of the production wells. Based on the predicted drawdown, SDI estimated the quantity of water needed for implementation of the avoidance and minimization plan to be 0.18 mgd. The water quality in the canal is comparable to the water quality within any wetland systems that would be affected by drawdown. The City plans to have its augmentation plan in place prior to the production wells coming online. In that way, if changes are observed within the wetland systems, the augmentation plan could be implemented in relatively short order to alleviate any impacts that might be occurring as a result of the production wells. The success of the augmentation plan depends on the extent of actual drawdown. If actual drawdown approximates Tetratech's predictions, environmental impacts would not be acceptable, and there would not be reasonable assurance that the augmentation plan would be sufficient to mitigate the environmental impacts. If drawdown is of the magnitude simulated in the City’s MODFLOW model, reasonable assurance was given that, if needed, the avoidance and minimization plan developed for the Area IV Wellfield would be capable of offsetting any adverse changes in wetlands and other waters detected through the environmental monitoring plan. If the City pumps not more than 0.75 mgd, the avoidance and minimization plan developed for the Area IV Wellfield probably would be unnecessary but certainly would be capable of offsetting any adverse changes in wetlands and other waters that would be detected through the environmental monitoring plan. If unanticipated environmental harm occurs due to excessive actual drawdowns, and the harm cannot be avoided either by the augmentation plan or by altering the pumping schedule, or both, the District can revoke all or part of the permit allocation under “Other Condition” 23. This ability gives reasonable assurance that no unacceptable environmental harm will occur even if actual drawdown approximates Tetratech's predictions. Saltwater Up-coning and Intrusion Predicting saltwater movement towards the production zone of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is important to several permitting criteria, including interference with existing legal uses and the ability of the resource to provide the requested allocation of freshwater, both of which relate to the public interest. During the permit application review process, the City submitted a succession of models to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed Area IV Wellfield would not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion. Initially, BFA prepared and submitted solute transport simulations using an analytical model known as the “UPCONE Model.” The District initially accepted the submission as providing reasonable assurance to support the District's initial TSR. Despite Miami Corporation's petition, the City and the District maintained that reasonable assurance had been given that operation of Area IV would not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion based on the "UPCONE Model." As indicated, supra, Miami Corporation's petition was scheduled for a final hearing in June 2005, but the hearing was continued until February 2006. As the case proceeded towards a final hearing in February 2006, the City not only turned to SDI to develop the numerical MODFLOW model, it also turned to SDI to develop a numerical solute transport model that would couple the MODFLOW groundwater flow equations with advection dispersion solute transport equations to simulate the movement of variable density saline groundwater in response to stresses. In addition to the initial boundary conditions, aquifer parameters and stresses specified for a groundwater model, a solute transport model requires solute parameters such as chloride concentrations, dispersivity and effective porosity. SEAWAT is a solute transport model code that combines the MODFLOW, which provides the groundwater flow component, with the MT3DMS code, which provides the mass transport component. When coupled with MODFLOW, the MT3DMS code tracks the movement of variable density water and performs internal adjustments to heads in the flow model to account for water density. Like MODFLOW, SEAWAT is capable of simulating the important aspects of the groundwater flow system, including evapotranpiration, recharge, pumping and groundwater flow. It also can be used to perform both steady-state or transient simulations of density- dependent flow and transport in a saturated zone. It was developed in the late 1990s and is rapidly becoming the standard for solute transport modeling throughout the United States. It is used by many water management agencies in the State of Florida. Initially, SDI used SEAWAT version 2.1 to simulate movement of saline water towards the Area IV Wellfield. The first such simulation was prepared in March 2006 using manually- adjusted head values along the eastern model boundary. It incorporated SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. The District, in consultation with Dr. Huyakorn, required SDI to perform what was termed a "sensitivity run" with reduced chloride concentrations in the eastern boundaries (5,000 mg/l versus 19,000 mg/l) to better match actual measurements recorded in wells in the vicinity. In April 2006 SDI prepared and submitted those simulations. After reviewing the March and April 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 simulations, Petitioners' consultants criticized the manner in which starting chloride concentrations in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield were input into the models. In those models, SDI had input initial chloride concentration at 50 mg/l throughout the depth of the UFAS. The model was then run for 100 years with no pumping to supposedly arrive at a reasonable starting chloride concentration for the UFAS. Then, the model was run for 25 years with pumping at 2.75 mgd. However, the initial chloride concentrations at the beginning of the pumping run still did not comport well with actual measurements that were available. After Petitioners raised the issue of the starting chloride concentrations assigned to the UFAS in SDI's March and April 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 runs, the final hearing was continued until September 2006 to give Petitioners time to complete discovery on those models (as well as on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, as discussed supra). During a deposition of Dr. Huyakorn in July 2006, he recommended that the District require SDI to perform another simulation (also termed a "sensitivity run") using starting chloride concentrations more closely comporting with known measurements. (There also were some changes in the constant chloride concentrations that were part of the boundary conditions on the western side of the model domain.) This resulted in SDI's early August 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 simulation of 15 years of pumping at 2.75 mgd. Petitioners also criticized the City for not using a newer version of SEAWAT, called SEAWAT 2000, as well as for using chloride concentrations as inputs for its SEAWAT 2.1 model simulations instead of total dissolved solids (TDS). (SEAWAT 2.1 required input of TDS, not chlorides; SEAWAT 2000 allowed chlorides to be input. Not until the last day of the final hearing was it pointed out by Dr. Huyakorn that using chlorides instead of TDS caused SDI's SEAWAT 2.1 simulations to over- predict saltwater intrusion.) As a result of Petitioners' criticisms, the City had SDI re-run both the April and early August SEAWAT 2.1 models in late August 2006 using SEAWAT 2000 (which the City and the District also termed "sensitivity runs.") Because the SEAWAT 2000 simulations would be time- barred from use in the City's case-in-chief under pre-hearing requirements, and whether they could be used in rebuttal could not be determined at that point in time, the City requested another continuance, this time until December 2006, to give Petitioners time to discover the SEAWAT 2000 model simulations. During Petitioners' discovery of SDI's August SEAWAT 2000 model simulations, it came to SDI's attention that SDI was not calculating mass outputs from the model correctly. Those errors were corrected by SDI in September 2006. SDI's corrected August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 simulation predicted that, after 15 years of pumping at 2.75 mgd, the chloride concentration in the Area IV production wells would increase from 54 mg/l to 227 mg/l. After the 15-year pumping run, SDI's corrected August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 simulation predicted that the chloride concentration in several of the southernmost production wells would exceed 250 mg/l. At 17.5 years of the pumping run simulation, the simulation predicted that the entire wellfield would have chlorides in excess of 250 mg/l. That prediction does not, however, mean the chloride concentration in these wells will exceed 250 mg/l in actual operation. The SDI model contains several conservative assumptions that magnified the potential chloride concentrations in those wells. First, it was assumed all the production wells would be drilled to 250 feet below land surface, while the City will likely drill the southernmost wells to a shallower depth. Additionally, the wellfield production rate used in the model was not optimized for water quality. Finally, the model was not set up to simulate a wellfield operation plan that turned wells on and off based on the saline water monitoring plan. For the sake of simplicity, the model assumed that all the wells would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire 15 year period. Petitioners continued to maintain for several reasons that SDI's SEAWAT models do not provide reasonable assurance that operation of the Area IV Wellfield will not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion. Chlorides versus TDS Petitioners criticized SDI's corrected SEAWAT 2000 model for still not inputting chlorides correctly. While SEAWAT 2000 allows the input of chlorides instead of TDS (and input of chlorides instead of TDS is recommended since chloride is a more stable chemical than some of the other components of TDS), they must be input correctly. However, while Petitioners demonstrated that the chlorides were not input correctly, causing the model to under-calculate fluid density, Dr. Huyakorn clarified in rebuttal that under-calculating fluid density caused SDI's SEAWAT 2000 models to over-predict saltwater intrusion into the wellfield. Starting Chloride Conditions Petitioners continued to question the representation of initial chloride concentrations in the SEAWAT models. SDI's SEAWAT models included multiple vertical grid layers to represent conditions better than the layering used in the MODFLOW set-up. The SAS was represented by layer 1, the ICU by layer 2, the UFAS by layers 3 through 14, the MCU by layer 15, and the LFAS by layers 16 and 17. SDI used a chloride concentration of 0 mg/l for the SAS and ICU in its August 2006 SEAWAT model, which probably does not represent the actual initial condition but is probably close enough since the SAS is recharged by rainfall that typically has very low (1 to 2 mg/l) chloride levels. SDI used a chloride concentration of 2,500 mg/l for the MCU and a chloride concentration of 5,000 mg/l for the LFAS in its August 2006 SEAWAT model, which are reasonable initial chloride values for the Area IV Wellfield. To develop the initial chloride concentration conditions of the UFAS for its August 2006 SEAWAT model, SDI first plotted the available water quality data (63 well-data points) on a map of the Area IV Wellfield area. After examining the distribution of the data, SDI divided the UFAS into two layers to represent the upper UFAS (above –200 feet NGVD) and the lower UFAS (below –200 feet NGVD). Then, using various scientific studies containing chloride concentration maps, groundwater recharge/discharge maps (recharge indicating an area is more likely to have low chlorides in the UFAS and discharge indicating an area is more likely to have high chlorides), and maps showing the shape and extent of the freshwater lens in the area, plus SDI’s own knowledge of groundwater flows and expected higher chloride concentrations along the coast and St. Johns River, SDI used scientifically accepted hand-contouring techniques to represent the initial chloride concentration conditions of the upper and lower UFAS on maps. SDI’s two hand- contoured chloride concentration maps were reviewed and accepted by the District’s experts and reflect a reasonable representation of the initial chloride concentration conditions in the UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield. Using the two hand- contoured chloride concentration maps, SDI input the chloride concentration values from those maps into its August 2006 SEAWAT model. The chloride concentration values from the upper UFAS map were input into layers 3 through 7 of SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model. The chloride concentration values from the lower UFAS map were input into layers 11 through 14 of SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model. SDI input the average of the chloride concentration values from the upper and lower UFAS layers into the middle UFAS (layers 8 through 10). It is appropriate to average the chloride values between the upper and lower UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield because the saline water interface is not that sharp and occurs near the bottom of the UFAS (unlike conditions 11 miles to the south). Petitioners accuse SDI, the City, and the District of ignoring unfavorable chloride data in setting up its August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 model. The evidence was that all chloride data was considered and evaluated. Mr. Davis and the District's experts did not rely on the 450 mg/l chloride packer test measurement taken from the interval between 270 and 295 feet at Test Site 3 in preparing the contour maps of the UFAS because the chloride measurement was deemed inaccurate because the sodium to chloride ratio is out of balance. Mr. Davis and the District's experts did not utilize the 2,336 mg/l and 2,717 mg/l chloride concentration packer test measurements at 442-500 feet below land surface at Test Sites 1 and 3 to prepare the chloride contour maps for the UFAS because they believed these measurements from the MCU. Mr. Davis and the District's experts deemed it inappropriate to utilize a 845 mg/l chloride value reported for Test Site 2 to prepare the chloride contour for the lower portion of the UFAS because this sample was collected at just 210 feet below land surface and because a 500 mg/l contour line separates a 882 mg/l measurement at Test Site 1 from a 134 mg/l measurement at Test Site 3. The decision not to include the Test Site 2 data also is supported by the particle tracking modeling prepared by the Petitioners and the City using the groundwater component of the SDI SEAWAT model and the TetraTech model, which show that water from Test Site 2 will not enter the Area IV production wells for at least 100 years with pumping at 2.75 mgd. The chloride contour maps developed by Mr. Davis and the District experts were consistent with previous studies conducted by the USGS and the District in the region. For example, the chloride contours shown on City Exhibit 142 for the upper portion of the UFAS are generally consistent with Figure 35 of the 1990 USGS Report by Charles Tibbals and Figure 15 of the 1999 District Report by Toth and Boniol. The two chloride contour maps developed by Mr. Davis and the District's experts are a reasonable representation of the existing water quality of the UFAS in the region of the Area IV Wellfield based on the available data. Mr. Davis used the 882 mg/l chloride concentration packer test measurement from the interval between 331 and 400 feet at Test Site 1 as the starting chloride concentration in four grid cells at the bottom of the UFAS, which Petitioners' experts referred to as a "pinnacle" or "column," that were assigned a chloride value of 700 mg/l. While the representation may not have been realistic, and the "pinnacle" or "column" quickly "collapses" when the model begins to run, the representation was a concession to the existence of the datum even though it appeared at odds with water quality collected from a packer test at Test Site 3 at the same depth interval, which was much fresher. District staff agreed with Davis’ approach to representing the saltier packer test measurement from Test Site 1. The initial chloride concentrations developed for the UFAS by Mr. Davis and District staff are not inconsistent with the water quality data collected by the Petitioners’ consultants from Long Lake. The lake is located in an area of the map where the chloride concentration in the UFAS, which discharges into the lake at that location, is between 1,000 and 5,000 mg/l. Mr. Davis decided not to use 2,000 mg/l to represent the bottom layer of the UFAS even though the bottom packer tests performed at Test Sites 1 and 3 showed an average value of 2,000 mg/l at the approximate boundary of the UFAS and the MCU. Instead, he decided to associate this chloride concentration with the MCU because even if the packer had penetrated a portion of the UFAS, he did not believe the measurement was representative of static water quality conditions at that depth. The packers had been pumped for over 4 hours at 25 gpm at Test Site 1 and over 4 hours at 85 gpm at Test Site 3, which could have doubled or tripled the static chloride concentration. As was later shown in sensitivity runs by Petitioners' expert, Dr. Guo, if SDI had incorporated the 2,000 mg/l value at the bottom of the UFAS, the model simulation would have shown unrealistically high initial chloride concentrations in the production wells at the start of pumpage when compared to the water quality measured during the APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3. (While only one well was pumping at a time, versus the 15 in the model simulations, the single APT well was pumping at approximately three times the rate of the 15 wells in the model simulation.) Based on all the evidence, it is found that the chloride concentrations used in SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model reflect a reasonable representation of the initial chloride concentration conditions in the UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield and were properly input into that model using an appropriate method. Location of the MCU Related to the last point is Petitioners' claim that the top of the MCU (i.e., bottom of the UFAS) is incorrectly represented in SDI's SEAWAT models at 450 feet below sea level (approximately 425 feet below land surface). They point to literature values indicating that the depth to the MCU is up to 150 feet greater. However, these reports did not include site- specific data or test wells in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield or in northern Brevard County. It was reasonable to consider and rely on site-specific information regarding the depth to the MCU in this case. BFA determined the approximate location of the MCU by examining cuttings collected during drilling at APT well sites 1 and 3 and by measuring various properties of the aquifer with down-hole geophysical techniques. Based on the site-specific information obtained, the depth to the MCU was determined to be approximately 450 to 475 feet below land surface or –425 to -450 feet NGVD. The lithologic log for well site 1 indicates the presence of gray/tan limestone between 450 to 460 feet below land surface and light/gray limestone and dolomitic limestone from 460 to 470 below land surface. The lithologic log for well site 3 indicates the presence of tan dolomitic limestone from 450 to 460 feet below land surface and tan limestone and dolomitic limestone from 460 to 470 feet below land surface. According to Petitioners' own expert, Dr. Missimer, the change to a mixture of limestone and dolomite is evidence of the MCU. After examining the video log for well site 1, Dr. Missimer noted a “lithologic change” at 477 feet below land surface (while still disputing BFA's conclusion that the MCU started there.) One characteristic of the MCU is a lower resistivity. At well site 1, a reduction in resistance occurred at approximately 470 feet below land surface. Another characteristic of penetrating the MCU is decrease in flow. The flow meter log for well site 1 suggests a decrease in flow at approximately 450 feet below land surface. On the other hand, it also is true that wells drilled completely into the MCU probably would not produce more than approximately 5 gallons per minute (gpm), whereas the packer test at the bottom of Wellsite 1 was yielding 25 gpm, and the packer test at the bottom of Wellsite 3 was producing 85 gpm. It is possible that the bottom packers were open to both the UFAS and the MCU, which could explain the higher flows. Petitioners maintain that BFA stopped drilling too soon (500 feet below land surface, or 475 feet below sea level) to ascertain the actual depth to the MCU. While it is true that drilling deeper would have made BFA's determination as to the depth to the MCU more convincing and certain, BFA's approximation of the depth to the MCU was reasonable for purposes of SDI's SEAWAT model. To the extent that BFA might have been wrong on the depth to the MCU, there was no convincing evidence that the error would have made SDI's SEAWAT model results unreliable. To the contrary, Dr. Huyakorn testified that, even if SDI put the MCU 75 feet too high, the label given to the interval is not critical to the reliability of the modeling results. More important are the parameters for transmissivity and leakance assigned to aquifers and confining units. Dr. Huyakorn testified that, given the aquifer parameters assigned to the intervals, SDI's SEAWAT modeling results would be reasonably reliable. Saline Movement Impacts As indicated, once chloride concentration changes are predicted with reasonable assurance, both interference with existing legal uses and the ability of the resource to provide the requested allocation of freshwater, which relate to public interest, must be evaluated. Significant saline water intrusion is defined as saline water encroachment which detrimentally affects the applicant or other existing legal users of water, or is otherwise detrimental to the public. (Rule 9.4.2, A.H.). Saline water may encroach from upconing or the vertical movement of saline water into a pumping well, and it may encroach laterally to the well from a saline waterbody like the ocean. The proposed use associated with the four surficial aquifer extraction wells is so minimal that it clearly would not cause saline water intrusion or harm the quality of this proposed source of water. The focus of attention is the production wells. The evidence was sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed consumptive use from the Area IV Wellfield will not cause significant saline water intrusion; further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems; induce significant saline water intrusion to such an extent as to be inconsistent with the public interest; or harm the quality of the proposed source of water. First, the long-term constant rate pump tests, which were conducted as part of the APT, give some indication of the potential for saltwater intrusion. While only one well was pumping during the tests, water quality did not degrade at pumping rates that far exceeded what would be approved as part of the proposed permit. During four-day pump tests in which the wells at sites 1 and 3 were pumped at approximately 1 mgd, chlorides never exceeded approximately 74 mg/l. Second, while (as with drawdown predicted by the groundwater flow modeling) saltwater movement predicted by the City’s SEAWAT simulations is not a certainty, the simulations gave reasonable assurance that the requested allocation could be withdrawn from the Area IV Wellfield without excessive changes to water quality (specifically chlorides) and that there is an adequate thickness of freshwater at the Area IV Wellfield that could supply the requested allocations of water for 15 years without saline water intrusion, especially since it is unlikely that a number of the wells will actually be constructed to the 250-foot depth assumed in the model, particularly as one moves south along the railroad right-of way. Third, it is even more unlikely that saltwater intrusion will occur before the proposed permit expiration in 2010. Due to the time required to construct the facility, it is anticipated that the Area IV Wellfield will become operational in 2009. Assuming the City seeks to renew the permit, there would be more information on saltwater intrusion for the District to consider on permit renewal. Since the City provided reasonable assurance as to its proposed withdrawals from Area IV, there clearly is reasonable assurance that withdrawal of not more than 0.75 mgd from Area IV would not result in significant saline intrusion. The TSR includes proposed “Other Condition” 11 which requires the installation of saline monitor wells. The spatial distribution of these wells is such that the beginning of water quality degradation or saltwater intrusion, either from upconing or lateral intrusion, would not occur without it being detected by these wells. In addition to these monitor wells, proposed “Other Condition” 14 requires water quality samples to be collected from each production well. These wells are to be sampled quarterly for a suite of parameters, including chlorides. “Other Condition” 25 is proposed as a “safety net” should unanticipated saltwater intrusion occur. If any production well shows a concentration of 250 mg/l chlorides, then this proposed condition would prohibit further use of the well until the chloride concentration drops. If the monitoring shows a chloride concentration in a production well of 200-to- 249 mg/l, the well will be placed on restricted use. A production well may be placed back into regular service once the chloride concentration in the well is below 200 mg/l. Other Issues Other issues raised and maintained by Petitioners in this case include: whether the City has provided reasonable assurance that it owns or controls the property upon which the proposed wellfield will be located; whether the Area IV Wellfield is an economically feasible option; whether the City has provided reasonable assurance that it will be able to implement the project before the expiration date of the proposed permit; whether the proposed CUP is inconsistent with the District's designation of Priority Water Resource Caution Areas; whether the proposed CUP constitutes an impermissible modification of the existing CUPs for Areas II and III; and whether the City failed to pay the appropriate permit fee. Ownership or Control The City has obtained an easement from the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) to use FEC right-of-way for the City's proposed production wells. It does not yet have ownership or control of land needed for all wetland and saline monitoring sites, or for wetland augmentation if necessary, but intends to acquire the right to use all land needed through negotiation or exercise of eminent domain. Petitioners contend that the FEC easement is insufficient for several reasons: the easement is "without warranty or covenants of title of any kind"; it is impossible to define the precise boundaries of the easement because the easement is defined in terms of distance from the center of a railroad bed that existed in 1866 but no longer exists; and the precise location of proposed production wells is not definite. While the easement is "without warranty or covenants of title of any kind," the evidence is that, if contested, the precise boundaries of the easement would be difficult but not necessarily impossible to define. It is reasonable to anticipate that at least Miami Corporation will contest the legality and extent of the FEC easement. Petitioners allege that there is confusion about the location of the proposed wells because some well locations identified in the City’s permit application did not match the coordinates assigned to certain production wells on the District’s on-line database. Actually, there is no confusion regarding the location of the wells; the well locations identified in the permit application were the well sites used for modeling purposes and for review of the application. District staff explained that the well site locations identified in the District’s database would be finalized after the wells are constructed and the exact locations have been identified using GPS technology. Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, the District’s rules do not require that an applicant own the property where the proposed production wells or monitoring wells are to be located. The District has issued many CUPs where either the subject property or the property associated with the monitoring requirements of the permit are not owned by the applicant. Recent examples include the CUPs for Orange County Utilities and the Orlando Utilities Commission. This makes sense when the applicant has the power of eminent domain or some other credible means of obtaining necessary ownership or control, such as an option contract. The District’s permit application form has a section that requires the applicant to identify who owns or controls the land on which the facility will be located. The District uses this information for noticing and contact information. Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, this section of the permit application form is not intended to create a substantive permitting standard requiring property ownership before a consumptive use permit can be issued. Petitioners argue that proof of ownership or control is necessary to determine whether a drawdown from a proposed water use will adversely affect stages or vegetation on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. However, the evidence was that these impacts can be assessed based on the facts of this case. The City's need to eventually obtain ownership or legal control to exercise the rights granted by the proposed CUP may be problematic in this case and is a factor to be considered in the next two issues raised and maintained by Petitioners: whether the Area IV Wellfield is an economically feasible option; and whether the City has provided reasonable assurances that its project can become operational before the expiration date of the proposed permit. But it is not a reason to automatically deny the City's proposed CUP. Economic Feasibility Petitioners argue that the proposed Area IV Wellfield is too expensive and that the expense should be a factor in deciding whether it is in the public interest. But cost to the City is not a factor in determining whether to issue the CUP proposed in this case. Statutes and rules cited by Petitioners on this point do not apply to this CUP determination. See Conclusions of Law 277-279, infra. Implementation Before Expiration Date Litigation of a case filed by Miami Corporation to contest the legality and extent of the City's FEC easement will add to the (cost and) time necessary to implement the project. This additional time was not specifically taken into account by the City in estimating the time it would take to implement the project. The (cost and) time for litigation of the legality and extent of the City's FEC easement could be spared by exercising eminent domain instead. That probably would add to total the cost of eminent domain but might not add appreciably to the time necessary for acquisition of required ownership or control. In an imprecise way, the time for eminent domain proceedings necessary to gain ownership or control of land for monitoring sites and wetland augmentation (without time for litigation of a contest over the legality and extent of the FEC easement, or for using eminent domain instead) was factored into the time estimated for implementation of the project. With this rough estimate, the evidence was that the project could be expedited and completed in 33 months from issuance of a CUP. It is possible but not probable that the project could be implemented in less than 33 months. It is possible and more probable that it will take longer than 33 months to implement the project. In a worst case scenario, it could take as much as 59 months complete the project. But 33 months is a reasonable, if optimistic, estimate (without time for litigation of the legality and extent of the FEC easement, or for using eminent domain instead). As found, the proposed CUP expires at the end of 2010. Given the 33-month estimate for implementation (without time for litigation of a contest over the legality and extent of the FEC easement), the CUP would have to be issued by March 2008 to be completed before expiration. Given that estimate, it would be in operation for six months before expiration. It is likely that the City will apply to renew both the existing CUP for Areas II and III and the proposed CUP for Area IV. It appears from Petitioners' Response to the other PROs that one purpose for their arguments that the proposed CUP for Area IV cannot be implemented before its expiration is to buttress their arguments, already addressed, that there is no need for the proposed CUP for Area IV. Priority Water Resource Caution Area Designation As part of its water supply planning process, the District designates priority water resource caution areas. A priority water resource caution area is an area where existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water and water conservation efforts may not be adequate to supply water for all existing legal uses and anticipated future needs and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems. The area surrounding the Area IV Wellfield was designated as a priority water resource caution area in the District’s 2003 Water Supply Assessment and 2005 Water Supply Plan based on groundwater modeling prepared by District planning staffing using the ECF and Volusia County Regional Models. The fact the Area IV Wellfield is located in a priority water use caution area does not mean a consumptive use permit cannot be issued for this facility. In fact, over one- third of the District is located within a priority water resource caution area, and permits continue to be issued in those areas. Rather, the essence of the designation is the recognition of a concern, based on the regional models, that the proposed consumptive use of water might violate the wetland and lake constraints and that water resources other than fresh groundwater will be needed to supply the expected need for water in the area and in the District over the next 20 years. That does not mean that no additional groundwater withdrawals should be permitted in a designated area. Rather, it means that other resources should be developed and used along with whatever remaining additional fresh groundwater can be permitted. It is not an independent reason, apart from the permitting criteria, to deny the City's application. Impermissible Modification of Existing CUP Petitioners contend that the proposed CUP for Area IV includes an impermissible modification of the existing CUP for Areas II and III because “Other Condition” 5 limits average annual withdrawals from the Area II, III, and IV Wellfields, combined, to 5.79 mgd in 2009 and 6.01 mgd in 2010. (As indicated, the limitations would have to be reduced to no more than 5.2 mgd based on the more reasonable projected need.) However, the City’s current CUP for the Area II and III Wellfields expires in February 2008, which is before the Area IV Wellfield would become operational, so that "Other Condition" 5 will have no practical effect on the existing CUP for Areas II and III. In essence, "Other Condition" 5 serves to advise the City that it should not view the allocation for the Area IV Wellfield in addition to the City’s existing allocations for the Area II and Area III Wellfields and that any renewal of the existing CUP for Areas II and III will have to take the Area IV allocation into account. Appropriate Permit Fee Petitioners have alleged that the City has not paid the correct permit processing fee. In March 2001, the City paid the District $200 when it submitted its initial permit application to modify its existing CUP. In May 2005, the City paid the District an additional $800 when it amended its application and withdrew its request to modify its existing permit. All required permit processing fees have been paid for this CUP application 99052. Miscellaneous As to other issues raised by Petitioners in the case, the evidence did not suggest any danger of flooding, any proposed use of water reserved by rule for other uses, any effect on any established minimum flows or levels, or inadequate notice. Standing As found, Miami Corporation owns property immediately adjacent to the proposed Area IV Wellfield, and Ms. Clark owns property a little more than a mile away. Both alleged and attempted to prove that SAS drawdown from the proposed CUP would degrade wetlands on their property and interfere with their legal use of groundwater, and that saline intrusion from the proposed CUP would degrade the water quality of the UFAS resource which they use for potable water. As found, Petitioners did not prove those allegations; however, the evidence was that both Petitioners have substantial interests (the quality of water in the aquifer from which their wells withdraw water and wetlands on their property) that would be affected by the proposed CUP at least to some extent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the District issue the City a CUP for Area IV as provided in the second revised TSR, except for a lower water allocation at this time, namely: 0.75 mgd on an annual average basis, with appropriately lower allocations on the other bases in the TSR, and with a combined annual average rate for Areas II, III, and IV in "Other Condition" 5 of 5.2 mgd for 2009 and 2010 instead of 5.79 mgd in 2009 and 2010, and appropriately lower combined maximum daily rates for Areas II, III, and IV in "Other Condition" 9. Jurisdiction is reserved to hear and rule on the pending motions for sanctions if renewed no later than 30 days after entry of the final order in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent, John J. D'Hondt, as a licensed operator, should be disciplined for violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-602.650(2), (4) and (4)(f).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Petitioner is the State agency vested with the responsibility of regulating Florida's air and water resources, administering Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006), and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62. Petitioner has the statutory authority to establish qualifications; examine and license drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plant operators and to place an operator on probation; and issue, deny, revoke, or suspend an operator's license pursuant to its rules. Respondent is the owner, supplier of water, and licensed operator of the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants located in Volusia County, Florida. He holds Certified Operator Drinking Water License No. 0000542 and Certified Operator Wastewater License No. 0006032. The Volusia County Health Department is a county health department that has been approved by Petitioner pursuant to Subsection 403.862(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2006), to enforce Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006), and the rules promulgated for the State's drinking water program for Volusia County. As a result of not having received Respondent's September 2004 MOR, by letter dated October 20, 2004, the Volusia County Health Department notified Respondent that MORs were to be submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by the tenth of the month following the month of operation. The November 2004 MOR was to have been submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by December 10, 2004. Respondent signed and dated the November 2004 MOR on December 12, 2004; it was received by the Volusia County Health Department on December 27, 2004. The December 2004 MOR was to have been submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by January 10, 2005. On February 4, 2005, Respondent was sent a late reporting violation letter stating that the December 2004 MOR had not been received. This letter again reminded Respondent that MORs were to be submitted within ten days after the month of operation. The December 2004 MOR was received on February 11, 2005. The April 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by May 10, 2005. Respondent signed and dated the April 2005 MOR on May 17, 2005. It was received on May 27, 2005. The September 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by October 10, 2005. It was received on October 18, 2005. The November 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by December 10, 2005. It was signed and dated December 14, 2005, and received on December 19, 2005. Respondent did not timely submit MORs for the months of November 2004, December 2004, April 2005, September 2005, and November 2005. In 2004, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent maintained a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. Respondent was informed that he was required to keep a separate operation and maintenance logbook for each of the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and found that there was a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep separate logbooks for each plant. A non-compliance letter dated October 12, 2004, and a copy of the August 10, 2004, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he needed to separate his operation and maintenance logbook. In 2005, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent still maintained a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During the inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep a separate operation and maintenance logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On June 15, 2005, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and again found that Respondent was keeping a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep separate logbooks. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the June 15, 2005, inspection report were sent to Respondent again informing him that he was required to maintain separate logbooks for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On February 13, 2006, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent still maintained a combined operation and maintenance logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to maintain a separate logbook for each plant. Over the extended period reflected by the inspections cited in paragraphs 11 through 15, Respondent failed to maintain separate logbooks for the operation and maintenance of the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and found that the logbook did not contain sufficient entries of the performance of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment. During this inspection, Respondent was informed that he was required to keep adequate entries of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the August 10, 2004, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he was required to maintain entries of the performance of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. On June 15, 2005, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and again found that Respondent was not keeping adequate entries of the performance of preventative maintenance or repairs for the domestic wastewater plant. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was to keep such entries. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the June 15, 2005, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he needed to maintain such entries for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. Photocopies of the combined logbook have essentially no entries for the performance of preventative maintenance or repairs or requests for repairs to a domestic wastewater treatment plant. Infrequent margin notes are not decipherable and do not differentiate between the two activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of John J. D'Hondt, as a Certified Operator Drinking Water and a Certified Operator Wastewater, be disciplined as set forth in the "probation" letter of March 15, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronda L. Moore, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John J. D'Hondt 2 Tropic Wind Drive Port Orange, Florida 32128 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Cooper City Utilities, Inc. provides water and sewer service to its customers in Broward County, Florida, under the jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to Chapter 367, Florida Statutes. The company was incorporated in 1973. All of the outstanding stock of the utility was owned by Moses Hornstein until his death on October 28, 1979, when ownership thereof became vested in the estate of Moses Hornstein, deceased. The personal representatives of this estate are Gertrude Hornstein, S. Lawrence Hornstein, and Judith A. Goldman. Gertrude Hornstein serves as president of Cooper City Utilities, Paul B. Anton as vice president, and Lawrence Lukin as secretary. Quality of Service At the hearing, a representative of the Broward County Health Department testified concerning the quality of service. Although some customer complaints had been received, there are no outstanding citations against Cooper City Utilities, Inc., and the quality of the utility's service will be improved when its new lime-softening plant, under construction, is completed in approximately August, 1980. The investigation by the Commission's staff engineer did not reveal any outstanding citations against either the water or sewer treatment facilities. Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that the utility is in compliance with all state standards, and that the quality of its water and sewer service is satisfactory. Rate Base and Operating Statement Between the time in July when public hearings commenced, and September 24 when the hearings concluded, the utility abandoned its position on several matters which had been in dispute, leaving only two controverted subjects for resolution. These two remaining areas of disagreement are, (1) the cost of money [because of a pending petition for approval of additional financing (Docket No. 800562-WS)], and (2) the expense for an additional field laborer hired subsequent to the test year, which the utility seeks to have included as a pro forma expense. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the following schedule sets forth the rate base of Cooker City Utilities (Exhibit 15): Water Sewer Utility plant in service $2,331,137 $3,723,347 Plant held for future use (47,989) (166,375) Accumulated depreciation (286,651) (460,297) CIAC (net of amortization) (1,322,487) (2,302,707) Working capital allowance 51,083 37,680 Rate Base $ 725,093 831,648 Based on the stipulation of parties, prior to any consideration of the allowance of any expense for the laborer hired subsequent to the test year, the following schedule sets forth the utility's operating statement (Exhibit 15): Water Sewer Operating Revenues $ 368,562 $ 489,886 Operating Expenses: Operation 346,916 232,406 Maintenance 61,750 69,030 Depreciation 22,447 25,543 Amortization -0- -0- Taxes other than income 55,853 75,043 Other expenses -0- -0- Income taxes -0- -0- Total Operating Expenses $ 486,566 $ 402,022 Operating Income (Loss) $ (118,404) 87,864 5. On the matter of allowance of sufficient revenue to cover the cost of one additional laborer hired after the test year, the estimated annual expense is approximately $7,240. However, to the extent that this employee was hired due to an increase in the number of customers subsequent to the test year, or due to plant capacity not used and useful, it is not a proper pro forma adjustment. Without an affirmative showing that the laborer was necessary during the test year for existing customers, the adjustment should be disallowed, and there is insufficient evidence in this record to support such a finding. On the issue of cost of money, during the test year the utility's capital structure was composed of one hundred percent debt at a stated cost of ten percent. In Docket No. 800562-WS the company seeks Commission authority to borrow an additional sum of $450,000, and it plans to amend this application to include authority to borrow $400,000 more in order to make refunds to customers in compliance with a Commission order which was upheld in Cooper City Utilities, Inc. v. Mann (Fla. Sup. Ct. Case No. 58,047, September 12, 1980). However, the utility's proposed debt has not yet been approved by the Commission, and will not be incurred until some time in the future, if approved. In these circumstances, it is not appropriate to take the cost of new debt into consideration in determining cost of capital in this rate case. The evidence in the record supports a ten percent cost of capital. The earned rate of return for the water system is a negative 16.33 percent. The earned rate of return for the sewer system is 10.57 percent. Therefore, the utility's water rates should be increased, and its sewer rates should be decreased, to achieve an overall ten percent rate of return. Accordingly, the annual revenue requirement for the water system is $564,370, which amounts to an annual revenue increase of $195,808. The annual revenue requirement for the sewer system is $485,067, which amounts to an annual revenue decrease of $4,819. Rate Structure The present rates of Cooper City Utilities are structured in the conventional manner, consisting of a minimum gallonage charge and a one-step excess rate over the minimum. The utility proposes. rates with the same basic structure, but with changes in the minimum charge and the minimum gallonage allowance. However, the Commission has consistently taken the position that any rate that requires customers to pay for a minimum number of gallons, whether used or not, is discriminatory. Invariably, a base facilities type of rate structure has been required to be implemented in these circumstances. Under the base facilities charge, each customer pays a pro-rata share of the related facilities cost necessary to provide service, and in addition, pays only the cost of providing the service actually consumed under the gallonage charge. The evidence in this record supports the implementation of the base facilities charge form of rate structure. Under its tariff, Cooper City Utilities is authorized to charge guaranteed revenues in an amount equal to the minimum rate for water service and the applicable rate for sewer service for each equivalent residential connection to be served for a period of one calendar year in advance. Under the base facilities charge type of rate structure, the utility should be authorized to collect guaranteed revenues solely in the amount of the base facilities charge.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Cooper City Utilities, Inc., 3201 Griffin Road, Suite 106, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33312, be granted for the water system and denied for the sewer system, and that the utility be authorized to file revised tariff pages, containing rates designed to produce annual gross revenues of $564,370 for its water system and $485,067 for its sewer system. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement a base facility charge type of rate structure. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to make appropriate refunds to its sewer customers in amounts to be approved by the Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that the rate-refunding bond filed in this docket be maintained until the utility has accomplished the refunds indicated above. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 18th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew T. Lavin, Esquire Post Office Box 650 Hollywood, Florida 33022 Sam Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James L. Ade and William A. Van Nortwick, Esquires Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John W. McWhirter, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2150 Tampa, Florida 33601 Alan F. Ruf, Esquire 2801 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of Cooper City DOCKET NO. 800415-WS (CR) Utilities, Inc. for a rate increase ORDER NO. 9699 to its water and sewer customers in DOAH CASE NO. 80-1188 Broward County, Florida. ISSUED: 12-16-80 / The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: WILLIAM T. MAYO GERALD L. GUNTER JOSEPH P. CRESSE JOHN R. MARKS, III Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William B. Thomas, held public hearings in this matter on July 16 and 17, and on September 23 and 24, 1980, in Cooper City, Florida. The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned Case No. 80-1188 to the above-noted docket. APPEARANCES: Andrew T. Lavin, Esquire Post Office Box 650 Hollywood, Florida 33022 and Sam Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 for the Petitioner, Cooper City Utilities, Inc. James L. Ade and William A. Van Nortwick, Esquires Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 for PCH Corporation Intervenor in opposition. John W. McWhirter, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2150 Tampa, Florida 33601 and Alan F. Ruf, Esquire 2801 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 for the City of Cooper City, Florida, Intervenor in opposition. William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 for the Respondent, Florida Public Service Commission and the public generally. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was entered on November 18, 1980. The time for filing exceptions thereto has expired and no exceptions have been filed. After considering all the evidence in the record, we now enter our order.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether penalties should be imposed and investigative costs and expenses assessed against Respondent for water supply system violations; and, if so, the amount of the penalties and assessments.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Premier Construction Group, Inc., owns and operates a water treatment plant and associated piping in a commercial building it owns and leases at 2315 Highway 41 North in Inverness. The water treatment plant consists of a 500- gallon tank that holds groundwater pumped from a well. The water in the tank is treated with chlorine and distributed throughout the building for potable water use. The water system serves 25 or more people daily for at least 60 days a year and serves the same people for over six months a year. Respondent owned and operated the water system for 18 and a half years with no violations. Respondent hired a licensed water treatment plant operator to monitor and ensure compliance with applicable DEP rules. In August 2009, Respondent’s licensed operator increased his price substantially. Rick Suggs, as Respondent’s owner and president, disputed the increase and asked the licensed operator to reconsider. Family obligations then required Mr. Suggs to travel to South Carolina for an extended period of time, and Respondent did not attend to the matter further. By the end of August 2009, Respondent’s licensed operator notified DEP that he would no longer be servicing Respondent’s water system as of the end of the month. On August 24, 2009, DEP mailed Respondent a letter relaying this information and putting Respondent on notice that a new licensed operator would have to be hired for September. Notwithstanding Respondent’s communications with its licensed operator and DEP in August, Respondent did not hire a new licensed operator. Mr. Suggs testified that Respondent did not know its licensed operator actually quit until later in September. When this was brought to Mr. Suggs’ attention, he instructed his office manager to hire a replacement. Respondent thought the matter was resolved, but the supposed replacement did not proceed with the work. While Respondent was without a licensed operator, the residual chlorine in the system dropped to zero when tested by DEP on September 17, 24, and 30 and on October 7 and 13, 2009. As a result, the water system did not comply with disinfection requirements during September and October 2009. Respondent did not notify DEP of its failure to comply with disinfection requirements in September and October 2009. No monthly operation reports were submitted to DEP for Respondent’s water system for September or October 2009. No bacteriological samples were collected from Respondent’s water system for the months of September and October 2009. Respondent did not notify DEP of its failure to collect bacteriological samples in September and October 2009. While without a licensed operator, Respondent did not provide public notification of its failure to collect bacteriological samples in September and October 2009. Well into October 2009, Respondent became aware that the supposed replacement licensed operator was not doing work for Respondent. Mr. Suggs hired a replacement licensed operator named Mike Watson, who began servicing Respondent’s water system on November 17, 2009. Public notification of Respondent’s failure to collect bacteriological samples in September and October 2009 was given on November 25, 2009. On December 11, 2009, Respondent submitted a completed DEP Form 62-555.900(22), Certification of Delivery of Public Notice, as to its failure to notify the public of its failure to collect bacteriological samples in September and October 2009. By not having a licensed operator in September and October 2009, Respondent saved $332. By not having bacteriological samples collected and tested in September and October 2009, Respondent saved $60. There was evidence that DEP spent approximately $678 investigating and enforcing the violations. More may have been spent, but no evidence of any additional costs or expenses was presented. There was no evidence of any other water treatment violations by Respondent after October 2009. Although there was a potential that the violations could have posed a health threat, there was no evidence that the public’s health actually was threatened by Respondent’s violations. The water system was tested on November 18, 2009, and did not have any coliform bacteria. The NOV includes corrective actions (essentially coming into and staying in compliance), which Respondent already has taken. The NOV requests that penalties be paid within 30 days by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the “State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection” and including the notations OGC File No. 09-3847-09-PW and “Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund” to be mailed to DEP’s Southwest District office at 13051 North Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, Florida 33637. Respondent believes the penalties sought by DEP in this case are excessive. Mr. Suggs cited Respondent’s clean record for 18 and a half years, his personal and financial difficulties during the two months when the violations occurred, and his responsiveness in correcting violations beginning in November 2009. Mr. Suggs testified that, during mediation, DEP informed him that the penalties could have totaled $115,000 if an unexplained “matrix” had been used to calculate the penalties. Mr. Suggs thought $115,000 was “ludicrous.” Mr. Suggs also requests that the lesser penalties sought in the NOV be further reduced, especially considering that Respondent paid a lawyer $2,800 for representation earlier in the proceeding, until the lawyer withdrew from the case.
The Issue Whether, and to what extent, petitioner should be authorized to increase the water and sewer rates it charges its customers.
Findings Of Fact I. The Utility and its Application The Utility, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulfstream Land and Development Corporation, owns and operates water and sewer systems serving residents of "Jacaranda Community," a development located within the city limits of Plantation, Florida. The Utility's water treatment plant uses a lime- softening process; its sewage treatment plant uses a contact stabilization mode. During the test year ending September 30, 1980, the Utility supplied water service to an average of 3,162 residential, 662 general service, and 14 private fire-line customers; during the same period it supplied sewer service to an average of 3,162 residential and 276 general service customers. By its February 5, 1981, application, the Utility alleged that it was authorized a rate of return of 9.87 percent, yet during the test year it earned only a 7.20 percent rate of return on its water rate base, and a 6.58 percent return on its sewer rate base. It proposed new rates which would generate $1,271,841 in water operating revenues and $1,381,401 in sewer operating revenues--constituting a rate of return of not less than 12.42 percent. (Testimony of Fabelo; Petitioner's application dated January 30, 1981, R-4.) II. The Elements of Rate-Making In setting utility rates, the Commission must determine: (1) rate base; 2/ (2) the cost of providing the 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. If the Utility is providing service of acceptable quality, it is entitled to rates which will produce revenues sufficient to cover its reasonable costs of operation and allow it an opportunity to earn a fair return on its rate base. There are three major issues in this case: two involve the determination of rate base and the other involves whether several Utility expenditures should be expensed or capitalized. These issues are addressed below with the the appropriate rate-making element. Rate Base The two issues involving rate base are: (1) what portion of the Utility's sewer treatment plant is used and useful in the public service; and what method should be used to calculate working capital allowance. Used and Useful Plant A public utility is entitled to a return only on Utility property which is "used and useful in the public service." 3/ At hearing, the Utility contended that 100 percent of its sewage treatment plant was used and useful; the Commission contended that the correct figure was 76 percent. 4/ The Utility's contention is accepted as more credible because it is based on a professional engineering analysis of actual wastewater flows through the sewage treatment plant during the test year and eight months thereafter. In contrast, the Commission's contention is based on application of a formula which relates total rated capacity of a plant to the number of Equivalent Residential Connections 5/ ("ERCs") it is capable of serving. Here, actual must prevail over theoretical fact. The Utility's sewage treatment plant has a rated capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day ("MGD"). During the test year, average daily flows, calculated monthly, fluctuated between 63.6 percent and 75.2 percent of the rated capacity; the average three-day peak flow, calculated monthly, ranged from 73.2 percent to 86.4 percent of capacity; and one-day peak flows ranged from 74.4 percent to 87.2 percent of capacity. During the eight months following the test year, sewage flow steadily increased. The greatest flow was during February, a relatively dry month; average daily flow was 2.20 MGD, 88 percent of rated capacity; the average three-day peak flow was 98.8 percent of capacity; and the peak flow day was 100.4 percent of capacity. If, on that peak flow day, the plant had only 76 percent of its present capacity, sewage would have overflowed the plant. The parties agree 6/ that a margin of reserve or allowance for growth of approximately 24 percent should be used in calculating the Utility's used and useful plant; they also agree that the Utility's future growth in ERCs is expected to range from 700 to 800 ERCs a year. The Commission argues that the 24 percent growth allowance should be added to average ERCs during the test year, and not to actual February, 1981, flows. This argument is unpersuasive. The test year period is a tool for predicting conditions which will exist during the period in which the new rates will be effective; rates are set prospectively, for the future--not the past. Thus, rates must take into account known changes and conditions occurring subsequent to the test year in order to accurately reflect conditions expected for the future. Here, the Utility's actual sewage flows indicate that 100 percent of its existing plant is used and useful and necessary to satisfy the immediate and anticipated future needs of its customers. In an attempt to rebut or overcome the effect of the sewage plant's actual flow conditions, the Commission contends that the sewage system is experiencing ground water infiltration of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the use of total flow figures. However, the infiltration does not exceed the amount which is ordinarily planned for in constructing sewage treatment plants. Infiltration which will continue to take place--despite the Utility's best efforts to ameliorate it--cannot be separated from the wastewater stream. Since the plant must be capable of handling the combined flow, including infiltration, total flow figures must be considered. The Commission also contends that the system is not 100 percent used and useful because it can serve more connections. This contention is inconsistent with the acknowledged requirement that a sewage treatment plant must be capable of accepting increased sewage flows reasonably anticipated in the near future. That is the purpose of including an allowance for growth in the used and useful calculation. Lastly, the Commission contends that the Utility's failure to consult with Department of Environmental Regulation officials about future plant expansion is inconsistent with its 100 percent used and useful claim. But the Utility, recognizing its present limits and future needs, has actively pursued an interlocal agreement which will allow it to pump approximately 700,000 GPD to Broward County's regional sewage facility. The agreement is in its final stages and approval is eminent. (Testimony of Ring, Farina, Walden; P-1, p-2, R-1.) Cash Working Capital Allowance Cash working capital is the amount of investors' supplied cash needed to operate a utility during the interval between rendition of service and receipt of payment from the customers. By including it in rate base, a utility is allowed to earn a return on this portion of its investment. A utility's working capital requirements may be calculated by using: a standardized formula; (2) the utility's balance sheet; or (3) a lead-lag study. Until June, 1981, the Commission routinely used the formula approach; working capital was calculated by multiplying 12.5 percent (equivalent to one- eighth of a year) times the utility's annual adjusted operations and maintenance expenses. This method is also facilitated by Commission Rule 25- 10.176(2)(a)2.g., Florida Administrative Code which requires that water and sewer rate adjustment applications include a schedule showing: g. Allowance for working capital (1/8 of annual operations and maintenance expenses for the test year.) Id. In this case--consistent with the Commission's rule and custom--the Utility seeks a working capital allowance derived by using the standard Commission formula. However, the Commission seeks to use, instead, the balance sheet approach--an approach which it contends is more precise than the standard formula and results in a closer correlation between the Utility's rate base and its capital structure. The Commission's contention is accepted as persuasive. Under the balance sheet method, working capital allowance is the difference between a utility's current assets and current liabilities. Thus, the working capital component of rate base is derived, by simple adjustments, from a utility's balance sheet; it originates in the balance sheet's capital structure, just as do the other components of rate base. In comparison, the formula approach originates from a utility's income statement, i.e., one-eighth of its annual operating and maintenance expenses. The one-eighth factor equates to a 45-day lag--a period of time assumed to cover the lapse between the rendering of service and payment by the customer. But this assumption, while generally useful, may not accurately depict the working capital requirement of a given utility. In this case, the balance sheet approach is a more precise method for determining the Utility's working capital requirements. The Utility poses two objections to calculating working capital allowance by the balance sheet method: (1) it deviates from the Commission's prior practice in water and sewer rate cases, and (2) it may result in a negative allowance when a utility has insufficient cash to pay its current bills; thus a utility in greatest need of working capital would receive the least allowance. As to the objection that the balance sheet method represents a departure from past practice, the Commission has flexibility to expand, refine, and alter its policy through individual case decisions provided its action is explained and justified by record evidence. 7/ The Commission has not, by rule, limited that flexibility. Rule 25-10.176(2)(a)2.g. only requires applicants for rate adjustments to show their working capital requirements by applying the formula method; it does not preclude the Commission or utilities from using an alternative method more suitable to the facts of a given case. For example, it is generally recognized that, if a lead-lag study is conducted, it will prevail over the formula method. The Utility's second objection (that a cash-poor utility receives a lesser working capital allowance), is based on a hypothetical case and has no application to the facts here; the Utility has sufficient current assets and the balance sheet method results in a positive working capital allowance. This finding in favor of the balance sheet method is based on the evidence presented; its effect is thus necessarily limited to this case. Should the Commission--in future cases--advocate the balance sheet method, as opposed to the formula method, it must again explain and justify its position, insofar as possible, by conventional proof. 8/ Unless its policy is adopted by rule, an agency must repeatedly establish and defend it. 9/ The other components of the Utility's rate base, as adjusted, are not in dispute. Water and sewer rate base are therefore $3,369,160 and $4,099,887, respectively, and are depicted below: RATE BASE Test Year Ending September 30, 1900 Water Sewer Utility Plant in Service $5,919,833 $9,210,212 Utility Plant Held for Future Use (145,384) (644,429) Construction Work in Progress 265,300 -0- Accumulated Depreciation (616,835) (954,300) Contributions in Aid of Construction--Net (2,293,690) (3,579,118) Working Capital Allowance 39,936 59,522 Materials and Supplies -0- -0- TOTAL $3,369,160 $4,099,887 (Testimony of Davis, Asmus; P-6, R-2, R-3.) Net Operating Income The Commission opposes several operation, maintenance, and depreciation expenses which the Utility proposes to include in the test year statement of operations. The Hardy Gross Analysis The Hardy Cross Analysis is a computer analysis of the entire water distribution system. It indicates loss of pressure, balances water flows, and determines residual pressure at the end points of the system. It is a useful and necessary informational tool in designing additions to water distribution systems: it allows the designer to properly size new pipes added to the system. Growth, such as that experienced by the Utility, requires that such an analysis be updated at least once a year. The parties do not dispute the value of such an analysis, its cost, or the necessity for its actual updating. They dispute only who should bear the cost: the existing rate-payers or the developers which require and benefit from the continued expansion of the water system. It is concluded that the recurring cost of updating the Hardy Cross Analysis should be borne by developers, and, indirectly, the future customers who are the primary beneficiaries of the annual updating; without the growth associated with new developments, the annual updating of the Hardy Gross Analysis would be unnecessary. It would be unfair to require existing customers to pay for services--through higher rates--which they do not require and from which they receive no significant benefit. (Testimony of Farina, Walden.) Review of City of Plantation Utility Standards In 1969, the City of Plantation, where the Utility's water and sewer systems are located, enacted an ordinance containing detailed technical standards governing the construction of water and sewer systems. Historical experience has indicated that the standards incorporated in the ordinance require annual review, and periodic revision; the Utility's participation in that process is reasonably necessary to its continued efficient operation. A necessary expense of $1,000 should be allowed and charged as an operation expense to each system--water and sewer. (Testimony of Farina.) Diesel Fuel On June 16, 1980--during the last quarter of the test year--the Utility installed two auxiliary power units which utilize diesel fuel. Since the two power units were not in service during the entire test year, the Utility seeks to annualize the cost of the diesel fuel consumed during the 3 1/2-month period and include it as a recurring operating expense. 10/ The Commission opposes annualizing the fuel costs on the ground that sufficient documentation was not presented by the Utility to justify the actual consumption of fuel by the power units and establish that such consumption represented normal operation of the Utility, i.e., that it is reasonably expected that such annual consumption will repeatedly occur in the future. The Commission's contention is accepted as persuasive. The Utility has the burden of supporting its claimed expenses with adequate documentation. 11/ Here, no evidence was presented to establish the actual periods of operation of the auxiliary generators or the conditions under which they were used; nor were rated consumption of fuel figures supplied. The alternate treatment suggested by the Commission--amortize initial diesel fuel fill-up cost over three years, placing one-third of it in expense and adding the other two-thirds to materials and supplies 12/ --is a reasonable method of treating the fuel expenditures. (Testimony of Davis, Walden, Asmus; R-2, R-3.) Amortization of Legal Expense Relating to Proposed CIAC Rules The Utility contends that the Commission is contemplating further CIAC 13/ rule making thus necessitating the expenditure of recurring legal expenses in the total amount of $778. However, although the Commission is now considering the adoption of CIAC rules, recurring revisions in the future are not reasonably expected. In the last ten years, the Commission has had one rule docket pertaining to CIAC rule making. Amortization of this expense is therefore unjustified. (Testimony of Davis.) Adjustment for Increased Chemical Costs Because of escalating costs of chemicals, the Utility proposes to adjust the water and sewer chemicals account by applying June, 1981, prices to the quantity of chemicals consumed during the test year. The Commission opposes the proposed adjustment, contending that the Utility's new lime-feeding equipment will result in lower lime costs. The Utility's adjustments 14/ are accepted as credible; since a new Zeolite treatment plant will soon be coming on-line, it is reasonably expected that lime requirements, associated with the water-softening process, will--if anything--increase. (Testimony of Farina, Davis, Asmus; R-6.) Maintenance Expenses: Amortization of Post Test-Year Gearbox Repairs The Utility proposes to include in sewer maintenance expense amortization of the cost of a gearbox repair incurred subsequent to the test year. The Commission proposes to amortize--for three to five years--all major repairs incurred during the test year. The Utility has not amortized such extraordinary repairs during each of the last five years; it contends that such historical amortization is necessary to arrive at a representative figure for extraordinary repair on an on-going basis, that the Commission cannot begin--for the first time--to amortize such repairs during the test year. The Utility proposes to simply adjust sewer maintenance expense by $3,386--an admittedly rough estimate. The Utility's accountant admits: It would be a lot more exact to go back five years and apply it [amortization of extraordinary repairs] down the line. . .but that's very time-consuming. (Tr. 192.) It is undisputed that the Utility--to properly account for extraordinary maintenance repairs--should amortize such expenses through the expected life of the repairs. The Utility has not done so to repairs incurred during the last five years. The substitution of an "estimate" of expected future repair costs for a preferable and more exact accounting method is unacceptable and should be rejected. (Testimony of Davis, Asmus.) Depreciation Expense The finding, infra, paragraph A(1) that the Utility's sewer plant is 100 percent used and useful necessarily requires an adjustment to the Commission's proposed depreciation expense. The adjustment increases depreciation, for sewer operations, by $11,897. (Testimony of Asmus; R-6.) The net operating income which a utility should be allowed the opportunity to earn is reached by multiplying rate base by a fair rate of return. 15/ Operating expense and taxes (income and gross receipts tax) are then added to net operating income to calculate gross revenue requirements. In this case, the Utility's net operating income should be $414,743 from water operations and $504,696 from sewer operations. Before gross revenue requirements can be determined, operating expense and taxes should be recalculated consistent with the above findings; such recalculation should be conducted by the Commission, verified by the Utility, and included as part of the Commission's final order entered in this proceeding. Rate Structure, Allocation, and Rate Design The Utility's present rates are structured in accordance with what is commonly referred to as the base facility rate design. The purpose of this design is to require customers to pay their pro rata share of the Utility's cost of providing the service. It is objectively determined and results in an equitable and consistent distribution of the costs involved. Both parties agree that the new rates should also be structured in accordance with the base facility rate design. However, the new rates should eliminate the present 25 percent rate differential between commercial and residential rates--a differential that has not been justified and which the Utility no longer seeks to impose. Motorola, Inc., a large industrial customer of the Utility, requested more favorable rate treatment because of the large volume of water it consumes. However, insufficient cost of service information was submitted to justify a "volume discount." A cost of service study is necessary to accurately allocate costs of service among customer classes. (Testimony of Fabulo, Asmus; R-4.) Quality of Service Several customers complained that the Utility's water had offensive color and taste. Eight complaints were filed with the Broward County Health Department during 1980. However, the preponderance of evidence establishes that the Utility's water and sewer systems are in compliance with local and state standards. Neither system is under any citation or enforcement action instituted by a regulatory agency. The quality of the water and sewer service provided is, therefore, determined to be satisfactory. (Testimony of Farina, Walden; P-11)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Utility be authorized to file rate tariffs consistent with the provisions of this Recommended Order. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st 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 21st day of August, 1981.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully denied general permits to construct an extension to a public water supply distribution system and to construct a waste water treatment system at a camp being constructed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On December 11, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Ft. Myers office, received applications from the Orange Blossom Baptist Association, Petitioner, submitted by its project engineer, for general permits to install an extension to provide water to, and construct a waste water treatment facility for, a camp being built by Petitioner. These applications were reviewed by the Respondent, and on January 2, 1992, James Oni telephoned Petitioner's engineer to tell him the applications were incomplete and additional information was required. Some of this additional information was submitted by Petitioner on January 7, 1992, but the word "vertical" was left out of the application to indicate what the 18 inch separation of the water and sewer lines represented; no pump out was provided for the lift station; the flotation formula as submitted contained a typographical error where an "s" was substituted for a "5", leaving the calculation of storage capacity of the system indeterminable; the lift station was only 4.5 feet deep and should normally be 10 feet; the configuration of the sump to insure solids would settle to the bottom was not provided, nor was the amount of concrete to be used to obtain this configuration shown; and the type of equipment to be used was not clearly shown. In summary, when submitted the application was not technically correct, and it remained technically incorrect after the additional information was submitted by the applicant. General permits are required to be processed by DER within 30 days of their receipt, and if not denied within that 30 day period they must be approved regardless of their compliance with the statutes and regulations.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Orange Blossom Baptist Association general permits to install a waste water treatment facility and to construct an extension to a public water supply distribution system in Highlands County, Florida. ORDERED this 6th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: William N. Clark, P.E. 233 E. Park Avenue Lake Wales, FL 33853 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
