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
Findings Of Fact On October 15, 1982, Hal Thomas Reid Associates applied for a septic tank permit to serve a 16-room motel. On February 2, 1983, this application was amended to a 5,800 gallon septic tank to serve a 32-unit condominium and office. The lot on which this drain field is to be located is 70 feet by 100 feet. When the application was filed, the lot was inspected by the Citrus County Health Department. The elevation of the land averaged 2.5 to 2.9 feet above mean sea level. The 10-year flood plane in this area is 4.9 feet. Occasional high tides inundate this area; however, the water drains off rapidly and no one testified that water ever remained standing as long as seven consecutive days. Usually the water drains off in less than 24 hours. On March 1, 1983, an extremely high tide flooded this area and roads in the vicinity to a depth of approximately one foot. This water remained on the site less than 24 hours. The site is not located adjacent to state waters, is not an area designated as wetlands, and is without the dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Exhibits 20 and 21). By adding five feet of fill to the site, the bottom of the gravel below the drain pipes will be above the 10-year flood plane. The drain field capacity is adequate to handle the flow from 33 bathrooms of residential units. In approving this permit, the Citrus County Health Department used the 150 gallons per day discharge for residential units rather than the 100 gallons per day discharge from a motel unit. The water table at this location is two feet above mean sea level. This is determined by the elevation reached at high tides for 14 consecutive days. As a condition to Citrus County withdrawing as an intervenor in these proceedings, Applicant agrees: To revegetate and restore any alleged wetlands affected by the permit to a like or similar condition; To install three shallow draft monitor wells around the drain field towards the wetlands area adjacent to the site and towards Woods 'n Waters subdivision, establish an existing level of bacteria count prior to the activation of the septic tank, and to monitor said wells through the Citrus County Health Department on a quarterly basis; and In the event any monitor wells shall test at an unsatisfactory level, Applicant will forthwith correct this condition to the satis- faction of the Citrus County Health Department. This application meets all of the code requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue Whether Petitioner North Fort Myers Homeowners Association, Inc. (Homeowners) participated in DOAH Case No. 91-6436 for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact On September 11, 1991, Homeowners filed its Petition for Administrative Hearing and Request to Consolidate with Administrative Hearing set for November 7, 1991. The Petition alleged that Homeowners' interests would be adversely affected by Bradley's request for a permit for construction of a wastewater collection system that it planned to connect to Florida Cities Water Company's Sewage Treatment Plant. It was further alleged that Florida Cities current violations of federal water quality standards would increase as a result of such a connection. Bradley responded to the Petition by filing a Motion to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim/Or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 31, 1991, Hearing Officer Quattlebaum granted Bradley's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Hearing Officer found that the Petition did not allege that the application for a wastewater collection system permit failed to comply with the agency's relevant rules and criteria. The Hearing Officer also ruled that the Petition did not identify when such criteria would be unmet by the project. Homeowners was given leave of ten days to file an Amended Petition. Homeowners timely filed its Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing on November 13, 1991. This Amended Petition continued to focus upon whether Bradley's wastewater collection system should connect to Florida Cities Water Company's Sewage Treatment Plant and the federal water quality issue as it relates to discharge after treatment. After Bradley filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Petition and Homeowners replied, Hearing Officer Quattlebaum entered a Recommended Order of Dismissal on December 12, 1991. The basis for the recommendation was that Homeowners had "failed to allege that the application for permit failed to comply with the relevant criteria as set forth in statute and rule which govern issuance of the permit." The Temporary Operating Permit under which Florida Cities was operating expressly allowed Bradley's wastewater collection system to connect to the sewage treatment plant upon satisfaction of the Department's permitting requirements for such a collection system. Homeowners lost its opportunity to address whether such a connection was proper when it failed to timely challenge this Temporary Operating Permit. The only agency action subject to challenge in this case was whether Bradley's application to construct the wastewater collection system complied with the Department's permitting requirements for the system. Florida Cities anticipated actions were irrelevant to this particular proceeding because final agency action had already been taken on the question of whether the connection could take place. Throughout this proceeding, Homeowners failed to comprehend that it had waived its opportunity to pursue a challenge to the connection of Bradley's wastewater collection system to the sewage treatment plant when it did not timely challenge Florida Cities' Temporary Operating Permit. The Order granting Bradley's Motion to Dismiss dated October 31, 1991, did not affirmatively set forth that the connection issue could not be pursued in DOAH Case No. 91-6436. Homeowners' lack of comprehension on this issue remains evident in the Amended Petition, the Motion for Reconsideration filed after the Recommended Order of Dismissal, the Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees and the testimony presented at hearing. Lack of comprehension is a neutral condition which neither proves nor disproves that the Petition and Amended Petition were filed for improper purposes, as defined by Subsection 120.59(6)(e), Florida Statutes. No direct evidence of Homeowners' participation in the proceeding for an improper purpose was established at hearing. The attorney for Homeowners at the time the Petition and Amended Petition were filed denied that Homeowners was motivated by an improper purpose. It was seeking to protect water quality in its locale and to assure the local sewer treatment system is adequate. There was no evidence presented as to whether Homeowners has participated in other such proceedings involving Bradley and the same project for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Supplemental Final Order denying Bradley's request for attorney's fees and costs as Homeowners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose as defined by Subsection 120.59(6)(e), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6436 Homeowners' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See separate order on that issue. Rejected. Pleading amended accordingly. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See Preliminary Statement. The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. 3. Accepted. See HO #2. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. See HO #4. 8. Accepted. See HO #4. 9. Accepted. See HO #5. 10. Accepted. See HO #6. 11. Accepted. 12. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7 - HO #13. Bradley's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #7 and HO #8. Accept that Homeowners failed to present any justifiable issue of law or fact that could be heard in relation to this permit. See HO #7 - HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: HAROLD M STEVENS ESQ PO DRAWER 1440 FT MYERS FL 33902 FRANCINE FFOLKES ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 GERI L WAKSLER ESQ PEPER MARTIN JENSEN MAICHEL & HETLAGE 2000 MAIN ST - STE 600 FT MYERS FL 33901 DANIEL H THOMPSON ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 CAROL BROWNER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented, the following facts are determined: The UTILITY is owned by Florida Land Company, a Florida corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Continental Group, Inc., a New York corporation. In 1975, the UTILITY constructed a water and sewage treatment system to serve a residential and commercial development known as Greenwood Lakes. The UTILITY's water and sewer rates and charges have not changed since the COMMISSION's approval of initial tariffs in 1976. (Testimony of Crosby; P.E. 1.) I. Elements of Ratemaking In fixing the water and sewer rates to be charged by a public utility, the COMMISSION must consider: (1) the value and quality of the service, (2) the utility's rate base, (3) the cost of providing the service, and (4) a fair return on the utility's rate base. Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Each element is addressed separately below. Quality of Service The UTILITY's water supply is provided by two deep wells with a total capacity, based on present pumps, of 2.376 million gallons per day. Treatment is provided by aeration and chlorination. The water system operates under an operating permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Water samples and reports are made monthly, and the water system presently meets all drinking water standards of the Department. (Testimony of Crosby, Heiker; R.E. 1.) The UTILITY's sewage treatment system consists of a .10 million gallon per day package plant; treatment consists of extended aeration followed by gravity flow to evapo-percolation ponds providing on-site disposal. It operates under an operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and complies with Department's sewage collection and treatment standards. (Testimony of Crosby.) Rate Base Rate base consists of the UTILITY property that is used and useful in providing the service for which rates are charged. In its application, the UTILITY proposed a rate base; after review, the COMMISSION suggested several adjustments, which are not opposed by the UTILITY. Use of a year-end test year is appropriate because of the extraordinary growth experienced by the UTILITY during 1979. For the test year ending December 3l, 1979, the UTILITY's adjusted water rate base is $135,977; the adjusted sewer rate base is $131,764. They are calculated as follows: RATE BASE Test Year Ending December 31, 1979 WATER SEWER Utility Plant in Service $190,969 $225,722 Construction Work in Progress 1,214 4,297 Accumulated Depreciation 18,920 2/ 14,801 2/ Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC)-Net of Amortization -48,831 -86,458 Working Capital Allowance 3,030 3,198 Income Tax Lag -0- - 194 RATE BASE $135,977 $131,764 (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) Operating Statement The following Operating Statement reflects the UTILITY's revenue earned, costs of operation, and not-operating income during the test year. It shows that the UTILITY suffered a loss of $26,429 in its water operations and a loss of $19,101 in its sewer operations. OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ending December WATER 31 , 1979 SEWER Operating Revenues: $10,172 Operating Expenses: Operatic 25,314 $14,365 22,436 Maintenance -0- -0- Depreciation 18,199 10,132 Amortization -0- -0- Taxes Other Than Income 1,088 898 Other Expenses -0- -0- Income Taxes -0- -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $44,601 $33,466 Operating Income ($26,429) (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) ($19,101) The UTILITY requests an annual water revenue increase of $36,154, and a sewer revenue increase of $31,715, which would produce gross annual revenue of $54,326, and $46,080, respectively. The adjusted Operating Statement, constructed to reflect this additional requested revenue, is as follows: CONSTRUCTED OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ending December 31, 1979 WATER SEWER Operating Revenues: Operating Expenses: $54,326 $46,080 Operation 30,634 25,580 Maintenance -0- -0- Depreciation 3,812 2/ 3,436 2/ Amortization -0- -0- Taxes Other Than Income 2,280 1,941 Other Expenses -0- -0- Income Taxes 1,424 968 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $38,150 $31,925 Operating Income $16,176 $14,155 Rate Base $135,977 $131,704 Rate of Return 11.90 percent 10.74 percent (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) Rate of Return The capital structure of the UTILITY is as follows: AMOUNT PERCENT TO TOTAL Debt 4/ $1,450,000 60.90 Customer deposits 6,389 .27 Common Equity 924,550 30.83 TOTAL $2,380,947 100.00 The proposed annual gross water revenues of $54,326, and sewer revenues of $46,080 will allow the UTILITY to earn a rate of return of 11.90 percent on its water rate base, and 10.74 percent on its sewer rate base. With debt service costs now in excess of 12.50 percent, the return on equity will be nominal; however, there is no evidence that this will cause the UTILITY's service to suffer. (Testimony of Smith; P.E. 6.) II. Capitalization of Interest on Non-Used and Useful Equipment The UTILITY's plant is larger than necessary to serve its present customers. In its application, the UTILITY seeks COMMISSION approval to capitalize its interest costs on that portion of the UTILITY's plant which is non-used and useful, and excluded from rate base. Capitalization will allow the UTILITY to recover its interest expenses over the useful life of the property involved. The COMMISSION has previously allowed capitalization of interest under similar circumstances, Docket No. 760054-WS, Application of North Orlando Water and Sewer Corporation, Order No. 7455, dated October 4, 1976. Here, the UTILITY's request is reasonable, concurred in by the COMMISSION, and should be granted. (Testimony of NewIon, Cooke, Lowe; P.E. .) III. Rate Structure The UTILITY currently uses a conventional two-tier rate structure. A base facility charge (BFC) rate structure is a more equitable method of distributing costs associated with providing a utility service. Under a BFC structure, customers pay a base charge which covers their pro-rata share of the UTILITY's fixed costs, and a gallonage charge which covers the costs of pumping, treating, and distributing the actual water gallonage used. Such a structure would require the UTILITY to alter its current customer service policy to insure that the base charge is paid during temporary discontinuances of service. (Testimony of Washington.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the UTILITY's application for increased sewer rates and charges be granted and that it be authorized to file revised tariff pages containing rates designed in accordance with the base facility charge concept to produce gross annual water revenues of $54,326 and annual sewer revenues of $46,080; That the UTILITY be required to notify each customer of any rate increase authorized, explaining the reasons for such increase. A letter of explanation should be submitted to the COMMISSION for prior approval; That the UTILITY be allowed to retain all interim revenues collected pursuant to COMMISSION Order No. 9416 and cancel the rate refunding bond previously submitted; and That the UTILITY be allowed to capitalize interest on non-used and useful equipment which is excluded from rate base. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The City has brought this action pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, challenging Rules 17-50.015(2)(f) and 17-50.016(2)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes any person substantially affected by a rule to seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Department has stipulated to the City's standing to maintain this action. 4. Rules 17-50.015(2)(f) and 17-50.016(2)(f) were adopted by the Department pursuant to Sections 403.061, 403.101, 403.1823, 403.1832, 403.1838 and 403.804, Florida Statutes. No disputed issues of material fact exist between the parties.
The Issue This case presents two questions for consideration. The first question concerns the Petitioners' contention that the grant of the permit at issue must be considered contemporaneously with the matters of file in the application made by the Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, File No. 64-24208, pending before the Department. From the point of view of the Petitioners, should this contemporaneous review process be afforded, then the current permit would not be granted due to the alleged deficiencies associated with the application, File No. 64-24208. The second question to be answered in this case concerns the dispute between the Respondents on the issue of water quality monitoring as a condition to granting the permit sought herein. The Respondent Department would have the applicant monitor in six lakes in the area of the project and the applicant would restrict its monitoring activity to three lakes in the project area. The Petitioners support the Department in its position on the monitoring question. 1/
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, has made application with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, to effect drainage system improvements to a land locked conveyance network which consists of the enlargement and regrading 990 lineal feet of existing channel cross- section and the installation of additional culverts and control structures at road crossings. The project also involves repairs and replacement of a damaged culvert. The work would be accomplished by land based equipment transported to the work site by existing overland routes. The excavated sand fill would be placed on upland property owned by The Deltona Corporation. The details of the project and data related to the geographical area may be found in the Joint Exhibit I admitted into evidence. The date of the application for permit is December 12, 1979. On January 25, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation sent out a notice of the pending review by the Department of the permit application. After receipt of that notice, attorney for the Petitioners, on February 12, 1980, wrote to the Department expressing the objection to the project made by property owners in the area of the project site, together with a list of those owners found in an attached Petition of owners' names and addresses. A copy of this letter and attached Petition may be found as Joint Exhibit No. VII admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the receipt of the statement of objections, the Department issued a construction permit dated April 30, 1980, subject to conditions. A copy of this permit may be found as Joint Exhibit No. VIII admitted into evidence. The Petitioners, through their counsel, then filed a formal petition dated May 6, 1980, which was the vehicle utilized in establishing the details of this dispute and was the basis for the Department Secretary forwarding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration by a hearing officer in keeping with the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The hearing was conducted on October 16, 1980, and the Petitioners' position was more specifically defined in the course of that hearing and the claim as described in the issue statement of this order constitutes the substance of the Petitioners' position. 2/ Joint Exhibit No. I; petitioners' Exhibit No. 1 and Respondent Deltona's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 constitute sketches and aerial photographs of the general project area. Joint Exhibit No. 1 identifies the work area with more particularity. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 indicates the desired flow pattern of the water through the various lake systems and indicates whether the flow is by gravity flow or pump flow. This drawing depicts the proposed channels and structural improvements that would be involved. The Department has indicated that all the regulatory concerns which it has about the project associated with Permit No. 64-26478-4E, the permit in question, have been adequately addressed, subject to the conditions set forth in the permit document. Joint Exhibit Nos. V and VI; Respondent Deltona's Exhibit Nos. 5, 6 and 7; and the Petitioners Exhibit No. 2 are exhibits pertaining to water quality concerns, to include sample results. The testing and other information provided indicates that the project as contemplaced, would meat the regulatory parameters set forth in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The Department in expressing its concern that continued water quality monitoring be conducted has indicated that it feels that future periodic monitoring should be done in Jenkins Pond, Lake Big, Lake Diana, McGarity Lake, Sidney Lake and Lake Mitnik. The Respondent Deltona would only conduct this monitoring in the first three lakes named. By looking at the Respondent Deltona's Exhibit No. 2, it could be seen that all of the aforementioned lakes would be in the same basic flow pattern. Of the system of lakes, the area around McGarity Lake is the most highly developed and and has the greatest potential for causing unacceptable pollution. That pollution could be carried through the other lakes within the system as described in view of the potential of the system, if the project is built, to convey a greater volume of water at a higher rate of flow. A more expansive water quality monitoring system within six lakes as opposed to three lakes would increase the opportunity to discover potential hazards from pollutant at an earlier data. This is particularly so by using lakes such as McGarity Lake where there is a higher level of developmental build-out.
The Issue The matter to be resolved by this Recommended Order concerns the Petitioner's Notice of Violation and Order of Corrective Action filed against the Respondent on the subject of alleged violations by the Respondent of the "Florida Safe Drinking Water Act", Sections 403.850 through 403.864, Florida Statutes. Within this complaint document there are six counts constituted of the following allegations: Count I. The Respondent does not continually apply effective disinfection measures to the water distributed to the service connections of the Respondent's water system. Respondent's water system has chlorination equipment installed but a chlorine residual is not continually maintained. This condition has existed since at least February, 1979. These facts show a violation of Rule 17- 22.106(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Count II. The Department has not received reports from the Respondent which contain information about the operation and maintenance of the water system. This condition has existed since at least April, 1978. These facts show a violation of Rule 17-22.111(2), Florida Administrative Code. Count III. The Respondent's water system has a daily flow of more than 2,500 gallons per day but less than 0.1 million gallons per day. The operation, maintenance and supervision, if any, of the water system is not performed by a person who has passed an examination that entitled such person to be a certified operator. This condition has existed since at least April, 1978. These facts show a violation of Rule 17-22.107(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Count IV. The slab surrounding the well casing has been broken exposing the system to possible contamination. This condition has existed since at least February, 1979. These facts show a violation of Rule 17-22.106(2)(c)2.e., Florida Administrative Code. Count V. The Respondent`s water system has no flow meter for accurately measuring the volume of water distributed by the public water system. This condition has existed since at least February, 1979. These facts show a violation of Rule 17-22.106(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Count VI. The Petitioner has incurred costs and expenses in the amount of $57.22 in the course of investigating the case and is entitled to be reimbursed pursuant to Subsection 403.860(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This case is presented for consideration based upon the Notice of Violation and Order of Correction filed by the Secretary of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, on August 24, 1979. The action is taken against Arnold H. Parker, an individual who resides in Escambia County, Florida. On September 17, 1979, the Respondent, Parker, by and through his counsel answered the allegations of the Petitioner and requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The request for hearing was granted and on December 6, 1979, in Florida, a formal hearing was held to consider the Petitioner's complaint. (The essential elements of that complaint are reflected in the synopsis reported in the Issue statement of this Recommended Order.) The facts reveal that Daniel C. Walker, an employee of Petitioner, went to Perdido Key, Escambia County, Florida, in February, 1979, for the purpose of inspecting a water system owned and operated by the Respondent and to ascertain the number of service connections associated with the system. When Walker arrived at the location of the Respondent's well, he observed that the above-ground equipment utilized in pumping the water out of the ground was housed in a building. This building had a hole in the roof and the concrete slab surrounding the well casing was broken at the surface allowing for possible contamination by influent. At the time of the inspection a device for introducing chlorine into the extracted water was noted but that device was not connected and no chlorine residual was found in the water system. The water system was not being operated by a certified operator within the meaning of Rule 17-22.107(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the Respondent had not submitted operational reports to the Petitioner since April, 1978. The reports referred to are those reports required by Rule 17- 22.111(2), Florida Administrative Code. While Walker was at the general location of the well in onestion, he observed forty individual lots on which various types of trailers, campers and mobile homes could be found. Walker did not determine if persons were living in these shelters and he does not recall seeing persons in the area of the lots. The witness, Walker, did not observe any restaurant or public food establishment in the area of the well house and lots. On September 25, 1979, Robert Court, another employee of the Petitioner, went to the site of the well house and lots. At that time he counted thirty-two trailers, campers and mobile homes and each of those shelters had a service connection from the well of the Respondent located somewhere on the lot where the shelter was found. The service connection was in the form of a spigot. Court observed several people in the north-east section of the general area which is constituted of the well location and lots. Court returned to the location on November 30, 1979, and in a random survey saw approximately thirty-two trailers, campers and mobile hones. Subsequent to the visits of the employees, the Notice of Violation and Order of Correction was prepared by the enforcement section of the Petitioner and the cost of that preparation was $57.22. The Respondent, Arnold H. Parker, testified in the course of the hearing and his testimony established that there are nine persons who live in the area of the well on a year-round basis and these persons are served by the well during that period of time. Of the nine persons one family, the family of the Respondent, lives in a mobile home and the family is constituted of three persons, the Respondent, his wife and son. In a second mobile home the Respondent's daughter and her husband are found to reside. The final group of persons constituted of the nine full-time residents are the Respondent's daughter, her husband and two children in a third mobile home. Each lot on which the three mobile homes are found is served by a service connection. The remaining lots at the location in question were subdivided approximately two years prior to the hearing date and sold separately with the exception of the three lots where the nine permanent residents reside and two lots where other children of the Respondent resided prior to the February, 1979, inspection by the Petitioner's employee. Respondant sold twenty-four mobile home lots and twelve camper sites to persons other than family members and each of the mobile home lots and camper sites has a service connection to the well. Those persons who use the water system other than the nine permanent residents, use the system from mid-March through mid-September in the calendar year. During that time of usage, there are two families at two separate lots who come down during the week and use the water supply. The number of members in those families was not indicated in the course of the hearing. The balance of the persons using the water supply, excluding the above-mentioned two families and the nine permanent residents, use the shelters for vacation purposes and on the weekend. Some of this latter group would be vacationing in their summer home for a period as long as two weeks. The highest number of persons using the water from the well during the vacation period would be approximately forty persons during holiday weekends in the vacation cycle. From the testimony of the Respondent there would never be more than ten days during the vacation period in which twenty-five or more persons would be utilizing the water supply from the well. The water is brought into the trailers, campers and mobile hones by hoses attached to the spigot service connections and the hoses are removed when the individual owners are not in attendance. The lot owners who are served by the water system of the Respondent pay a fee of $18.00 a year, which the Respondent uses to repair the well pump, for pipe and for the cost of electricity to run the well. The well generating device is a two-horsepower electric pump and the well source is tapped by a two-inch service pipe. A one-half-inch line runs from the main to the service connectors (spigot). After the inspection of February, 1979, the Respondent repaired the broken slab around the well casing and these repairs were made in March or April, 1979. The repairs were depicted in the Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 admitted into evidence which are photographs of the well casing after the repair.
Recommendation It is recommended that the action taken by the Petitioner against Respondent pursuant to the Notice of Violation and the Order for Corrective Action be dismissed, to include the Petitioner's claim for costs and expenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hyde, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Read Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barne J. Morain, Esquire 113 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
