The Issue Whether Resolution No. P64-96 of the Monroe County Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed or modified?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a multi-county water management district which was created by Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and which operates pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The District is the local sponsor for the federally-authorized "Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control" and as such, operates and maintains various water control facilities and impoundments in South Florida, as authorized and constructed by the Federal Government. The jurisdiction of the District encompasses 16 counties in southern and central Florida, from Marion County in the north to Monroe County in the south. Water Conservation Area 2A is one of several water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction and is a part of the federally-authorized Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control. On April 13, June 2, August 10, September 26, October 19, and October 20, 1978, the Governing Board of the District held public hearings and workshop meetings to receive comments from the District staff and the general public concerning the proposed "draw down" or alteration of water levels in Water Conservation Area 2A. Notice of the September 26, 1978 public hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume No. 4, No. 36, on September 8, 1978. By the terms of the notice, the purpose of the September 26th public hearing was: To provide interested citizens with an opportunity to express their opinions and hear testimony regarding the District's proposal to lower the water level in Conservation Area 2A, located in western Palm Beach and Broward counties. The purpose of the draw down is to con- solidate the bottom sediments so that a more flexible water schedule can be begun to preserve the natural Everglades ecology . . . . After considering information received from staff and the general public, the Governing Board entered its "Order" No. 78-12 dated October 20, 1978 containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. This "order" provided, in pertinent part: That the staff take appropriate measures to accomplish the following: A draw down from current high water levels will be initiated October 31, 1978, with the goal of reducing water levels in the central portion of the marsh to ground level by December 31 (about 11.2 feet msl). From this point, water levels shall be allowed to continue to recede to a minimum level of 9.5' by the end of May, 1979. Water levels will be allowed to rise to about 12.5' msl by October 31, 1979. That the staff take appropriate measures to regulate water levels in Conservation Area 2A between 12.5' and 9.5' msl as provided in Paragraph 1. until November of 1981. That the regulation of Conservation Area 2A be carried out in a flexible manner to insure maximum environmental benefits and that adjustments in water level fluctuations and stages may be made predicated upon the environmental response of the Conservation Area 2A ecosystem resulting from the previous year's hydroperiod. That the staff pursue such research and data collection as is necessary to fully document the conditions of the marsh throughout the three year duration of the project. No formal hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, were requested as a result of the aforementioned workshop, public hearings or agency action embodied in the "order" of October 20, 1978. It is undisputed that Respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, relating to rule making in issuing its Order of October 20, 1978. Petitioner, Joe Burgess, is the owner of Hinckle's Bait and Tackle Shop on State Road 84 in Broward County, approximately 12 miles from Conservation Area 2A. Petitioner Burgess derives approximately 60 to 70 percent of his business from customers who use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. In addition, Petitioner Burgess personally uses Conservation Area 2A for hunting and fishing. Petitioner, Keith Finlayson, is an environmentalist who uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes, including fishing, bird watching, observing animals in their natural habitats and flora identification. Petitioner Finalyson uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes approximately two to three times per week. Petitioner, Concerned Citizens for the Everglades, Inc., is a not-for- profit Florida corporation, some of whose members presently use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Other members of the organization derive their living from businesses supported by revenues obtained from the general public directly attributable to "use" of Conservation Area 2A. One of the effects of the "draw down" will be to make certain portions of Conservation Area 2A inaccessible by boat during some periods of the year, thereby curtailing recreational and other use of the those areas. Water Conservation Area 2A, and other such areas within the jurisdiction of Respondent, is surrounded by levies and various water control structures and is operated independently of other water conservation areas, which are also surrounded by levies and water control structures. All of the water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction are subject to different and independent water regulation schedules. The evidence establishes that it is not feasible to apply the same regulation schedule to all water conservation areas due to differences in topography. In fact, it is anticipated that a different regulation schedule for Water Conservation Area 2A will be developed after the current three-year draw down period is concluded. Although originally scheduled to commence on November 1, 1978, the "draw down" of water levels in Conservation Area 2A was delayed as a result of legal actions taken in state courts. As a result, the District did not actually begin the "draw down" until August, 1980.
The Issue Whether the Respondents violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by including certain letters in an official mail-out paid for by the taxpayers of the Flagler Estates Road and Water District and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent Holman was appointed as a member of the Board of Supervisors of the Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District (the District) on March 20, 1998. She was appointed to complete the second year of another Supervisor's three-year term. Respondent Holman was elected to serve the remainder of that Supervisor's term on June 20, 1998. A letter from Respondent Holman to the District's property owners was included in the District's mail-out prior to the June 20, 1998, election. Respondent Holman provided Ms. Wendy Wilhelm, the District's secretary, with a copy of the subject letter. Ms. Wilhelm integrated the letter into the District's mail-out by typing it into the District's computer. Respondent Rousseau was appointed to the District Board of Supervisors on November 3, 1994. He was later elected to the position on June 18, 1995, and then re-elected on June 20, 1998. Respondent Rousseau acknowledged that he provided a copy of the subject letter to Ms. Wilhelm for the express purpose of including it in the District's office mail-out. The cost of the subject mailings were paid for with funds that were derived from assessments paid to the District by its property owners. The aforementioned mail-out was the last District mailing issued before the June 20, 1998, District election. Findings of Fact From Documentary Evidence On or about May 11, 1998, the District mailed a Notice of Annual Meeting of Landowners of Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. The notice advised landowners within the District that the annual meeting would be held on June 20, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., at the District office. Moreover, the notice stated that the purpose of the meeting was to elect supervisors, receive annual reports, and consider other business that may properly be brought before the meeting. Enclosed in the aforementioned mail-out were three letters, one from each of the three members of the District's Board of Supervisors, including Respondent Rosseau and Respondent Holman. In his letter, Respondent Rousseau advised property owners of problems faced by the District during the year; provided information about his background; and stated that his "term expired in June" and that he was seeking reelection. In her letter, Respondent Holman provided information about her background, advised landowners that she had only served as a District Supervisor for four months, and detailed the activities in which she had been involved on behalf of the District. Lastly, Respondent Holman wrote, "I have enjoyed my short time on the Board and hope to be elected to fulfill Gerrit Stewart's one-year term." Ms. Calvert Hanson, the District's general counsel, suggested to Respondents Rosseau and Holman that the above- referenced letters be included in the District's official mail- out. Prior to the letters being mailed out to the property owners, Ms. Hanson reviewed the letters but made no modifications, except for correcting some grammatical errors. Ms. Hanson did not believe that the letters were solicitations for votes for Respondents' election or reelection to the District's Board of Supervisors. Respondent Holman's and Respondent Rousseau's decision to include their respective letters in the District's official mail-out was based solely on the suggestion of the District's general counsel. Prior to the letters being sent out, Respondents provided Ms. Hanson with copies thereof for her review. Having received no recommendations for substantive modifications to the letters, Respondents Holmon and Rousseau did not believe that the contents of the letters constituted an improper solicitation for support in the District's election for Supervisors. Notwithstanding Respondents' subjective belief to the contrary, a portion of each of their letters constituted a solicitation for support in the June 1998 election for the District's Board of Supervisors. While Respondents' letters included information regarding the District, the letters also clearly indicated that Respondents were seeking to be elected or reelected to the District Board of Supervisors. Based on the content of the letters and the fact that they were included in the mail-out noticing the annual meeting at which supervisors would be elected, it appears reasonable that Respondents were seeking support for their election. Thus, although the letters did not expressly request that landowners "vote" for Respondents, such request was implicit in the letters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that Respondent Robin Holman and Respondent Thomas Rousseau did not violate Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric S. Scott Assistant Attorney General Attorney General's Office The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Calvert Hanson, Esquire 3501-B North Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 342 St. Augustine, Florida 32095 Sheri Gerety Complaint Coordinator and Clerk Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.523(2)(c) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.*
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. The District is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E-7, Florida Administrative Code, asa multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. 2. KRVSA is a Florida corporation whose members are substantially affected by the rule in question. 3. Phillip B. Griner is an individual who holds a Special Use License to use the Lower Reedy Creek Management Area/Rough Island Management Unit Protected Zone. He has been a member of KVSA since its inception in 1998 and was serving on its board of directors at the time of the final hearing.
Conclusions Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Petition for Administrative Hearing is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Pan ate 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 19th day of December, 2003.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. 31
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should approve applications to renew consumptive use permits filed on behalf of the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority), Pinellas County (County), and Freeman F. Polk (Polk), and if so, what conditions should be included in the permits. The District proposes to issue renewed permits to these applicants with specified conditions, but Polk seeks certain additional condition; to the permits sought by the Authority and the County, and similarly, the Authority and County seek the imposition of additional conditions on Polk's permit. The parties seek these additional conditions to insure that the permitted uses will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the applications, and will also not cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vegetation are adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased or controlled by the applicants.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based upon relevant stipulations of the parties: The Authority is a special taxing district of the State of Florida encompassing Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, which was created by interlocal agreement on October 25, 1974. It is responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities in locations, and at times, necessary to insure that an adequate supply of water will be available to all persons residing within its boundaries. The District is an agency of the State of Florida which is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen county area, including Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. It has implemented a permitting program that requires all persons seeking to withdraw water in excess of an annual average daily rate of 100,000 gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 1,000,000 gallons, to obtain a consumptive use permit. The Cypress Creek Wellfield is located on a 4,895 acre site in central Pasco County, lying east of U.S. 41 between State Roads 52 and 54. The District owns 3,623 acres of this Wellfield, and the remaining 1,272 acres are owned by the City of St. Petersburg. Construction on the Cypress Creek Wellfield commenced in 1974, and it currently consists of thirteen production wells, numerous monitor wells, several thousand feet of transmission lines, two 5 gallon storage tanks, a pump station and several buildings. The City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and the District have transferred their rights and privileges in this Wellfield, as well as the Wellfield facilities, to the Authority by contracts entered into in November, 1973, and August 1974. Water produced at the Cypress Creek Wellfield is sold at cost by the Authority to users which include the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. The water produced at this Wellfield comprises 29% of the County's total water system demand (20 million gallons a day), and 25% of the City of St. Petersburg's total system demand (10 million gallons a day). These water systems serve approximately 470,000 and 330,000 persons, respectively. In March 1978, the District issued a six-year consumptive use permit to the Authority, the City of St. Petersburg, and the County authorizing an annual average and maximum daily withdrawal of 30 million gallons a day from the Cypress Creek Wellfield. The Authority also began a detailed ecological monitoring program in, and around, this Wellfield in 1978. A three-year permit was then issued to the Authority in December, 1982, authorizing withdrawals of 30 million gallons a day, annual average, and 40 million gallons a day, maximum daily, from the Wellfield. The District determined by Order No. 82-28, dated December 1, 1982, that an average annual daily rate of withdrawal of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of withdrawal of 40 million gallons from the Cypress Creek Wellfield was a reasonable-beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. An application for renewal of the Cypress Creek Wellfield consumptive use permit at the quantities permitted in 1982 was filed with the District on November 7, 1985, by the Authority, the County and the City of St. Petersburg. The continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons is needed in order to meet the water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas and Pasco Counties, is in the interest of residents of Pinellas County, and will not cause the rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse to be lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the District. The regulatory level of the potentiometric surface established by the District for the Cypress Creek Wellfield has never been exceeded by prior withdrawals of water at permitted rates. Continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons will not cause the potentiometric surface level to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory level established by the District, will not cause the surface level of water to be lowered below any minimum established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield is located on a 8,060 acre site in north central Pasco County, lying approximately one mile south of the Pasco-Hernando County line, and immediately east of U.S. 41. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield property has been owned by Pinellas County since 1976. Wellfield construction was completed in 1981. By agreement entered into on April 11, 1979, the Authority is obligated to sell the County water produced from the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield, but any excess not currently being used by the County may be sold to other members of the Authority. A significant amount of water produced at Cross Bar Ranch is pumped to the Cypress Creek Wellfield where it is combined with that Wellfield's water, and then distributed to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, as well as the City of St. Petersburg, for further distribution. The water produced at these two Wellfields in combination accounts for about 60% of the County's total water system demand. Following pump tests performed from 1977 to 1979, as well as an ecological monitoring program, the District issued a modified consumptive use permit to the Authority by Order 80-9, dated February 6, 1980, for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. The District determined that withdrawals at an average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield was a reasonable beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. On November 7, 1985, the Authority and County jointly applied to the District for renewal of the consumptive use permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at the current permitted quantities of an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons. These withdrawal rates are needed in order to meet present and future water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, provide water for environmental mitigation, and make up water when one or more production facilities cannot pump at their permitted levels. The withdrawal of water from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at permitted rates will not cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory levels established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. Jumping Gully is the only stream or watercourse in the vicinity under the influence of this Wellfield, and the District has not established a minimum rate of flow for Jumping Gully. Hydrologic data collected from monitor wells located at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield show the potentiometric surface has been above mean sea level during the operation of this facility. The District has renewed consumptive use permits for a period of ten years for the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Lakeland Power Plant. The Authority owns, leases or otherwise controls the area within both the Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields. Polk owns, leases or otherwise controls the property identified in his amended permit application of July 26, 1988. Both the Authority's and Polk's permit applications were filed on the proper forms, and otherwise comply with the District's procedural requirements for consumptive use permits. Each party has standing to participate in this case. The proposed uses of water which are the subject of these proceedings are reasonable beneficial uses, and in the public interest. The only permit criteria that remain at issue in this case are set forth in Rules 40D-2.301(1)(c) and (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented at the hearing: Polk was first issued a consumptive use permit for Ft. King Ranch in August, 1981, after both the Cypress Creek Wellfield and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield had each been permitted to withdraw 30 million gallons per day. Polk's permit authorized him to withdraw ground water at an average annual rate of 420,000 gallons per day, and a maximum rate of approximately 1.94 gallons per day for irrigation of pasture grass and citrus, and cattle drinking water. A temporary consumptive use permit issued to Polk in August, 1981, was signed by him and states on its face that these additional groundwater withdrawals were necessary because of drought conditions. A modified permit was issued to Polk by the District in July, 1982, authorizing him to increase his withdrawals to an average annual rate of approximately 1.94 gpd, and a maximum rate of 5.9 gpd. Polk's wells are not metered. Prior to August, 1981, Polk did not have man made surface or groundwater withdrawal on his property. As it relates to this proceeding, the property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk is known as the Ft. King Ranch, which is generally located between the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, and consists of approximately 6,000 acres. The Ft. King Ranch is comprised of five tracts which were separately acquired by Polk commencing in January, 1969, and ending in 1984. By 1978, Polk had acquired two of these five tracts. He leased a third tract beginning in 1971, before acquiring an ownership interest in 1981. These three tracts were designated parcels A, B, and C, and are located in the eastern and northern portion of the Ranch. These three parcels were the only tracts owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk at the time the first Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield permits were issued in 1978. The western tracts were acquired in 1982 and 1984, and were also referred to as the AL-BAR Ranch at hearing. Polk uses the Ft. King Ranch for a cow-calf operation, and also sod farming and seeding. From 1969 to approximately 1978, there was sufficient surface water on the Ft. King Ranch for these farming activities to be carried out without irrigation or wells. Water holes used by cattle were always wet, and lakes on the property were used for swimming and fishing. His pasture, hay, seed and sod grasses received moisture solely from rainfall. However, Polk did not establish the amounts of water used in his operations prior to the issuance of Wellfield permits. In 1976, parcels A, B, and C were used for these purposes, although Polk has frequently changed the specific size and location of acreages devoted to these land uses. In order to correct flooding that occurred on portions of the Ft. King Ranch during times of heavy rainfall, Polk sought the advice of the Soil Conservation Service in the mid-1970's. He was advised to construct a series of dikes and swales to control the flow of surface water on his property. During 1980 and 1981, Polk constructed a network of swales and ditches to divert and control the flow of surface water from portions of the Ranch needing less water to those requiring wetter conditions, such as his sod and seed operation. The swales interconnect lakes and ponds on his Ranch. He also constructed a levee on the property, and installed a lift pump. These activities have converted most of the eastern portion of his ranch to improved pasture and sod grasses, and virtually eliminated native vegetation. Polk had no professional help in the construction of his ditch-swale systems, or the levee. Beginning in approximately 1980, drier conditions were experienced at the Ranch. One of the ten driest years on record in this area occurred in 1980, and continued drought conditions in 1981 caused the District's Governing Board to declare a water shortage, and impose water conservation measures throughout the District. Some lakes and cypress swamps dried completely and failed to recharge to pre-1980 levels after rainfall. Due to reduced water availability since 1980, including drought conditions in 1985, Polk's calf weights have decreased, while the number of non-breeding cows has increased. Feed bills have increased due to reduced hay and grass production at the Ranch. Polk's bahia seed and sod crops have also declined since 1980 due to reduced surface water levels. Adequate and stable moisture is essential for seed production, and while such conditions did exist on the Ft. King Ranch prior to 1980, they have been absent since 1980. Due to the drier conditions which he noted in 1980 and 1981, Polk filed a formal complaint with the District in 1981. A site visit and pump test were conducted, and the District concluded that the Wellfields were causing less than a one foot drawdown in the Ft. King Ranch water table, and that dry conditions at his ranch were due primarily to drought. In 1985, Polk complained to the District again, and requested that it augment two lakes within the Ranch. After review of surrounding lake conditions, the District declined his request since Polk's lakes had not experienced water level declines atypical of lakes well beyond the influence of the Authority's Wellfields. Studies of water level elevations in the area indicate that the effect of Cypress Creek Wellfield pumpage is quite small when compared to natural changes in water levels due to variable rainfall and evapotransporation. Rainfall in this region is variable, and there has been a significant negative trend over time in surficial and potentiometric water levels that predates Wellfield pumpage. According to J. B. Butler, who was accepted as an expert in hydrology, the swales, dikes and levees constructed by Polk have not caused the water table or surface water level reductions experienced since late 1981. Rather, these are an attempt to divert and retain water on the property, and even in their absence, there would be no significant flow of surface water across Ft. King Ranch from an east to west direction. In addition, Butler testified that a fence line berm constructed along the northern border of the Ranch is an insignificant obstacle to the flow of surface water from the north to south across the Ranch when compared to topographic features, and has had no impact on the water tables of the Ranch. However, evidence introduced at hearing established that as early as 1981, the staff of the District concluded that the swales and elevated fence lines could be aggravating low water conditions by increasing evaporation and leakance, and by excluding surface water which would have entered the Ft. King Ranch from the north. The Authority offered competent substantial evidence to rebut the Butler testimony. Thomas Schanze, who was accepted as an expert in agricultural engineering, testified that Polk's elevated berm along his northern fence line has significantly restricted the flow of surface water onto Ft. King Ranch, and has contributed to the eastern portion of the Ft. King Ranch becoming a closed watershed. Between 1984 and 1986, approximately 700 million gallons of surface water have been excluded by Polk's water control and diversion activities. This exclusion has resulted in a diminished water table within the Ft. King Ranch of about one half foot compared with the water table on the northern side of the berm. Surface water cannot flow onto Polk's property until water levels immediately north reach flood stage. Aerial photographs of the Ft. King Ranch and surrounding properties show that the Polk property is significantly drier than surrounding properties, which include predominant wetlands. If the dry conditions experienced by Polk had been due to pumpage, the same dry conditions should be observed on surrounding properties and lands nearer the Wellfields. However, aerial photos show that lands closer to the Wellfields than Ft. King Ranch are less dry than the Ranch itself. This supports the position of the District and the Authority that Polk's own activities have had a significantly greater impact than pumpage on surface and groundwater levels. The reduction in productivity of Polk's farming activities is reasonably related to his northern berm which serves as a dike, preventing water from flowing onto Ft. King Ranch, as well as drought conditions existing in 1980, 1981 and 1985. The cumulative effect of water excluded from this property and dry weather conditions is significant, and accounts for decreased production. It was not established through competent substantial evidence that Polk's decreased production has resulted from any hydrologic impact of Wellfield pumpage. The District's expert in hydrology and ground water modeling, Robert G. Perry, concluded that significant water table declines on Ft. King Ranch due to pumping from Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields could not be confirmed. Through groundwater flow modeling and statistical analysis, he concluded that a one foot water table drawdown contour resulting from withdrawals at the rate of 30 mgd for 30 days without any recharge would not reach the Ft. King Ranch. Even in a worse case scenario of 120 days without recharge and pumpage at Cypress Creek of 30 mgd for 30 days, then 40 mgd for 30 days, and finally 30 mgd for 60 days, Perry concluded that the one foot water table drawdown contour would not reach Polk's Ranch. There is some evidence that under a worse case condition, pumpage at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield could result in the one foot water table drawdown contour intersecting a small portion of the western tract of the Ft. King Ranch, but this tract was not owned or leased by Polk in 1978, when the first Wellfield permits were issued. Conflicting evidence based upon steady state modeling by Craig Hutchinson of the United States Geological Survey was introduced on behalf of Polk to establish that the cumulative impact of the Wellfields could induce a significant drawdown in the water table in the area between the Wellfields, including the Ft. King Ranch. However, this evidence is rejected as less credible than the analysis conducted by Park and Phillip Davis, who was also accepted as an expert in hydrology and groundwater flow modeling. The steady state approach used by Hutchinson is inappropriate for analyzing the effects of wellfield withdrawals on the water table, because the water table is a dynamic system which is never at steady state. The transient groundwater simulation model used by the District is better suited for an analysis of impacts to the water table, although it does tend to overpredict such impacts, since it accounts for changes in rainfall. The Hutchinson analysis is also unreliable since it is based upon artificially derived antecedent water levels, rather than observed levels. Finally, he did not have required predevelopment water table data, and thus, could not verify water table predictions derived from his steady state model. A transient groundwater flow computer model used by Terry Bengtsson to estimate greater potentiometric surface and water table declines due to withdrawals from the Wellfields than predicted by Park or Davis was discredited, and shown to be unreasonable, by the results of a 28 day pump test in September and October, 1988. According to Rick Stebnisky, who was called on behalf of Polk and accepted as an expert in groundwater hydrology, the combined effect of pumping at the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields has resulted in a significant reduction in water table and potentiometric surface levels at Ft. King Ranch, with such reductions being greater in the southern areas than northern portions of Polk's property. He testified that drawdowns have been noted since pumping began at Cypress Creek in April, 1976, with greater drawdowns occurring closest to the Wellfields, and for this reason drawdowns appear to be related to pumping rather than drought conditions. However, Stebnisky's conclusions were drawn from an overly simplistic hydrographic analysis which ignored factors other than pumpage, such as reduced rainfall, regional trends, surface drainage and non-wellfield pumpage, according to Robert G. Perry, an expert in hydrology and groundwater modeling. Stebnisky was not accepted as an expert in groundwater flow modeling. It was also established that some of the basic assumptions used by Stebnisky in predicting drawdowns were inaccurate, and not based upon accepted hydrologic principles. Therefore, when weighed and considered against other expert testimony, including that of Perry and Dr. J. I. Garcia-Bengochea, Ph.D., an expert in hydrology and environmental engineering, the testimony of Stebnisky is found to lack credibility. While Dr. Garcia-Bengochea agreed with the testimony of Stebnisky that the potentiometric surface and water table levels on the Ft. King Ranch had been somewhat reduced due PAGE 18 MISSING individual well meters, regardless of whether on-site wetlands are being augmented, and is sufficiently accurate for use in evaluating the impact of withdrawals on the water table and Floridan Aquifer. As a condition for renewal of the Authority's permits, the District has required that flow measuring devices or methods be installed for each augmentation discharge point, although generally augmentation of lakes and wetlands within wellfields is not metered. The allowable drawdown levels of potentiometric surface for the Cypress Creek Wellfield established by the District have never been reached. The lowest levels occurred during severe drought conditions in 1981 and 1985. However, even during these times, the lowest potentiometric surface level was 8.53 feet above regulatory levels. Notwithstanding the testimony of Philip Waller, an expert in hydrology, pumping from Polk's irrigation Wellfields have not had a significant impact on the Cypress Creek Wellfield because Waller's model assumptions are extreme, according to Robert G. Perry, whose field of expertise includes groundwater modeling. These unrealistic assumptions included that Polk would operate his irrigation wells at maximum capacity for 120 days, and that there would be no recharge, even though irrigation, like rainfall, would be expected to result in some recharge. Even under these extreme assumptions, Waller's modeling only produced a one foot drawdown at Cypress Creek Wellfield, which would still be well within regulatory levels established by the District, based upon data for the drought years of 1981 and 1985. Since 1979, Cypress Creek Wellfield has averaged approximately 30 million gallons per day, with the maximum withdrawal occurring in May, 1983, when it averaged 34.2 mgd. From 1981 to 1985, the average withdrawals from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield remained stable at 13 mgd, but since 1986, the pumpage has increased to over 15 mgd due, in part, to the use of water from Cross Bar to compensate for contaminated wells shut down at the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield. For purposes of Rule 40D-2.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, the District does not consider the use of water that occurs naturally, without pumping or diversion, for use on crops or other agricultural purposes to be, an existing legal use of water, because it does not require a permit. The District does not apply Rule 40D-2.301(2)(e) to protect agricultural crops, but rather to protect naturally occurring vegetation. When an application to renew a consumptive use permit is reviewed by the District, and that renewal does not seek an increase in the quantity of water withdrawals, "legal users" are those present prior to the original permit. On May 17, 1988, a Final Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 88-0693R declaring the District's Rules 40D-2.301(3)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Administrative Code, which otherwise would apply in this proceeding, to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Authority's applications were declared complete by the District on June 18, 1987, and the District staff recommended issuance of these permits on August 14, 1987. Modifications to the draft permit were made by the District on December 28, 1988, and these modified draft permits are acceptable to the Authority. The latest draft permits contain stated conditions which include the requirement that the Authority directly measure the amount of water it uses to augment the water level of on-site wetlands. On February 22, 1989, the Authority and the District filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Case Number 87- 4644 by which they settled their dispute as to the duration of consumptive use permit renewals for the Wellfields, and provided for a ten year permit for Cypress Creek, and a six year permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. Polk submitted his original permit application on April 13, 1987, and then amended his request on July 26, 1988. The District has proposed to issue a draft permit to Polk, with stated conditions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order approving the consumptive use permit applications of the West Coasts Regional Water Supply Authority and Pinellas County for the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, with conditions proposed by the District, and also approving the consumptive use permit application of Freeman F. Polk, with conditions proposed by the District. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4644, 87-4645, 87-4647, & 88-1169 Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings 6, 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 38. 8-11. Adopted in Finding 20. 12. Adopted in Finding 21. 13-14. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 25. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 25, 26. 20-22. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 23-48. Adopted in Findings 31 through 35. 49-60. Adopted in Findings 28 through 30. 61-64 Adopted in Finding 36. 65-68. Adopted in Finding 37. Rulings on the Authority's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4, 10. Adopted in Finding 2. 4-6. Adopted in Finding 39. Adopted in Finding 18. Adopted in Findings 21, 22. Adopted in Finding 40. 10-11. Adopted in Finding 3. 12-14. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 6, 38. Adopted in Finding 5. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 6, 21. 20. Adopted in Findings 7, 16. 21-23. Adopted in Finding 41. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 11, 38. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. 3132 Adopted in Findings 11, 21. 33. Adopted in Findings 12, 16. 34-36. Adopted in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 24. 41-42. Adopted in Finding 22. 43-45. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 50-53. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Findings 20, 21. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 41. Rejected as unnecessary. 60-62. Adopted in Finding 35. 63. Adopted in Finding 36. 64-70. Adopted in Findings 34, 35. 71-76. Adopted in Findings 33 through 35. 77-78. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 79-80. Adopted in Finding 34. 81-87. Adopted in Finding 32. 88-91. Adopted in Findings 26 through 35. 92-96. Adopted in Findings 29, 30, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Finding 29. 99-100. Adopted in Finding 30. 101-102. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected in Finding 37. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 37 Ruling on Pinellas County's Proposed Finding of Fact: (The County also adopted the Authority's Proposed Findings.) 1. Rejected since the statement proposed by the County is not a finding of fact, but simply a statement on the evidence. Evidence which was not admitted at hearing has not been considered. Rulings on Polk's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Findings 9, 10. Adopted in Finding 21. Rejected in Findings 6, 11, 21. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 25 through 27. 7-8. Rejected in Findings 25 through 27. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 24. 11-13. Rejected in Findings 24, 29, 30. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as argument on the evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Douglas M. Wyckoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas E. Cone, Jr., Esquire 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire Chris Jayson, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Bram D. E. Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34699-6899
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a special taxing district providing fire protection and rescue services to the residents of the Estero area of Lee County. The fire station is located at 20241 Tamiami Trail, Estero, Florida. Petitioner employs 14 employees, including administrative staff and firefighters. The firefighters work 24 hours straight and then are off-duty for 48 hours. Two to four employees work each shift. Firefighting requires a fast response. Thus, Petitioner requires that on-duty firefighters remain at the station for their entire 24-hour shift, unless they are out fighting fires or performing rescue duties. The fire station contains an 8' x 13' bedroom with six mattresses located on three bunk beds. On-duty firefighters are allowed to bring pillows and sheets so they can sleep at the station while on duty. There are no dressers in the room, which contains small lockers that the firefighters may use to store a change of clothes. Petitioner provides kitchen facilities at the fire station and well water. The well water is used for washing equipment, taking showers, and flushing the toilet. The well water is not used for any other purposes, nor is it used by any other persons. Petitioner provides bottled water for drinking and cooking. All of the firefighters have residences apart from the fire station and within a reasonable commuting distance from the fire station. No firefighter has ever lived at the station. Petitioner does not charge, or reduce the pay of, the firefighters for their use of the limited sleeping facilities. Petitioner lawfully does not treat the use of the limited sleeping facilities by firefighters as gross income for the purposes of withholding federal income tax or making social security contributions. By letter dated July 18, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that the fire station's water system is a limited use community water system because the sleeping facilities constituted rental residences, as defined by Rule 10D- 4.024(21), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent advised Petitioner that it was therefore required to obtain a permit. As noted in the following section, the statute authorizes Respondent to regulate as limited use community public water systems those systems serving a certain number of "rental residences." The statute does not define "rental residence." In Rule 10D-4.024(21), Respondent defines a "rental residence" as follows: a dwelling unit, a structure or part of a structure that is rented for use, or furnished with or without rent as an incident of employ- ment, for use as a home, residence, sleeping place by one or more persons, a mobile home rented by a tenant. This term does not apply to facilities offering transient residency such as public lodging establishments. This term includes other facilities where residency or detention is incidental to the provision of medical, geriatric, educational, counseling, religious, or similar services. Respondent equated a "rental residence" with a "dwelling unit" when it based its definition of "rental residence" on the statutory definition of "dwelling unit" in Chapter 83, Part II, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A "dwelling unit" is a "residence." The American Heritage dictionary defines a "dwelling" as "a place to live in; residence; abode." Similarly, the same dictionary's first definition of "residence" is "the place in which one lives; a dwelling; an abode." But the statutory definition qualifies "residential" with "rental." The word "rental" requires consideration of the nature of the relationship of the occupant to the dwelling and its owner. Obviously, the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act addresses rental transactions, but it does not do so in the definition of "dwelling unit." Other provisions of the Act describe the kind of activity that must take place for a person to be considered a tenant renting a dwelling unit. Most importantly, Section 83.43(6) defines "rent" as "periodic payments due the landlord from the tenant for occupancy under a rental agreement " The facts of this case present a revealing illustration of the distinction between a "residence" or "dwelling unit," on the one hand, and a "rental residence," on the other hand. There is no rental relationship between the occupants of the sleeping quarters at the fire station and the residence or dwelling itself. The firefighters do not pay, directly or indirectly, for these beds or the rooms in which the beds are located. Their employer legitimately does not include the value of the use of these sleeping quarters in the compensation paid to the firefighters. The firefighters have residences within commuting distance of the fire station and use the meager sleeping quarters and kitchen facilities only because they are required to spend long hours continuously at the fire station.
Findings Of Fact David W. Shepard is President of Loreda Development, Inc., which has developed Lake Suzy Estates on approximately 160 acres in the southwestern portion of DeSoto County, bordered by Kings Highway. Lake Suzy includes approximately 245 single family lots, 100 of which are sold, with a 42 acre man-made lake. High density and commercial areas are also designated within Lake Suzy. Development of Lake Suzy began in 1972 and is still underway. There are approximately 2 1/2 to 3 miles of asphalt-top roads within Lake Suzy. Construction of these roads began in 1974 and was completed in 1984. On or about September 26, 1985, Petitioner issued a Notice to Show Cause charging that, "Respondent has failed to construct the completed roads and drainage improvements in accordance with DeSoto County specifications, in violation of Section 498.033(2), F.S." The County Engineer for DeSoto County, George Solana, testified that roads and drainage improvements within Lake Suzy do not meet DeSoto County specifications, and Eugene E. Waldron, Jr., County Administrator, testified that the county has not accepted the roads or drainage improvements in Lake Susy for maintenance. In September, 1982, Shepard met with Solana and was informed of several conditions he had to meet to bring Lake Suzy's roads and drainage improvements into conformance with county specifications. Shepard then applied for a permit on September 16, 1982, which was issued on November 1, 1982, subject to conditions enumerated by Solana in a letter dated September 8, 1982. In March, 1985, Solana reviewed the roads and drainage improvements in Lake Suzy and found that most of the deficiencies and conditions noted in 1982 remained. Solana categorized these remaining deficiencies in a letter to the County Administrator, Waldron, dated March 28, 1985 and revised April 5, 1985, as follows: Drainage easements Cross-sections Materials and quality control Existing construction Inlet grates and steel end sections Street and traffic control signs Grassing Certificate of satisfactory completion Other deficiencies At the time of the hearing on February 20, 1986, only the drainage easement deficiencies had been corrected in accordance with DeSoto County specifications. Shepard testified he was fully aware of Solana's conditions in 1982 and the remaining deficiencies noted in 1985. Further, he had tried to correct the deficiencies and meet these conditions for compliance with DeSoto County specifications. He does not dispute that the deficiencies noted by Solana as still existing in 1985 would have to be corrected to comply with the county public works manual. The Order of Registration for Lake Suzy, issued by Petitioner on June 4, 1973, includes a Public Offering Statement which states that roads will be installed to the specification of DeSoto County and will be maintained by the county. As revised on October 21, 1980, the Public Offering Statement includes the same statement about road improvements in Lake Suzy. Respondent has failed to comply with this provision in its Public Offering Statement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order which requires Respondent to comply with Section 498.033(2), Florida Statutes, within one year by bringing roadways within Lake Suzy into compliance with DeSoto County specifications and by requesting that DeSoto County accept said roads in their road maintenance system, and further providing that failure to comply with said Final Order within the one year period shall result in a one-year suspension of Respondent's registration and a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Barnhart, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David W. Shepard, President Loreda Development, Inc. 910 Kings Highway Lake Suzy, Florida 33821 James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 6-7 Accepted although not necessary as a finding of fact. The weight of the evidence supports Petitioner's position after considering all evidence presented by Respondent. 8 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-3 Rejected after considering all evidence presented. Respondent's position is not based on competent substantial evidence.
Findings Of Fact FEC is the owner and developer of the project at issue in this proceeding, an industrial park to be located on 322.1 acres in Section 32, in the Town of Medley, in northwestern Dade County, Florida. Not at issue in this proceeding is the related but separate project planned by FEC for construction in Section 6, an unincorporated area of Dade County, lying immediately southwest of the property at issue. FEC proposes 5,193,570 gross feet of floor space for the project, to be constructed in six phases. Seventy-four percent of the floor area is to be completed or under construction within the first five years of the park's operation. Expected uses of the park, when completed, are expected to fall into four general categories: Distribution, comprising 792,516 square feet; wholesale trade, 2,509,018 square feet; manufacturing, 873,520 square feet; and offices and services of 1,017,515 square feet. There is no specification of what types of industries will be located in the project, or what types of chemicals or materials each may handle. FEC has applied for and received various approvals of the proposed industrial park. On June 6, 1983, the South Florida Regional Planning Council ("RPC") recommended approval of the FEC proposal, with conditions. On August 1, 1983, the town council of Medley adopted Resolution No. C-426, which approved and issued a development order for a development of regional impact for the project. Before the issuance of the Medley development order, Metropolitan Dade County adopted its own development order, Resolution No. Z-114-83, on June 23, 1983, approving the development proposed for Section 6 in the unincorporated area of the county. In September, 1983, DCA appealed the Medley development order. On October 3, 1983, the RPC voted not to appeal that order. The proposed project is located in an industrialized and largely unsewered area. The FEC property surrounds or abuts numerous out parcels within Section No. 32, which are served only by septic tank disposal systems, unlike the sewer system planned for the FEC development. The Northwest Wellfield is located about three miles to the southwest of the proposed FEC industrial park at its closest point to Section 32, and about four miles from the furtherest reach of the park. The wells of the Northwest Wellfield form a line about two miles west of the Florida Turnpike, and four miles southwest of Medley. The wellfield presently comprises 15 wells, each 42 inches in diameter, fully penetrating the Biscayne Aquifer to a depth of about 70 feet. The county has equipped each well with a two-speed pump capable of producing ten million gallons per day (MGD) at low speed, and about 15 MGD at high speed. Current maximum capacity of the wellfield is about 225 MGD. The county holds a valid consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District authorizing an average pumpage of 50 MGD. The county has applied for a permit to increase the pumpage to 180 MGD. The county is presently pumping the wellfield at the rate of 140 MGD to offset the reduction in pumpage from the Hialeah and Miami Springs wellfields as a consequence of the discovery of contamination in those fields. The Hialeah and Miami Springs wellfields are currently pumping at a rate varying from three to ten MGD. The Northwest Wellfield, completed in 1983, at a cost to the public of $38,000,000, is located within the Biscayne Aquifer, which underlies all of southeastern Florida, including all of Dade County, from north of Boca Raton to the northwest area of Monroe County. The Biscayne Aquifer is a highly permeable, unconfined shallow aquifer composed of limestone and sandstone. The aquifer is a regional resource, serving as a sole source of potable water for the approximately 1.8 million residents of Dade County. Because of its cavernous nature, the aquifer has high vertical and horizontal permeabilities, permitting both rapid infiltration of rainfall as recharge to the aquifer, and rapid drainage through canals. Recharge to the aquifer is primarily from rainfall. In the latter part of the dry season, however, the main recharge to the aquifer results from infiltration from canals fed from water conservation areas. Net recharge from rainfall to the aquifer ranges from 8 to 20 inches per year. Because of wide fluctuations in annual rainfall amounts in South Florida, recharge from canals to the wellfield is important. The South Florida Water Management District operates an intricate system of canals, levees, control structures, and large water conservation areas for flood control, water conservation, and salinity control. These systems significantly affect water levels in the Biscayne Aquifer, including the area around the Northwest Wellfield. The levees impound fresh water and prevent overland sheet flow from the Everglades eastward through agricultural and urban areas. The complex system of interconnected canals provides necessary drains for the urban coastal areas in the wet season and transfers water from the conservation areas during the dry season to replenish water in the aquifer removed by various municipal and county wellfields. Water levels in the canals are controlled by opening or closing control structures during the wet season to prevent flooding in urban agricultural areas, and leaving the structures closed during the dry season to conserve fresh water and limit saltwater intrusion. Canal levels usually reach their seasonal lows in May. In the vicinity of the Northwest Wellfield, the system of levees and canals provides a substantial amount of recharge to the wellfield. The canal most significantly affecting water levels in the Northwest Wellfield is the Snapper Creek Canal, a borrow canal running immediately east of and parallel to the Turnpike, about two miles east of the wellfield. The Snapper Creek Canal borders the western line of the FEC property in Section No. 6 and lies about one mile west of Section No. 32. The terms "cone of influence" or "cone of depression" are terms applied to the area around a well from which the well draws water. Before a well commences pumping, ground water fills the pores and fractures in underground rock formations to a water level at which the fluid pressure of the ground water equals the atmospheric pressure exerted from above. Pumping the well reduces the fluid pressure of the ground water in the vicinity of the well, and results in a cone of depression or influence. Viewed from above, a drawing of a hydrologic cone of depression appears roughly circular, centered on the pumping well. A cross section of the cone would show an inverted shallow cone in the upper aquifer, whose lowest point coincides with the intersection of the cone where it enters the well. Pumping the well creates a down gradient for water below the area of the cone to flow toward the well. A "hydrologic cone of influence" is that point marking the outer bounds of the influence of a pumping well at a given point in time. A "regulatory cone of influence" arbitrarily fixes the location of the cone as a zone in which activity is regulated. The extent of a regulatory cone depends upon policy decisions taking into account the margin of safety deemed necessary for the protection of a well, regardless of the actual location of the hydrologic cone and technology available to protect ground water. The generally accepted value adapted by most regulatory agencies for the "regulated cone of influence" of a wellfield is the 0.25 foot draw-down line. This is so because it is also generally accepted that, with proper engineering practices and proper annual inspections, potential contaminants be generated and stored within this regulated cone of influence without inordinate risks of contamination to the underlying aquifer. The extent of a hydrologic cone of influence varies continuously, and is dependent upon the characteristics of the involved aquifer, such as its ability to transmit and to retain water, as well as the pattern and the amount of rainfall in the area, and the effect of nearby streams or canals. In addition, the rate of pumping of a well controls the extent of the cone of influence under any given set of aquifer conditions. Dade County regulates land uses in the area of the Northwest Well field according to whether property falls within the projected cone of influence of the field. In March, 1981, Dade County adopted an ordinance prohibiting the handling, use, transportation, disposal, storage, discharge, or the generation of hazardous materials in an area west of the Florida Turnpike, defined as being within 210 days travel time for a hypothetical particle of contamination to the Northwest Wellfield. That initial protective zone lay entirely to the west of the Turnpike, and included neither Section 6 nor Section 32. As a result of further study and computer modeling, the county subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 83-82 on September 20, 1983, amending the map of the cone of influence for the Northwest Wellfield, and adopting new regulations requiring the use of sewers instead of septic tanks in industrial areas. The amended map projected a cone of influence that greatly expanded the protective zone around the wellfield, and included both Section 6 and Section 32. The regulatory cone of influence selected by Dade County does not conform to the hydrological cone of influence, but excepts instead the area around the well depressed by 0.25 feet or more from the original unpumped surface. The county based its modeling of the regulatory line on an assumed pumpage of 150 MGD for the Northwest Wellfield, which is approximately equal to its present pumpage, and 75 MGD from the Miami Springs, Hialeah, and Preston wellfields, which is approximately ten times the current combined rate of pumpage for those fields. In addition, in running its computer model, the county conservatively assumed the highly unlikely condition for the aquifer--a 210-day period during which the aquifer would receive no recharge from rainfall. This "worst case" condition has never occurred during this century. In addition to this assumption, the county's computer modeling also ignored the substantial contraction of the cone during every wet season because of rainfall recharge, and omitted consideration of recharge to the wellfield from canal systems in the area. Within the line defined by its regulated cone of influence, Dade County currently bans all use, handling, generation, and transportation of hazardous materials. The cone of influence currently contained in the county's ordinances includes all of Section 32, including FEC's proposed project. Dade County Ordinance No. 83-82 is considered an interim regulation, intended to remain in force while Dade County continues to gather information concerning the aquifer in the vicinity of the Northwest Wellfield under pumping conditions. Since the enactment of the wellfield protection ordinance, Dade County has initiated a study to formulate a more detailed management plan for the wellfield. Dade County is conducting the study and generally implementing its environmental regulation and wellfield protection through its Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). DERM's powers extend into municipal areas, such as Medley, as well as throughout the unincorporated area of Dade County. The agency has a budget in excess of $5 million annually. Both within the municipalities and throughout the unincorporated areas of Dade County, DERM reviews building permit applications of all industries expected to potentially discharge chemicals into sewer systems. DERM requires all such industries to obtain an annual permit under Section 24-35.1 of the Dade County Code, and to install pretreatment facilities to ensure that no unsafe chemicals are discharged directly into sewers. In addition, DERM requires that all users or generators of hazardous materials throughout Dade County follow best management practices, including ground water monitoring, when appropriate. A special section of the agency focuses on the enforcement of hazardous materials regulation. In addition, Dade County has initiated a hazardous waste cleanup fund, a liquid waste transporter's permit ordinance, and regulation for underground storage facilities for hazardous materials. Further, Dade County has adopted Resolution No. R-114-84, which incorporates a non-exclusive list of numerous hazardous materials subject to regulation under the wellfield protection ordinance and other regulations. The more credible evidence of record in this cause establishes that even should Dade County remove the current ban on hazardous materials in Section 32, the proposed industrial park, as restricted by the Medley development order, would pose no significant threat of contamination to the Northwest Wellfield. As modeled under realistically conservative assumptions, including pumpage rated far exceeding the presently permitted legal rate of 50 MGD, the Northwest Wellfield hydrological cone of influence would reach into Section 32 for no more than one or two months per year, at the end of the dry season. For most of the year, the Snapper Creek Canal will act as a natural recharge boundary for the Northwest Wellfield. The canal would normally carry sufficient water northward from the Tamiami Canal to maintain a pressure head in the canal, driving water into the aquifer on both sides, replenishing the water drawn by the wellfield in the area west to the canal, and holding the cone of influence at the west side of the canal. On the east side of the canal, ground water would resume its natural flow to the southeast or east, unaffected by pumping in the Northwest Wellfield. During the dry season, the recharge mound in the Snapper Creek Canal would diminish, and the cone of influence could gradually expand, possibly recharging Section 32 for a month or two at the end of the dry season. As soon as the rainy season commenced again, however, the canal would fill up rapidly and resume its function as a recharge boundary. The more credible evidence establishes that it is highly unlikely that ground water contaminants originating from Section 32 would ever reach the Northwest Wellfield. Ground water moves only a few feet or even inches per day in the Biscayne Aquifer. Because Section 32 is located three to four miles from the Northwest Wellfield, the gradient to the wells in the cone of influence in Section 32 is extremely slack. In the driest of droughts, a hypothetical plume of contaminants beneath Section 32 would move only slightly towards the wellfield. At the return of the wet season, the gradient draining ground water from Section 32 eastward to the Miami Canal would be very steep and would rapidly flush any contaminants away from the wellfield and its cone of influence. The Medley development order imposes several restrictions on the development which protect the Northwest Wellfield from any threat of potential contamination from the proposed industrial park. The development order requires the removal of all exotic vegetation and the planting of native species to reduce the demand for water and the use of fertilizer, a potential contaminant; restricts irrigation in the project to the use of non-potable water from onsite lakes and wells; obligates FEC to construct, or provide $600,000 to the Dade County Fire Department for construction of, a fire station according to county specifications within the primary response district for Section 32, to improve the fire department's capability to respond quickly to any spill of hazardous materials; requires FEC to submit to the RPC, Dade County and Medley a detailed management operation plan within six months of the date of issuance of the development order; and further requires that FEC submit a hazardous material spill contingent fee and response plan to the RPC, Dade County, and Medley within one year of the date of the development order. The development order contains detailed criteria for the management/operation plan, including inspections, monitoring, and the use of best management practices designed to minimize the risk of contaminating ground water. Further, these requirements include approval of specific standards for hazardous materials accident prevention, mitigation, and response; adequate pre-treatment facilities to assure segregated retention of hazardous waste and their removal and disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements; that all facilities be readily open for inspection by Medley and DERM; and appropriate storage and accurate labeling of hazardous materials. The order also requires that FEC receive review and approval of its plans by the RPC, Medley, and Dade County. The RPC will, if deemed appropriate, in the course of review, impose its customary policy of ground water monitoring for a project using or generating hazardous materials. The development order provides that whatever wellfield protection regulations Dade County might adopt after further monitoring of the Northwest Wellfield will apply to the FEC project in Section 32. The RPC compiled, and Medley adopted, in the development order, "Table 22" as a tool for determining the types of land uses that should be excluded from locating in the proposed industrial park. In the event Dade County were to remove the present ban on hazardous materials in Section 32, the Medley development order requires that every firm and industry listed in Table 22 desiring to locate in the development to apply to RPC, Dade County, and Medley for a waiver of restriction on hazardous materials, based upon the tenant's demonstration that its use of appropriate best management practices or other measures will adequately protect the environment. These applications would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the adequacy of proposed protected measures. This condition is imposed in the development order in addition to existing local, state, and federal permitting requirements. Further, Dade County also independently requires the use of best management practices, including monitoring when appropriate, by any industry using hazardous materials in Dade County. In summary, the evidence in this cause establishes that the current ban imposed by Dade County on the use, handling, generation, and transportation of hazardous materials in Section 32, when viewed in the context of the existing hydrological system in the area and the conditions imposed upon FEC in the Medley development order, combine to demonstrate the lack of a permanent ban on hazardous materials in Section 32 will pose no significant threat to the Northwest Wellfield. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding to demonstrate that the proposed project is in any way inconsistent with an existing state land development plan, any local land development regulation, or the regional planning council report.
