Findings Of Fact Lake Powell Improvement Corporation is a consortium of interested owners of land comprising the majority of the Lake Powell shoreline. Camp Helen Company, one of its members, owns lake property which was formerly operated as a recreational facility for associates of Avondale Mills. Camp Helen Company now holds the property for the possibility of future development. George Jeter is one of approximately 76 persons who sent a form letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in opposition to the designation of Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The rule-making proceeding to designate Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet an OFW was initiated with a petition filed on June 11, 1987, by the St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association, a private citizens' organization formed in 1986 to help protect wildlife and resources in the St. Andrews Bay area. A public workshop was conducted by DER on September 6, 1990, in Panama City, Florida. Approximately 70 persons attended the workshop, including Bay County residents, Walton County residents, Lake Powell area property owners and representatives from various organizations. Craig Crockard, Vice President of Lake Powell Improvement Corporation, opposed the designation based on alleged degradation of property values and tax base, negative impact on growth and increase in road maintenance costs. Agency staff encouraged workshop participants and members of the public to submit information, including economic information, that would aid in the decision-making process. Only general and speculative information was received, with the exception of a response from the Department of Transportation that costs of future construction and expansion of the Phillips Inlet bridge, part of four-laning Highway 98, would be increased by $1.5 million as a result of the OFW regulations. DER sent a letter to Craig Crockard, received on April 2, 1991, requesting specifics as to the property owners' development plans and estimated economic impacts by April 5th. Crockard responded that the deadline was too short and that it was obvious that the decision had already been made. At no time, up to and including the hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC), did Petitioners or other opponents provide information as to specific economic impacts of the proposed designation. The proposed rule would add the following area to rule 17- 302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. specifying special waters under the OFW designation: Special Waters * * * Lake Powell, Phillips Inlet, and all tributaries to Lake Powell as bounded by the following described line: Begin at the Northwest corner of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence East to the Northwest corner of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence South to the Northwest corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence East to the West line of Section 27, Township 2 South, Range 17 West, thence South to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; thence meander Northwest along the mean high water line to the West line of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence North to the point of beginning ( - - 91). * * * In making its determination to recommend OFW designation for Lake Powell to the ERC, the Department compared Lake Powell to other water bodies. Lake Powell was found to be exceptionally ecologically and recreationally significant in terms of size, water quality and recreational usage. The Department makes its determination as to whether the proposed water body is exceptional by making direct comparisons to features of other water bodies, and by relying on the professional judgements of others familiar with the particular class of water bodies. Lake Powell has been compared by professionals familiar with other water bodies in the area and in their opinion it has exceptional value as an ecosystem. The Department relied on professional judgement of this type as well as its own findings when making the determination that Lake Powell was exceptional. Lake Powell is located in Bay and Walton Counties in Northwest Florida adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Its total surface area of 737 acres makes it the largest by far of any of a series of similar lakes in the area. Seven small streams provide fresh water to the lake; periodically Phillips Inlet, connecting the lake to the Gulf of Mexico, opens or closes. When the inlet is open, the lake becomes estuarine in nature. Most of the shoreline of Lake Powell is still undeveloped and the lake is significant in that it has experienced only minimal adverse impact from human activity. There are no permitted point source discharges to Lake Powell. It is basin-shaped, with a shallow shell, steep sandy slopes, and a flat bottom ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet deep. Silty, high organic sediments in the water are amenable to degradation and are uniquely sensitive to pollution. Restricted flushing and the opportunity for development growth in the area add to that sensitivity. Lake Powell is a Class III waterbody. Water quality in the lake is good, and meets Class III standards; some parameters are as good as Class II standards. The low dissolved oxygen level in the lake is a result of natural conditions, is not a result of pollution, and is therefore not a violation of the Class III standard for dissolved oxygen. Lake Powell is one of the lakes in the state that is part of the water quality sampling effort known as Lake Watch. A benefit of OFW designation to this effort will be that Lake Powell, absent degradation, can serve as a control lake to compare other Lake Watch lakes throughout the State. At least 170 species of birds, (trust resources of the US Fish and Wildlife Service), have been observed and are dependent on Lake Powell. Unusual species include the piping plover (federally and state designated threatened), snowy plover (state designated threatened), least tern (state designated threatened), and bald eagle (federally designated endangered and state designated threatened). These species have a direct dependence on Lake Powell for habitat, feeding, or nesting areas. They are dependent on non-trust species such as small fishes which could be impacted by chemicals introduced to the lake. Edwin James Kepner, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, has identified three new species of nematodes which so far have been uniquely found in Lake Powell. Although nematode species are among the most abundant on earth (97,000 individuals may be found in a single rotting apple), they are a highly significant part of an ecological system and must be understood and studied for any understanding of marine communities. The lake supports a diversity of animals. At least 87 species of macrobenthic invertebrates and 67 species of fin fish inhabit the lake, a diversity based on the system's intermittent connection to the Gulf and the lake's relatively pristine condition compared to other lakes. One would expect to find even more diversity, 3 to 4 times more species, if better and more accurate sampling methods were employed. Lake Powell presents a unique nursery area, since most large predator fishes do not have access to it. The lake presently supports a variety of recreational activities, including canoeing, sailing, windsurfing, water-skiing, fishing, crabbing and picnicking. This recreational use has increased during the last five years. Lake Powell is ranked 36th out of 361 lakes statewide in a 1982 study of recreational usage. In terms of potential to the public for recreational usage, Lake Powell has three public access points to the lake, and a possible fourth. Public access is gained by a Bay County public park and by way of Gulf View Drive, which is owned by Bay County and used to launch boats. There is a public dock in Walton County which is also used extensively. The fourth access is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Bay County Audubon Society. The unusual quality of recreational experience lies in the pristine nature of the lake and the fact that it is located not far from the Miracle Strip in Panama City Beach. The ERC Commissioners, who were taken on a tour of the lake, were able to contrast the two areas and found that Lake Powell had unusual recreational value. Lake Powell provides an exceptional educational opportunity, and with its many different types of habitat it is a compact, manageable educational laboratory. As compared to the St. Andrews Bay System it would be much easier to collect samples, obtain information on biotic communities and generally conduct research on the effectiveness of regulatory programs, due to the manageable size of the lake. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C., to designate Lake Powell as an OFW would potentially affect future Department permit applicants by requiring they provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest and that the proposed project would not lower existing ambient water quality standards (Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C.); by requiring that direct stormwater discharges into the lake include an additional 50% treatment level (Rule 17-25.025(9), F.A.C.); and by reducing the exemption for private residential docks from 1000 square feet to 500 square feet (Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), F.A.C.). These requirements will result in increased costs to permit applicants, although the costs cannot be calculated at this time since there are no such projects firmly proposed to the Department. The primary beneficial effect of the proposed rule would be the protection of future water quality based on existing ambient water quality standards at time of OFW designation. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Department. Section 120.54(2)(b), F.S., requires the statement to include: * * * An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and An analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Additionally, Rule 17-302.700(4)(e) provides: An economic impact analysis consistent with Chapter 120, shall be prepared which provides a general analysis of the impact on growth and development including such factors as impacts on planned or potential industrial, agricultural, or other development or expansion. It is undisputed that the EIS properly addressed the costs of implementation to the Department. The EIS identified the kind of Department permit applicant that would potentially be affected by the rule amendment, and what kinds of developmental impacts could be expected by operation of other Department rules. The EIS did not identify any specific costs that would be attributable to the rule, as the Department was unaware of any specific development plans for the lake that would be subject to the Department rules. Existing development activities are grandfathered and would not be affected by the more stringent requirements. The Department stated in its EIS that the overall costs imposed on future development due to the proposed OFW designation would depend on both the nature of the development and its impact on the ambient water quality of the lake. Since the type and nature of future development in the area is uncertain, an estimate of the potential aggregate costs associated with the proposed OFW designation could not be made at the time the EIS was prepared. The EIS properly addressed the costs of the proposed rule to the parties, based upon the facts as known to the Department. The benefits to the public of the rule were stated to be largely environmental, as a result of protection of future ambient water quality standards in the lake. The EIS cited an economic benefit to land owners around the lake in the form of enhanced property values due to water quality protections of the OFW designation, water quality being an important variable in determining property values of waterfront property. That property values would be enhanced is based on the DER economist's study of another state's experience and experience with OFW designation in other Florida counties. The EIS properly addresses the benefits of the rule. The EIS states that there will be no significant effect on competition as a result of the proposed OFW designation; Petitioners have not presented any evidence to the contrary. The EIS adequately addresses the rule's effect on competition. The EIS states that the proposed OFW designation is not expected to create any significant adverse disproportionate impacts on small businesses, as required by Section 120.54(2)(b)5., F.S. As Petitioners have not introduced any evidence to the contrary, the EIS adequately addresses this issue. The EIS states that appropriate economic analysis techniques were employed preparing the EIS. Petitioners participated in the rulemaking process; they attended the Panama City workshop when economic information was solicited; they submitted written comments, none of which provided specific economic information; and they participated in the ERC hearing but offered no evidence to the Commission regarding economic impacts of the rule. The type of information they suggest that the Department should consider was not submitted by them, or anyone else, during the rulemaking process or this hearing. The evidence shows that the Department considered all comments submitted throughout the rulemaking process in making the recommendation of OFW designation to the ERC. The EIS properly explains the data and methodology used in its preparation, and this data and methodology was adequate to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. In January 1991, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners amended the County's comprehensive plan to provide special protection for Lake Powell. These provisions include more stringent requirements for stormwater retention and detention, an objective to maintain Lake Powell's water quality at its present level, restriction on use of household septic tanks, designation of a low-density residential zone, and prohibition of point source discharges which would lower existing water quality. (Joint Exhibit #1, Appendix D) Both parties have invoked the plan amendments for their own purpose. Petitioners argue that the plan amendments provide the same or greater protection than the proposed OFW designation and that the designation is not needed. This argument ignores the fact that at least 10% of the lake lies within Walton County, outside Bay County's jurisdiction. DER did not require Bay County to amend its plan and could not require it to maintain the new Lake Powell protections indefinitely. The OFW designation does not detract from or conflict with the local government's commendable initiative, but rather augments it. Respondent, DER, addresses the plan in its modified EIS where it discusses the contention by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that OFW designation will add $1.5 million in costs to widen a road at the Phillips Inlet bridge. DER's economist concedes that designation will result in additional costs and has discussed that in the EIS. Because he has not received back-up data from DOT he is unable to confirm that the cost will be as much as DOT asserts. He also attributes the increase to the new stormwater requirements of the Bay County comprehensive plan, and concludes the additional costs due to OFW designation might be zero. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 7) Even if misplaced, the attribution of costs does not invalidate the EIS or the proposed designation. The EIS generally describes potential costs and provides a basis to weigh the environmental, social and economic costs against the environmental, social and economic benefits. In summary, the facts above support the ERC's finding that the waters selected for designation are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance and the benefits of designation outweigh its costs.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the proposed construction and operation of an outfall drainage improvement project for a 0.167-acre project known as Lake Ola Circle Outfall Drainage Improvements meets the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-330.301(1) and 62-330.302(1), and the Applicant’s Handbook (“A.H.”) for issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Mr. Bowers resides at 7400 Lake Ola Circle, Tangerine, Florida. The property fronts Lake Ola. Petitioner’s homesite includes Lots 1 and 2 of Block 8 in the Tangerine Terrace subdivision; the east 30 feet of a vacated street on its western side; and part of a vacated park south of Lots 1 and 2. The Tangerine Terrace subdivision was originally platted in 1926. The District is a special taxing district created by chapter 373, and is authorized by sections 373.413, 373.414, and 373.416 to administer and enforce the ERP requirements for the management and storage of surface waters. The District has implemented these statutes, in pertinent part, through chapter 62-330. The District is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the Permit to Orange County. Orange County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Orange County is the applicant for the Permit, the activities authorized by which are, except for the rock check dam on Lake Ola Boulevard, to be constructed on a drainage easement in its favor over the eastern 20 feet of Petitioner’s property. Existing Conditions Lake Ola is a freshwater lake located south of Mount Dora, Florida. Lake Ola is connected to Lake Carlton via a culvert passing underneath Dora Drive. Lake Ola is not designated as an impaired waterbody, an Outstanding Florida Water, or an Outstanding National Resource Water. Tangerine Terrace is a rural residential area on the north side of Lake Ola. The main road serving the subdivision, Lake Ola Boulevard, has been in existence since the 1940s. The stormwater management system that currently drains to the outfall on Mr. Bowers’s property serves a catchment area of eight drainage sub-basins with a combined area of approximately 46.3 acres (collectively the “catchment area”). The area is rural-residential in nature, consisting of relatively large residential homesites, and wooded and agricultural areas. The soils in the catchment area consist of Type-A soils as described by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Such soils are sandy and pervious in nature. Homes, driveways, and roads in the area are impervious. Stormwater from the catchment area generally flows south to Lake Ola Boulevard, where it is intercepted by the Lake Ola Boulevard roadside swales. There is a culvert crossing from the north side to the south side of Lake Ola Boulevard, the Cooper Cross-drain, that was installed at or near the time that the road was first constructed. The evidence was not sufficient to determine whether water flows from the south side of the drain to the north, or from the north side to the south. For purposes of this case, that determination is unnecessary. Stormwater from the upland basins flows along the Lake Ola Boulevard swales to a point at or near the driveway of the Holstrom property, across the road from the western leg of Lake Ola Circle. At that point, stormwater enters into a 15-inch diameter High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe that is 407 feet in length. The best evidence indicates that the pipe was installed by Orange County in 2010.1 Stormwater then is directed under Lake Ola Boulevard to a ditch (with one driveway culvert) running along the east side of the eastern leg of Lake Ola Circle. From there, a 15-inch diameter HDPE 1 The permitting status of the pipe is unknown. In any event, there is no evidence that the pipe is the subject of any governmental enforcement or compliance action, and no evidence of a citizen suit for injunctive relief regarding the pipe. pipe carries stormwater to the northeast corner of Mr. Bowers’s property, and the northern end of the drainage easement. Existing stormwater discharge/outfall facilities on property owned by Petitioner and by the adjoining landowner to the east, Mr. Bloodworth, consist of a portion of the buried 15-inch HDPE pipe which empties into an upland asphalt-lined swale running between the two properties. The asphalt- lined swale has, by appearance, accumulated sufficient sediment to support lawn grasses. Water discharged from the southern terminus of the swale flows overland to Lake Ola. Wetlands, as evidenced by hydric, organic soils, exist near the end of the existing asphalt-lined swale. The wetlands within the Project area have been mowed and maintained as a residential St. Augustine grass lawn. There is some scattered hydrocotyle (dollarweed) that has come up through the St. Augustine grass, though the wetland delineation was determined through the hydric soils, rather than wetland vegetative species. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the wetland delineation was appropriate and consistent with the best evidence, that being wetland soils. There is a wetland scrub community along the shoreline of Lake Ola that is outside of the Project boundary, but within the easement limits. Proposed Project Orange County proposes to replace a 22-foot segment of the existing buried 15-inch HDPE pipe and the existing asphalt-lined swale, with an underground 18-inch concrete drainage outfall pipe with a shallow surface swale, three ditch bottom inlets, and a baffled endwall. The remaining 15-foot segment of the 15-inch HDPE pipe will connect to the first of the ditch bottom inlets and discharge to the 18-inch culvert. At the point at which it connects to the 15-inch pipe at the first ditch bottom inlet, the 18-inch pipe will be eight feet west of the centerline of the existing asphalt-lined swale. At its outfall at the baffled endwall, the 18-inch pipe will be 14 feet west of the centerline of the existing asphalt-lined swale. The 18-inch outfall pipe and baffled endwall are to be installed entirely within a drainage easement 20 feet in width along the eastern edge of Mr. Bowers’s property. Mr. Bowers owns the underlying servient fee interest. Orange County introduced competent substantial evidence in the form of recorded easements and surveys to establish its prima facie case that it has a sufficient real property interest over the land upon which the activities subject to the Permit application will be conducted. The evidence submitted by Petitioner was not sufficient to establish that Orange County was proposing to construct the drainage improvements outside of the boundary of the easement. However, as will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the proposed Permit conveys no title, and affects no real property interests. Disputes over the scope, extent, and rights conferred under the easement are left to a court of competent jurisdiction over conflicting real property claims. Stormwater from the catchment area into the proposed improvements will maintain the current runoff patterns. In simple terms, the Project (exclusive of the upstream rock check dam) entails little more than enclosing the existing asphalt lined swale with an outfall pipe, overlain by a pervious surface swale and inlets. Water flowing from the 15-inch pipe into the 18-inch outfall pipe will decrease in velocity as the conveyance pipe volume is increased. Thus, despite Petitioner’s contention that the increase in pipe size is unnecessary, it serves a benefit. In addition, the terminal endwall for the 18-inch concrete pipe will incorporate baffles to further dissipate flows. Water discharged from the baffled endwall will then flow overland to Lake Ola, much as it does now from the end of the asphalt swale. There was no persuasive evidence introduced that water discharged from the Lake Ola discharge portion of the Project will reasonably be expected to result in scour or erosion. The outfall pipe and associated endwall will result in 0.001 acres of permanent wetland impact, limited to the footprint of the baffled endwall, and 0.031 acres of temporary wetland impact from the installation of the pipe waterward of the wetland delineation line. The calculation of temporary wetland impact is restricted to the temporary effects associated with the construction of the outfall structure, and has no relation to the waters to be discharged from the outfall pipe. The Project also includes construction of an upgradient rock check dam to be placed across the roadside swale along Lake Ola Boulevard west of its intersection with Lake Ola Circle. The rock check dam is proposed to be constructed with relatively large pieces of rock to an elevation of six inches above the bottom of the swale. The rock check dam is designed to slow the passage of low velocity stormwater resulting from minor rain events, allowing energy dissipation of the stormwater, and a “small amount” of water being held up behind the dam to infiltrate into the soil, thereby incrementally reducing the volume of stormwater downgradient. The purpose of the rock check dam is not to enhance or promote water quality treatment, or to affect the flow of water in the existing stormwater system during periods of significant rainfall. In higher flow storm events, the rock check dam will have little or no attenuating effect on stormwater moving down the Lake Ola Boulevard swale. In no event will the rock check dam increase the volume or velocity of stormwaters through the Lake Ola Boulevard swale, or affect existing water quality in the overall stormwater management system. The proposed Project will not add to, diminish, or change any existing land use, soil types, or impervious areas in the 48.3-acre catchment area. Except for the rock check dam and the grading of the proposed swale over the proposed 18-inch outlet pipe, the Project will not change the existing topography in the 48.3-acre catchment area. Stormwater Permitting Standard and Modeling Calculations In permitting stormwater management systems, or elements thereof, the District is guided by the principle that post-development stormwater volume cannot exceed predevelopment stormwater volume. Predevelopment, i.e., existing, stormwater volumes are those conditions that existed when ERP Application No. 154996-2 was submitted in March 2020. Petitioner has argued that predevelopment volumes should be calculated based on conditions in the catchment area that existed as far back as 2010. Petitioner has not, nor could he, provide any authority to support the assertion that existing conditions in an area subject to a permit application are those conditions existing a decade prior. Thus, Petitioner’s argument is rejected. In order to calculate pre- and post-development volumes, Orange County utilized the Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing (ICPR) model to calculate flows. The preponderance of the evidence established that the ICPR is an accepted and reliable method for determining stormwater flows and volumes. Scenario 1 Ms. Dewey met with Mr. Bowers at his property in June 2020 to discuss the Project. Afterwards, in order to satisfy certain of Mr. Bowers’s inquiries, Ms. Dewey asked Orange County to run the ICPR model using reasonably available data to estimate runoff conditions that existed in the area prior to 2010, an exercise dubbed Scenario 1. Ms. Dewey testified convincingly that the Scenario 1 exercise “was really for historical context,” and was not an effort to determine “existing conditions” for purposes of the District’s pre- and post-development calculations. Much of the testimony and evidence offered by Petitioner concerned disagreements in the model inputs for Scenario 1, particularly as related to elevations at the Cooper Cross-drain and the Holstrom driveway. Though the disagreements were in inches, differences in inches can affect the direction and volume of stormwater flows. Mr. Morris opined that the outfall pipe at Mr. Bowers’s property could not be properly sized without a determination of the full volume of water to be introduced into it. However, Mr. Morris’s testimony is predicated on conditions that existed in the area in 2010 and before. It was not based on conditions that currently exist in the area, as is required by the District rules. Furthermore, Petitioner’s witnesses did not opine as to a more appropriate size for the discharge pipe because they ran no models of their own. Mr. Morris’s testimony was also based on his conclusion that surface elevation inputs at the Cooper Cross-drain and the Holstrom driveway were incorrectly calculated. As his solution, he suggested that “all that needs to be done is for CDM to connect -- correct two points, rerun the model, and we'll see what the real scenario one is.” Mr. Morris, however, did not run the model to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Mack testified regarding the elevations disputed by Mr. Morris. His opinions were based on surveys and methods of calculating elevation that were reasonable and reliable, and led him to conclude that the model inputs for Scenario 1 were accurate, and reasonably depicted conditions and elevations that existed in the area in 2010 and before. His testimony is accepted. Mr. Pernezny testified that, even under Scenario 1 conditions, the proposed 18-inch discharge pipe will be able to accommodate the flows for the 10-year and 25-year drainage storm events without exceeding the capacity of the pipe. A smaller pipe, matching the existing 15-inch input, would result in discharges at its terminal end having a higher velocity, and higher erosive potential, while the 18-inch pipe is designed to result in a decreased velocity and reduced erosive potential at the outfall. As indicated, Scenario 1 conditions are not relevant to a determination of whether the Permit meets District permitting standards, because Scenario 1 does not reflect existing or predevelopment conditions in the catchment area or at the discharge structure. Nonetheless, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proposed Project, even under Scenario 1, meets the standards for issuance of the ERP. Scenario 2 In order to provide predevelopment and post-development conditions, Orange County ran Scenario 2 to calculate existing conditions, i.e., those conditions that existed in the catchment area at the time the Permit application was filed. The existing conditions were then compared to the conditions that will be expected after the construction of the permitted activities. The only permitted activities consist of the outfall pipe and baffled endwall at Mr. Bowers’s property, and the rock check dam. A preponderance of the evidence, including the ICPR modeling results, establish that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands because the post-development peak rate of discharge will not exceed the predevelopment peak rate of discharge. A preponderance of the evidence, including the ICPR modeling results, establish that the Project will not cause flooding to on-site or off-site property because the peak stages of the discharge will not extend beyond the limits of Orange County’s easement. A preponderance of the evidence, including the ICPR modeling results, establish that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to existing water storage and conveyance capabilities because the post-development peak rate of discharge will not exceed that of the predevelopment peak rate of discharge, and the peak stages of discharge during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event will not extend beyond the limits of Orange County’s easement. The modeling inputs for Scenario 2 were not disputed by Petitioner’s experts. In that regard, Mr. Morris testified that he had “no issue with the input data for Scenario 2.” His objection was limited to the characterization of the Scenario 2 data and, in particular, the 407 feet of pipe installed in 2010, as “existing” conditions. Mr. Russell, in addition to the general lack of weight given his testimony, admitted that he looked only “briefly” and “not in great depth” at the Scenario 1 modeling, and not at all at Scenario 2. Water Quality The Project does not propose a change in drainage patterns, runoff volumes, or land uses that would change the pollutant loading to Lake Ola. Soil types and conditions, and areas that are impervious, are completely unchanged from existing predevelopment conditions to conditions that will exist after completion of the Project. There is no proposed change in runoff from the predevelopment condition to the post-development condition. Water flowing to Lake Ola in the existing condition is the same as the water that will be flowing to Lake Ola after the Proposed Project is constructed. Mr. Pernezny testified that there would be no appreciable difference in the overall hydraulics of the system as a result of the replacement of the asphalt- lined swale with the 18-inch pipe, and that there will be “no change in water quality characteristics between existing and proposed.” His testimony is credited. As a result, the preponderance of competent substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to Lake Ola. Because the Project is not adding pollutants to the stormwater, water quality treatment is not required. Nonetheless, Orange County proposed construction of a rock check dam upstream, which will help slow down water flow and thereby promote infiltration for smaller storm events. Increased infiltration, even marginally, will result in more stormwater being absorbed into the ground, and fractionally less traveling towards the point of discharge to Lake Ola. Under no possible circumstance will the rock check dam cause or contribute to any adverse impact to the quality of waters flowing from the catchment area to the point of discharge. Orange County has proposed the deployment of erosion, sediment, and turbidity control measures to be utilized during construction. Thus, there is expected to be no temporary water quality impacts related to the construction or period of stabilization of the proposed Project. Wetland Impacts The Project footprint contains a total of 0.167 acres within an existing drainage easement. The wetlands are defined as such due solely to the presence of hydric soils. The area within the Project boundaries have been mowed and maintained as a single-family residential lawn dominated by St. Augustine grass, thus, effectively eliminating any beneficial wetland function or value. Although the area in which construction is to occur includes sparse emergence of scattered dollarweed, it is not defined as a wetland due to the dominance of any wetland plant species. The existing asphalt-lined swale provides no significant value to functions provided to fish and wildlife and their habitat. Given the lack of existing wetland values in the Project area, the 0.001 acres of permanent impacts and 0.031 acres of temporary impacts are not adverse. Thus, Orange County was not required to eliminate or reduce the impacts. Since the Project will not cause adverse impacts and the area has no significant ecological value, mitigation is not required. Secondary Impacts Rule 62-330.301(1)(f) and A.H. Volume I, section 10.1.1,2 provide that “[a] regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water 2 The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook has been adopted as a rule for use by DEP and the state’s five water management districts. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- resources.” As set forth in the Findings of Fact herein, the Project “will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters.” There was no competent substantial evidence offered that the Project will “adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for bald eagles, and aquatic or wetland dependent listed animal species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species.” The Project will not affect significant historical and archaeological resources. Finally, there is no indication that future phases or activities closely linked or causally related to the Project will result in water quality violations or adverse impacts to wetlands or other surface waters. A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence received in this case establishes that Orange County provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters as defined in A.H. Volume I, section 10.2.7. Public Interest Test Rule 62-330.302(1)(a), as supplemented by A.H. Volume I, section 10.2.3, requires that projects: Located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such activities significantly degrade or are within an Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria as set forth in sections 10.2.3 through 10.2.3.7 of Volume I. What follows are seven listed criteria. Lake Ola is not an Outstanding Florida Water. Thus, the standard applicable to those elements of the Project that are to be constructed in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters is that they not be contrary to the public interest. 330.010(4). The A.H. was developed “to help persons understand the rules, procedures, standards, and criteria that apply to the environmental resource permit (ERP) program under Part IV of Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.).” A.H. Vol. I, § 1.0. The first public interest factor is whether the Project “will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others.” The part of the Project located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters is within a mowed and maintained residential lawn. The Project will not cause an environmental hazard to public health or safety; is not located in a shellfish harvesting area; and will not cause flooding or environmental impacts to the property of others. A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that the Project will meet all water quantity standards, and that the Project will cause no increase in water volume or velocity from existing predevelopment conditions. The prima facie case established by Orange County established, for purposes of this proceeding, that the proposed drainage pipe and outfall will be contained entirely within Orange County’s easement. Nonetheless, as set forth previously, and as will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, disputes over the scope, extent, and rights under the easement are left to a court of competent jurisdiction. The second public interest factor is whether the Project “will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats.” There was nothing received in evidence to support a finding that the Project area is utilized by wildlife, or that it supports nesting or denning. The third public interest factor is whether the Project “will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.” The Project is located landward of the waters of Lake Ola and, therefore, will not impede navigability. A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that neither the discharge from the pipe and endwall structure, nor the effects of the rock check dam, will cause erosion or shoaling. The fourth public interest factor is whether the Project “will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values of marine productivity in the vicinity of the project.” A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that there will be no impacts to fisheries, boating, or swimming activities on Lake Ola. The fifth public interest factor is whether the Project “will be of a temporary or permanent nature.” The Project will result in 0.001 acres of permanent impacts and 0.031 acres of temporary impacts associated with construction of the outfall structure. A.H. Volume I, section 10.2.3.5 establishes that “[t]emporary impacts will be considered less harmful than permanent impacts of the same nature and extent.” Given that Petitioner has maintained the hydric-soil wetlands as a residential St. Augustine grass covered lawn, there is no significant ecological value to the wetlands. Once the installation of the drainage pipe is complete and stabilized, it will have no impact on the residential lawn. The ecological effect of the 0.001 acres of permanent impact is, given the nature of the affected wetland, insignificant. The sixth public interest factor is whether the Project “will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources.” A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that there are no known historical or archaeological resources in the area. The proposed Permit also contains a condition for Orange County to cease activities and contact the Division of Historical Resources if any artifacts are encountered during construction. The seventh public interest factor is the “current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activities.” As set forth herein, the area affected by the Project has no wetland value due to its conversion to use as Petitioner’s residential lawn. A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence received in this case establishes that Orange County provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not be contrary to the public interest as defined in A.H. Volume I, section 10.2.3. Cumulative Impacts Rule 62-330.302(1)(b), as supplemented by A.H. Volume I, section 10.2.8, establish that an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a project “will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters” within the same drainage basin. The impacts on wetlands and surface waters are reviewed by evaluating the impacts to water quality wetland functions. As set forth herein, the Project will have no effect on water quality, and the affected hydric-soil wetlands have no functional wetland value due to their conversion to a mowed and maintained residential grass lawn. A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence received in this case establishes that Orange County provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters as defined in A.H. Volume I, section 10.2.8. Special Basins Petitioner argues that the Project does not meet the applicable special basin criteria for the Ocklawaha River Hydrologic Basin or the special basin criteria for the Wekiva Recharge Protection Area due to the perceived errors in the ICPR model inputs and results. The argument is largely based on the assumption that existing predevelopment conditions for the Permit should be based on those existing in 2010, rather than those existing at the time of the Permit application. As set forth herein, that argument is rejected. The applicable special criterion for the Ocklawaha River Hydrologic Basin provides that “[t]he system shall meet applicable discharge criteria for 10-year and 25-year frequency storms.” Competent substantial evidence established that Orange County applied those discharge criteria in its ICPR modeling, and that the data demonstrated that the post-development peak rate of discharge to Lake Ola will not exceed the predevelopment or existing condition peak rate of discharge for 10-year and 25-year frequency storms. The applicable special criterion for the Wekiva Recharge Protection Area requires retention storage of three inches of runoff “from all impervious areas proposed to be constructed on soils defined as Type ‘A’ soils.” The Project proposed no construction of impervious surfaces on Type A soils. A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence received in this case establishes that the proposed Project does not violate special basin criteria for the Ocklawaha River Hydrologic Basin or the Wekiva Recharge Protection Area pursuant to A.H. Volume II (SJRWMD), sections 13.2 and 13.3. Plan Certification Petitioner argues that Orange County failed to provide signed and sealed plans and calculations in support of its Permit application as required by A.H. Volume II (SJRWMD), section 2.3. The evidence in this case established that the original professional engineer assigned to the Permit retired. Mr. Pernezny, as the successor engineer, was asked by the District to sign the Permit application, which was done on May 3, 2021. But for Mr. Pernezny’s signature, the Permit application was unchanged. Petitioner was aware that Mr. Pernezny was assuming responsibility as engineer-of- record well prior to the final hearing in this case. This proceeding, being de novo in nature, is intended to formulate final agency action and not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily. The documents received in evidence at the final hearing were signed, sealed, and dated as required, and are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the project meets District permitting standards. Legal Authorization Rule 62-330.060(3), entitled Content of Applications for Individual and Conceptual Approval Permits, provides, in pertinent part, that: The applicant must certify that it has sufficient real property interest over the land upon which the activities subject to the application will be conducted, as required in Section A of Form 62- 330.060(1) and Section 4.2.3(d) of the Applicant’s Handbook Volume I. Similarly, A.H. Volume I, section 4.2.3 provides, in pertinent part, that an application for an ERP include: (d) Documentation of the applicant’s real property interest over the land upon which the activities subject to the application will be conducted. Interests in real property typically are evidenced by: * * * 2. The applicant being the holder of a recorded easement conveying the right to utilize the property for a purpose consistent with the authorization requested in the permit application. A.H. Volume II (SJRWMD), section 2.5, entitled Legal Authorization, further provides that: Applicants which propose to utilize offsite areas not under their control to satisfy the criteria for evaluation listed in section 2.0 must obtain sufficient legal authorization prior to permit issuance to use the area. For example, an applicant who proposes to locate the outfall pipe from the stormwater basin to the receiving water on an adjacent property owner's land must obtain a drainage easement or other appropriate legal authorization from the adjacent owner. A copy of the legal authorization must be submitted with the permit application. Neither the rule nor the A.H. require proof as would be necessary to adjudicate disputes in property rights and boundaries in circuit court. Rather, they require a good faith certification. That certification was provided by Orange County in the Permit application. Orange County also submitted, along with its certification, documentation, including copies of the drainage easement and survey, sufficient to meet the criteria in the rule and the A.H., that it has sufficient real property interest over the land upon which the Project is to be conducted. That documentation, on its face, established Orange County’s prima facie right to use the recorded drainage easement and, thus, entitlement to the Permit. The evidence submitted by Petitioner was not sufficient, even if accepted as true, to demonstrate that Orange County was proposing to construct the drainage improvements outside of the boundary of the easement. Rule 62-330.350(1)(i), which has been incorporated verbatim as Condition 9 of the Permit, provides that, as a general condition: This permit does not: Convey to the permittee any property rights or privileges, or any other rights or privileges other than those specified herein or in Chapter 62-330, F.A.C.; Convey to the permittee or create in the permittee any interest in real property; Relieve the permittee from the need to obtain and comply with any other required federal, state, and local authorization, law, rule, or ordinance; or Authorize any entrance upon or work on property that is not owned, held in easement, or controlled by the permittee. As set forth in the Conclusions of Law, disputes as to property boundaries and rights are to be resolved outside of the context of this proceeding. Ultimate Findings of Fact The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that neither the rock check dam nor the 0.167-acre outfall drainage improvement at Lake Ola Circle are reasonably expected to adversely impound or obstruct existing water flow, cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, or otherwise cause adverse water quantity or flooding impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that neither the rock check dam nor the 0.167-acre outfall drainage improvement at Lake Ola Circle are reasonably expected to cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the rock check dam and the 0.167-acre outfall drainage improvement at Lake Ola Circle meet all applicable permitting criteria for issuance of the Permit. Petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the Permit should not be issued. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing Environmental Resource Permit No. 154996-2, as proposed, to Respondent, Orange County, Florida, for the construction and operation of an outfall drainage improvement project for a 0.167-acre project known as Lake Ola Circle Outfall Drainage Improvements, and the related construction of an upgradient rock check dam in a swale along the north side of Lake Ola Drive. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Erin H. Preston, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Linda S. Brehmer-Lanosa, Esquire Orange County Attorney’s Office 201 South Rosalind Avenue, Third Floor Orlando, Florida 32801 Sharon M. Wyskiel, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Keith L. Williams, Esquire Keith L. Williams Law, PLLC 101 Canterbury Drive West West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Steven J. Kahn, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Brian W. Bennett, Esquire Bennett Legal Group, P.A. 214 South Lucerne Circle East, Suite 201 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jessica Pierce Quiggle, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D., Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street (32177) Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan was adopted on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 11, 1989. In 2000, the County amended its Plan by establishing a Managed Growth Tier System, which includes five classifications of land (Urban/ Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and Glades), along with three classes of service areas within the County to guide delivery of public services: Urban Area, Limited Urban Service Area, and Rural Service Area (RSA). It also assigned different levels of service for potable water and wastewater for each service area. At the same time, the County amended its FLUE to add a new Policy 3.4-c, which provides as follows: The County shall neither provide nor subsidize the provision of centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the Rural Service Area, unless urban levels of service are required to correct an existing problem, prevent a projected public health hazard or prevent significant environmental degradation, or the areas meet the criteria described in Future Land Use Policy 3.4.b. The County intended Policy 3.4-c to implement the Managed Growth Tier System by limiting the provision of centralized utility service in the Rural Tier. The effect of this new policy was to prohibit the County from providing urban levels of utility services outside its existing service area boundaries in the RSA unless necessary to correct or prevent a public health hazard, existing problem related to urban levels of service, or environmental degradation. In February or March 2003, the County Planning Department began assessing ways to address the problem of overlapping utility service in the RSA. Shortly thereafter, the Florida Legislature passed the Scripps Law (Chapter 2003- 420, Laws of Florida), which took effect on November 3, 2003. Both of these factors led to the development of the Amendments in issue here. In late 2003, the County staff began the actual development of new amendments to its Plan (also known as Round 04-1 Plan Amendments) that would allow the County to provide services into the RSA. More specifically, the staff proposed to add a new FLUE Policy 3.1, which (as finally drafted) read as follows: The Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall provide potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater service to all unincorporated areas of the County except those unincorporated areas where the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners has entered or enters into a written agreement that provides utility service area rights to a public or privately owned potable water, reclaimed water, and/or wastewater utility, or in areas where the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department is specifically excluded from providing utility service by Florida law. Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall continue to provide utility services to incorporated areas where service is already being provided by the County, or as provided for under utility service area agreements or as allowed for by law. In general terms, the new policy designated the County as a service provider of water and wastewater services for unincorporated areas of the County where the County has, or will enter into, interlocal agreements except where excluded by interlocal agreement or by law. The effect of the amendment is to allow the County to extend potable water and wastewater services to unincorporated areas of the County, particularly "the western communities," where it currently does not do so. The County staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c, described in Finding of Fact 1, which was previously adopted in 2000. Finally, the County staff proposed to delete another policy adopted in 2000, CAI Policy 1.5-c, which read as follows: Urban levels of service shall not be provided by any governmental entity (outside of its existing service area boundary) within the Rural Service Area of the unincorporated area, except where: The Rural Service Area receives urban services pursuant to Objective 1.1 in the Element, or An urban level of service is required to correct a demonstrated public health, or Development on a parcel in the Rural Tier that is adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989 shall be allowed to connect to those existing lines and shall be allowed to connect to public sewer and/or water when required by the Public Health Department. This policy shall not allow the extension of new water and/or sewer lines into the Rural Tier to serve development without first amending the Service Area Map and the Future Land Use Atlas to reflect a change in the service area boundary. By deleting these two provisions, the County would no longer be prevented from providing utility services in the RSA unless certain conditions were met. (The staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 1.4-k, but that deletion is not in issue in these proceedings.) On January 14, 2004, the County initiated the adoption process by transmitting Notice of the Amendments to the Intergovernmental Plan and Amendment Review Committee (IPARC), which is made up of all the local governments and special districts in the County, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. IPARC acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC in turn distributed the notice to its members, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. After a public hearing on March 12, 2004, before the County's Local Planning Agency (known as the Land Use Advisory Board), by an 11-0 vote it recommended denial of Round 04-1 Plan Amendments and recommended that the County meet with the affected parties to resolve problems voiced by various attendees, including the City, SID, and ITID. On April 2, 2004, the County held a meeting with interested persons in an attempt to resolve objections to the Amendments before they were presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The objections were not resolved. On April 5, 2004, by a 5-0 vote, the Board of County Commissioners approved transmittal of the Amendments to the Department, other commenting agencies, and each unit of local government or governmental agency that had filed a written request for copies of the Amendments. The Amendments were transmitted to the Department on April 15, 2004. Between January 2004 and August 2004, the County held at least 37 meetings with utilities and other interested persons to discuss the Amendments, including three meetings with the City, at least five meetings with SID, at least ten meetings with ITID, and at least two meetings with Wellington. In addition, the County invited all utilities to attend meetings on April 28, 2004, at three locations to discuss utility service area boundaries. These meetings were attended by approximately 25 different utilities, including the City, SID, ITID, and Wellington. As a result of these meetings, the County prepared and distributed utility service area maps in an attempt to demonstrate the necessity for better coordination between utilities. On May 21, 2004, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council notified the County of no objection or comments regarding the Amendments. On June 19, 2004, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, which did not identify any objections, recommendations, or comments with respect to the Amendments. On June 22, 2004, the South Florida Water Management District (District) notified the Department of no objections or comments regarding the Amendments. After a public meeting on August 24, 2004, by a 5-1 vote, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2004-26 enacting the Amendments, and they were transmitted to the Department on September 14, 2004. On October 29, 2004, the Department issued its Notice determining the Amendments were in compliance. On November 19, 2004, Petitioners (except Wellington) filed Petitions challenging the Amendments. Wellington filed its Amended Petition on December 16, 2004. The Parties and Their Standing The City is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County, operating its own water and wastewater utility system. The City owns the largest water treatment plant in the County and has an extensive wastewater treatment system, including partial ownership in the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facilty, the largest wastewater plant in the County. It owns property and currently provides bulk service to entities located within the unincorporated area of the County, including ITID. It submitted written objections to the County during the adoption process and has standing to bring this action. SID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1970. It lies within the unincorporated area of the County and has the authority to provide water and wastewater service within and without its boundaries. At present, SID provides potable water service within and without its boundaries, but only provides wastewater service within its boundaries. SID owns property in the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. These facts establish that SID has standing as an affected person to challenge the Amendments. Callery-Judge is a limited partnership, which owns and operates citrus groves on property located within the unincorporated area. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. Callery-Judge is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. Mr. Roberts owns property in the unincorporated area, including Callery-Judge, of which he is the General Manager. He submitted objections to the Amendments during the adoption process and is an affected person. ITID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957. (In 2002, the Legislature amended and reenacted ITID's enabling legislation.) In 1998, ITID began operating a water and wastewater system within the unincorporated area. ITID does not generate its own potable water or treat its wastewater. It obtains bulk water from the City and SID and bulk wastewater service from the City. ITID owns property within the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, it is an affected person within the meaning of the law. Wellington is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County and operates a utility providing water and wastewater service within its boundaries and outside to several developments. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption of the Amendments. Because Wellington does not own property or operate a business within the unincorporated area of the County, in order to demonstrate standing, it must show that the Amendments will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within its jurisdiction. See § 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Wellington bases its standing on alleged increases in traffic and the use of parks within its boundaries, which purportedly will occur as a result of the Amendments. While Wellington could not give a precise amount (in terms of dollars) of those impacts, the testimony of its Director of Community Services established that the availability of centralized water and sewer services in the areas adjoining Wellington will arguably lead to higher density development patterns, which in turn will lead to an increased need for publicly funded infrastructure. As such, Wellington is an affected person and has standing to challenge the Amendments. The Department is the state planning agency charged with responsibility for reviewing and approving comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto, including the Amendments. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 people, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. The Current Plan As noted above, the County initially adopted its current Plan on August 31, 1989, by Ordinance No. 89-17. The Plan has been amended numerous times since its initial adoption. The original 1989 Plan and all subsequent amendments up to the ones at issue in this proceeding have been found in compliance by the Department. The current Plan is made up of sixteen elements, nine of which are mandatory, and seven of which are optional. The parties have indicated that the Utilities Element, CIE, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and FLUE are relevant to this controversy; therefore, a brief description of their content and purpose is necessary. The purpose of a Utilities Element is to provide necessary public facilities and services correlated to future land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(c), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element contains potable water, wastewater, drainage, and solid waste sub- elements. The aquifer recharge sub-element is found in the Coastal Management Element. The Utilities Element and the aquifer recharge sub-element of the Coastal Management Element constitute the "general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element" referenced in Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element has been found in compliance with applicable provisions of statute and rule. Section 163.3177(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.016 contain requirements for the capital improvements element of a comprehensive plan. The existing CIE complies with these requirements. Objective 1.7 and Policy 1.7-a describe how the County implements the CIE. Pursuant to these requirements, the CIE is updated annually at the same time as the County budget. Table 10 of the CIE reflects the water utilities revenue and expenditures for the then current budget year and five years into the future. Table 10 was not updated when the Amendments were adopted because any future changes to the County's capital expenditures resulting from the Amendments would be made through the annual budget update process. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element contains provisions encouraging coordination between the County and adjoining municipalities and special districts in order to more efficiently meet the needs of the County residents. (There are more than 25 municipalities and special districts within the County.) This Element has previously been found in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. One of the coordination tools identified in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is the IPARC, described in Finding of Fact 5, which acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC distributes notice of plan amendments to all members, who then have the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed action. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006 contain requirements for the future land use element of a comprehensive plan, including the future land use map (FLUM). According to the Plan, the FLUE "is the nucleus of the . . . Plan" and "defines the components of the community and the interrelationship among them, integrating the complex relationships between land use and all of the other elements of the Plan that address the physical, social, and economic needs of the people who live, work, and visit Palm Beach County." Both the existing FLUE and the current FLUM have been found in compliance. The Amendments do not alter the FLUM, but they do change FLUE Policy 3.1-c and delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c. As noted above, in 2000 the County adopted a Managed Growth Tier System, which is a planning tool intended to manage growth and protect varying lifestyles in the County. The Managed Growth Tier System consists of five categories or tiers, which are described in Objective 1.1 of the Plan. Objectives 1.2 through 1.6 govern development within the five tiers. FLUE Table 2.1-1 establishes permitted densities for each of the tiers. The Amendments do not modify any Goals, Objectives, or Policies governing the five tiers, with the exception of FLUE Policy 1.4-k. However, Petitioners have not challenged the proposed deletion of FLUE Policy 1.4-k and it is not one of the Amendments at issue in this proceeding. Additionally, the Amendments will not alter the permitted densities for any of the tiers. Concurrency Management refers to the system adopted in the CIE to ensure that infrastructure, which meets or exceeds the established minimum level of service standards, is in place concurrent with development approval. According to FLUE Policy 3.5-a, development orders and permits shall not be approved unless services and facilities meet or exceed the minimum levels of service. FLUE Objective 3.1 establishes three graduated service areas in Palm Beach County -- the Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas. Each service area corresponds to one or more of the five tiers. The minimum levels of service required for each area are listed in FLUE Table 3.1-1. According to FLUE Table 3.1-1, FLUE Policy 3.5-a, and Utilities Element Policies 1.2-g and 1.3-e, the minimum levels of service in the RSA for potable water and sewage are on-site wells and septic tanks, respectively. With the exception of water and sewer, the other minimum levels of service are the same for all three service areas. The Amendments do not alter the minimum levels of service for any service area. Through its planning expert, Wellington contended that the Amendments will cause a de facto change to the minimum levels of service. However, the extension of centralized water and sewer service into the RSA does not change the established minimum levels of service. Petitioners also argue that the Amendments will increase minimum levels of service in the RSA for traffic and parks. However, the minimum levels established in FLUE Table 3.1-1 for all services and facilities, other than potable water and sanitary service, are County-wide standards. Reasons for Adopting the Plan Amendments Policy 3.4-c did not have its intended effect because it prevented the County from providing service to the Rural Tier. After 2000, repeated efforts by the County to negotiate the service areas of the numerous entities operating utility services in the unincorporated area were unsuccessful. Indeed, "there was not a willingness of many utility providers to agree on anything." This created a lack of coordination and planning as to the provision of services in the Rural Tier. The City, SID, and ITID each have utility service areas which overlap the service area of other utility providers. In particular, portions of the Acreage, a community located in the central-western unincorporated area of the County, fall under the claimed utility jurisdiction of SID, ITID, Cypress Grove Community Development District, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Royal Palm Beach). The City is also rapidly expanding service in the unincorporated area by entering into bulk water service agreements with a number of utilities located in the Rural Tier, including Royal Palm Beach, Seacoast Utilities Authority, and ITID. The City intends further expansion of bulk service in the Rural Tier, so as to increase utility revenues. It views the Amendments as affecting its substantial interests by potentially limiting these revenues. Royal Palm Beach claims an exclusive utility service area which overlaps the utility service areas claimed by SID and ITID. Royal Palm Beach is located entirely within the legislative boundaries of ITID and claims all of ITID as its service area. The Amendments support the authority granted to the County by the Scripps Law. That law gives the County the exclusive right to provide water and wastewater service to the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility and to construct utility facilities within and without the boundaries of the Scripps project. The enactment of the Scripps Law reinforced the need for the Amendments, as the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility will be located in the unincorporated area. Existing FLUE Policy 3.4-c is arguably inconsistent with the Scripps Law because it prevents the County from providing utility service in the RSA. Since the Scripps Law supersedes all other contrary provisions of Florida Law, it logically follows that FLUE Policy 3.4-c should be repealed. The Amendments are also supported by the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances Sections 27-16 through 27-22, which codify County ordinances that were adopted in the 1970s and deal with utility service. These ordinances authorize the County to designate a Control Area in the unincorporated area and to require County approval of any water and wastewater facilities constructed in these areas. In summary, the County adopted the Amendments to avoid service area disputes between utility providers such as those described above, to prevent wasteful and duplicative utility services, to implement the Legislature’s mandate regarding the Scripps Biotechnology Park, to ensure a sufficient water supply to meet the reasonable development needs of the unincorporated area, and to enforce the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances. Petitioners' Objections Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the only data and analyses submitted by the County to support the Amendments are contained in a rather brief County Staff Report (Petitioners' Exhibit 5), and that no other documentation was actually forwarded to the Department. They further contend that the Amendments must be based on demographic, economic, and fiscal studies, and that none were utilized by the County. Because of these omissions, they argue that the Amendments violate relevant statute and rule provisions and are not in compliance. Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) require that plan amendments be based on relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each element. In determining whether a plan amendment complies with this requirement, the Department reviews each amendment on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, it does not require the same amount or type of data for all plan amendments. See, e.g., Zemel et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case No. 90-7793 (DOAH Dec. 16, 1992, DCA June 22, 1993)(projections of aquifer thickness and transmissivity do not require the same precision as calculating volume-to- capacity ratios for levels of service on road segments); 1000 Friends of Florida et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 04-4492GM, 2005 WL 995004 at *15 (DOAH April 28, 2005, DCA May 9, 2005)("a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal- based and aspirational"). For example, if amendments merely represent a policy or directional change and depend on future activities and assessments (i.e., further analyses and decision-making by the local government), the Department does not require the degree of data and analyses that other amendments require. (These amendments have sometimes been referred to as aspirational amendments. See Collier County v. City of Naples et al., DOAH Case No. 04-1048GM, 2004 WL 1909265 at *5 and *6 (DOAH Aug. 24, 2004, DCA Dec. 28, 2004)). Conversely, amendments which are mandatory in nature, that is, amendments which are required to be implemented by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, require more data and analyses. Thus, under Department interpretations of the relevant statutory and rule provisions, if an amendment does not have an immediate impact on the provision of services in the unincorporated area, is policy- based, does not require any capital improvement expenditures at the time the amendment is adopted, and simply represents a directional change in the County's long-term water utility planning, it is similar to an aspirational amendment and can be based on less data and analyses than might otherwise be required. Here, the County’s actual policy regarding utility service areas will depend on future activities and assessments. The Amendments do not require the County to take any immediate action. The Amendments do not mandate that existing utility customers in the RSA switch to the County. The Amendments do not authorize any new development in the Rural Tier, and any future development would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the normal development approval process. Therefore, the Amendments are akin to an aspirational amendment and do not require the degree of data and analyses that are required for other amendments. The County Staff Report identifies, albeit in brief fashion, data and analyses in support of the Amendments. It provides, among other things, that the Amendments are necessary because "[t]he lack of County participation as a service provider has created a void in effective long-term utility planning, resulting in duplicative service lines, inefficient services in the RSA, overlapping utility jurisdictions and, absence of some written agreements defining service areas." The Staff Report further identifies the County’s authority to provide service and the necessity for the Amendments to allow the County to provide service to the Biotechnology Research Park in northwest Palm Beach County. In addition, a number of documents presented at hearing provide data and analyses in support of the Amendments. In considering these documents, the undersigned notes that all data or analysis available and existing at the time of the adoption of the plan amendment may be relied upon to support an amendment in a de novo proceeding and may be raised or discussed for the first time at the administrative hearing. Zemel, supra; McSherry et al. v. Alachua County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2676GM, 2004 WL 2368828 at *54 (DOAH Oct. 18, 2004, DCA May 2, 2005); Melzer et al. v. Martin County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 02-1014GM and 02-1015GM, 2003 WL 2150756 at *33 (DOAH July 1, 2003, DCA Sept. 26, 2003 and Oct. 24, 2003). The District's Districtwide Water Supply Assessment identifies future potable water demands for various utilities in the County. The District's Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan describes the available raw water supply to meet future demands in the County. The District's CUP-CERP (Consumptive Use Permit-Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) Guiding Principles lists interim water use permitting guidelines, which indicate utilities may experience problems obtaining permitted allocations beyond what is needed to meet their 2005 demands. District Water Use Permit 50- 00135-W is the County's 20-year water use permit, which confirms that the County is the only utility in the unincorporated area with a guaranteed, long-term potable water allocation. The information contained in these documents confirms the County's ability to act as the default water utility provider in the unincorporated area. The County Linking Land Use and Water Supply Plan, Water and Wastewater Master Plan, Reclaimed Water Master Plan, Raw Water Master Plan, 20-Year Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, and Projected Yearly Capital Expenditures each provide data and analysis, which support the County's ability to serve as the default utility provider in the unincorporated area. As a water management district study, the District's documents are professionally accepted sources, which constitute appropriate data and analyses under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c). Similarly, the County's reports constitute existing technical studies, which are also appropriate data and analysis. Petitioners contend that the County was required to collect new data and prepare a comparative analysis of the County Water Utilities Department and other utility providers in the unincorporated area. However, according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(b), local governments are not required to collect new data in support of a plan amendment. Further, neither Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) nor Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, requires a comparative analysis. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments are supported by relevant and adequate data and analyses. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioners also contend that in order to comply with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Plan, the County must inventory and analyze the facilities and services provided by other utility providers in the areas affected by the Amendments. In other words, they contend that without data and analysis relative to other providers, the coordination function is incapable of being done and is meaningless and renders the Amendments inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. (That rule sets forth in detail the data requirements upon which the element in a local government's comprehensive plan must be based, and the goal statements, specific objectives, and policies which must be found in the element.) Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 set forth requirements for the intergovernmental coordination element of a comprehensive plan. The existing Intergovernmental Coordination Element has been found to be in compliance. The Amendments do not modify this element. Although not required for purposes of compliance, the County followed intergovernmental coordination procedures in the comprehensive plan when adopting the Amendments. The Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by member governments prior to their consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The County met with other utility providers and interested persons no less than 37 times to discuss the Amendments. Further, Petitioners' own witnesses concede that their representatives attended multiple meetings with the County regarding the Amendments. Such efforts demonstrate that the County substantively complied with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners' contention that these meetings were not conducted in good faith has been rejected. Petitioners implicitly suggest that intergovernmental coordination means acquiescing to the position of an objector. If this were true, adjacent local governments would have veto power over the County's ability to enact plan amendments, a result not contemplated by the statute. The intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 do not require that local governments resolve all disputes regarding a comprehensive plan and its amendments to the satisfaction of all interested persons, but only that the local government take into consideration input from interested persons. See, e.g., Department of Community Affairs et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 89-1843GM and 90-7792GM, 1990 WL 749359 (DOAH Jan. 7, 1993, Admin. Comm. Feb. 10, 1994). The numerous meetings held by the County demonstrate adequate consideration of opposing views. It is at least fairly debatable that the County satisfied the intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. Economic Feasibility/Comparative Analysis Petitioners argue that the Amendments fail to comply with Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, which requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be economically feasible." Petitioners claim that in order to establish economic feasibility, the County first should have conducted a comparative economic analysis of the cost of utility service in the unincorporated area by various existing and hypothetical service providers. However, this construction of the statute is at odds with the Department's interpretation. The Department does not interpret the economic feasibility requirement of Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, as requiring such a comparison. Instead, it construes the statute as only requiring that a plan amendment be realizable in financial terms, that is, that the local government has the financial ability to achieve what is specified in the amendment. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 5182GM, 1995 WL 1052797 *6 (DOAH April 19, 1995, Admin. Comm. Sept. 4, 1998)("Economic feasibility means plans should be realizable in financial terms."). Compare Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. District et al. v. Charlotte County et al., 774 So. 2d 903, 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), where the Court interpreted the use of the term "economically feasible" in a proposed Basis of Review provision as meaning "financially feasible or financially 'doable' . . . [and the] financial ability of a WUP applicant to institute reuse." The Department's interpretation of the statute was not shown to be unreasonable or clearly erroneous. The evidence shows that the Amendments are financially realizable. The County Water Utilities Department is one of the financially strongest utilities in the nation. It has the highest municipal bond rating (AAA) granted by the three major rating agencies. As of August 24, 2004, no other utility in the State of Florida had achieved an AAA rating from the three bond rating agencies, and the County Water Utilities Department is among only a handful of utilities nationwide to have achieved that status. Petitioners have acknowledged that the County is a very strong utility from a financial perspective. Given the County's strong financial state, it is qualified and able to serve as the default provider in the unincorporated area. In summary, it is fairly debatable that the Amendments are economically feasible as the term is used in Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, because the County has the financial ability to extend utility service to the unincorporated area. Urban sprawl Wellington (but not the other Petitioners) essentially contends that the Amendments will promote urban sprawl because the County will now allow new urban services (water and wastewater) into undeveloped areas thereby resulting in urban development. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5) contains standards discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Existing provisions in the Plan, including the Managed Growth Tier System, prevent urban sprawl within the County. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) provides in part that "if a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find that plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction." The Amendments do not affect existing growth management provisions in the Plan and thus will not exacerbate urban sprawl. Although not required, the amendment of FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which Petitioners did not challenge, will also have the effect of maintaining the status quo with respect to urban sprawl. At the same time, the Amendments do not directly or indirectly authorize new development and are only aspirational in nature. Any extension of water and sewer lines into the unincorporated area does not necessarily create urban sprawl because development is not automatically authorized by these activities. Even Wellington's planning expert concurred that urban sprawl is not caused by the provision of utility services, but by the Board of County Commissioners' approval of development orders. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments will not encourage urban sprawl in contravention of the Plan.2 Internal consistency Petitioners next contend that the Amendments fail to comply with Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(10)(a), and 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), which require that all elements of a comprehensive plan be consistent with each other. In addressing this objection, only those inconsistencies expressly alleged in their Petitions and Amended Petition will be considered. See, e.g., Heartland Environmental Council v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 2095GM, 1996 WL 1059751 at *19 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996; DCA Nov. 25, 1996). Future Land Use Element Petitioners first contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 3, Objective 3.1, and Policies 3.1-a and 3.1-b of the FLUE. These provisions require that the County "define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner"; that the County establish graduated service areas "to distinguish the levels and types of services needed within a Tier, consistent with the characteristics of the Tier," which include "the need to provide cost effective services"; that the County establish Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas based on several factors in Table 3.1.1, including "[t]he cost and feasibility of extending services"; and that the County review minimum levels of service "during preparation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR] and the Comprehensive Plan as amended." The latter provision also requires that each service provider determine the maximum and available capacity of their facilities and services for this review. The first broad goal is implemented through the County's existing Managed Growth Tier System and is not affected by the identity of the utility provider. Also, the Amendments do not alter the Managed Growth Tier System, nor do they alter the existing minimum levels of service required for the RSA. Similarly, FLUE Objective 3.1 is not affected, as the Amendments only have the potential to change the utility provider in certain areas, and not the level of service provided within the RSA. Further, the Amendments do not change the existing service area boundaries and established service area definitions. As to Policy 3.1-a, the service areas have been established and found in compliance and the Amendments do not alter the service area designations or Table 3.1-1. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 3.1-a. Finally, Policy 3.1-b is not affected by the Amendments because the minimum levels of service are not altered and the Amendments are not the product of an EAR. Capital Improvements Element – Table 10 Table 10 of the CIE describes water and sewer revenues, operating revenues, federal/state grants, other revenues, bond/ loan proceeds, fund balances, total water and sewer revenues, water and sewer operating expenditures, water and sewer capital projects, annual surplus/deficit, and cumulative surplus/deficit for fiscal years 2004-2009. Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with this provision because the Table has not been amended to reflect the expenditures that will be made by the County as a result of the Amendments. This Table is not affected because the Amendments do not require any changes to the County's capital expenditures. If changes do occur as a result of the County's planned extension of utility service into the unincorporated area, the capital improvements associated with extension of service will be addressed in subsequent annual updates of Table 10. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 1 and Objective 1.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, which require the County to "provide a continuous coordination effort with all affected governmental entities" and to "utilize existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts with the plans of school boards, other units of local government providing services, adjacent municipalities, adjacent counties, the region, the State, and residents of Palm Beach County." Petitioners essentially claim that the Amendments were adopted and transmitted without coordination with other local governments, as required by the goal and policy. As explained above, the evidence shows that the Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by each of the local governments and special districts located in the County, these entities were given ample opportunity to comment or object to the Amendments, and the County utilized existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts. Therefore, the Amendments are consistent with these portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners also contend that the Amendments conflict with Goal 4, Policy 4.1-a, and Policy 4.1-b of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The broad goal relates to coordination of "service provision to assure the most effective and efficient service delivery for the residents of Palm Beach County and its municipalities," while the two policies require that the County coordinate with special taxing districts and each municipality within the County during "the concurrency management and development review processes" and in defining the "ultimate boundaries of that entity's sewer and water service areas." The Amendments are consistent with the goal because their purpose is to create more effective and efficient service delivery by encouraging utility providers to enter into agreements which establish exclusive service areas and eliminate overlapping service areas. For similar reasons, the Amendments are consistent with Policy 4.1-a because the County coordinated with each of the special taxing districts through IPARC and numerous subsequent meetings relating to the Amendments. Finally, the main purpose of the Amendments is to prevent overlapping utility service areas and to encourage utility providers to enter into agreements defining service areas. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 4.1- b. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Plan Petitioners next allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 8.1, Regional Strategy 8.1.1, and Regional Policies 8.1.1.3 and 8.1.1.4 of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Policy Plan (Regional Policy Plan). In order for a plan amendment to be consistent with a regional policy plan, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that plan amendments be consistent with the regional plan "as a whole," and that no specific goal or policy be "applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans." Because the Petitions and Amended Petition do not allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan as a whole, their challenge must necessarily fail. See, e.g., 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra at *38. Even if a provision in the Regional Policy Plan could be viewed in isolation, the Amendments are consistent with Regional Goal Regional Goal 8.1, which requires "public facilities which provide a high quality of life." Nothing in the Amendments would impair the provision of a high quality of life. One of the purposes of the Amendment is to more efficiently provide utility service by defining service areas and improving the provision of services. Regional Strategy 8.1.1 relates to the provision of "levels of public service necessary to achieve a high quality of life cost-effectively." The Amendments are not inconsistent with this strategy, as they are designed to help the County implement the existing objectives and policies relating to this strategy. The purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.3 is to "encourage patterns of development which minimize the public cost of providing service, maximize use of existing service systems and facilities and take into full consideration environmental/ physical limitations." As stated above, one purpose of the Amendments is to provide more efficient and cost-effective utility service by encouraging providers to enter into agreements that prevent overlapping service areas and avoid duplication of services. Finally, the purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.4 is to "develop local Capital Improvement Programs which maximize development of existing systems before allocating funds to support new public facilities in undeveloped areas." Because the Amendments do not alter the County's Capital Improvement Programs, they do not implicate this policy. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners further allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, which are codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Like regional policy plans, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that for purposes of determining consistency, the state plan is to be construed as a whole, with no specific goal or policy applied in isolation from the other goals and policies. If a plan appears to violate a provision of the state plan, a balanced consideration must be given to all other provisions of both the state and local plan to determine whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with the state plan. Petitioners have not alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan as a whole. Therefore, their challenge to the Amendments must necessarily fail. See 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra; Heartland Environmental Council, supra. Assuming that a provision within the state comprehensive plan can be viewed alone, Section 187.201(17)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner." Petitioners contend that because the Amendments fail to protect the public facilities that already exist in the unincorporated area of the County, the Amendments conflict with this goal. The Amendments are not inconsistent with this goal because their purpose is to implement the Plan provisions in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(17)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioners also allege that the Amendments contradict the requirements of Section 187.201(20)(a), Florida Statutes, which deals with cooperation between levels of government, elimination of needless duplication, and promotion of cooperation. Again, the purpose of the Amendments is to eliminate duplication and promote cooperation between entities by encouraging utility providers to enter into interlocal agreements with the County that define exclusive service areas and prevent duplication of services. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(20)(b), Florida Statutes. Other Objections Finally, any other contentions raised in the Petitions and Amended Petition not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of July, 2005.
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 The issues for determination in this case are: 1) whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over a certain body of water known as Lake Blake in Okaloosa County, Florida; 2) if DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction is established, whether Respondents qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction; and 3) if not otherwise exempt from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction, whether Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action issued by the Director of District Management for the Office of the DEP Northwest District on May 13, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the power and duty to enforce the provisions of Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. DEP is the only agency involved in these proceedings. Respondent, Santa Rosa Three, Inc. (the Corporation), is the fee simple title holder of certain property in unincorporated Okaloosa County, Florida, located between Lewis Street and Clifford Street in Sections 2 and 3, Township 2 South, Range West. The property includes the subject water body, Lake Blake. Santa Rosa II, Inc., is a corporate predecessor in interest to the Corporation. Respondent, Lee Maddan (Maddan), is a long-time resident of Okaloosa County. Maddan is the Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 03-1499. Maddan has personally observed activities occurring at the Lake Blake property for more than 38 years, including the excavation of the lake. Maddan holds equitable title to the Lake Blake property and is in the process of purchasing the fee simple title to the property from the Corporation. Maddan is and was at all material times hereto authorized by the Corporation to enter upon the Lake Blake property, to proceed to develop the land, to obtain permits in his name, and to do other acts to prepare the property for Maddan's purchase. History of Lake Blake Lake Blake is an artificially-created water body in unincorporated Okaloosa County, having a water surface area slightly less than six acres. There is a small island in the center of the lake. The property surrounding Lake Blake presently consists of both uplands and wetlands. No other water body is visible from Lake Blake. For DEP jurisdictional determination purposes, Lake Blake is located in the Northwest District of Florida. The oldest records of the Lake Blake property dating to 1826, indicate that the property was flat land with natural vegetation dominated by palmetto and galberry. The property historically had no flowing streams. In the 1950's, the then owner of the property began excavating a borrow pit on the property. The excavations continued until approximately 1979. As the borrow pit excavations continued, a lake formed due to the intrusion of underground water as well as collected rainfall. During the excavation period, and until approximately 1976, the land around the borrow pit was primarily pasture land with no trees or other vegetation. Up to 1976, there was no wetland vegetation growing on the property. Prior to 1960, the natural stormwater flow from the property was to the southwest toward Cinco Bayou, a defined water of the State of Florida which on a direct line is located approximately one-quarter mile from the property. Cinco Bayou is the nearest surface waters of the State of Florida. During the 1960's, a road known as Lewis Street (also known as Mayflower Avenue) was constructed along the southern boundary of the property. At the time of the construction of Lewis Street, the borrow pit was separated into two parts, an eastern and western section. A concrete culvert divided the sections of the borrow pit. At the time of the Lewis Street construction, a stormwater discharge pipe was installed by Okaloosa County and excess water flowed out of the borrow pit only at certain times in direct response to rainfall. The installation of the stormwater discharge pipe on Lewis Street was intended to drain excess rainfall from the borrow pit. Okaloosa County never acquired ownership of the borrow pit for use as a stormwater retention pond. The water body that formed in the borrow pit would come to be called Lewis Street Pond, or Blake Lake, and eventually Lake Blake. The natural flow of the stormwater from the property was further altered in the 1970's when a public elementary school was constructed by Okaloosa County on Lewis Street. The public school is located between the property and Cinco Bayou. Borrow pit operations formally ceased in September of 1980 when DEP's predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), entered an order requiring the cessation of mining operations. The physical operations had actually ceased a few years before the DER order. Lake Blake resulted from collected rainfall, as well as underground water intrusion in the original borrow pit. At the present time, additional diverted stormwater runoff collects in the lake as a result of Okaloosa County's stormwater drainage system. Lake Blake today is an artificial body of water owned entirely by one person. Residential housing is located on property surrounding Lake Blake. The lake is occasionally utilized for recreational purposes, including fishing. The property surrounding the lake is not open to the general public, and the entrances to the property are fenced. For purposes of this proceeding, there are no threatened or endangered plants on the property. Okaloosa County Stormwater Drainage System Okaloosa County has constructed a stormwater drainage system that runs through the Lake Blake drainage area. As part of this stormwater drainage system, Lake Blake collects diverted stormwater discharge from surrounding areas which have been previously developed. Residential neighborhoods are close to the area, specifically the Berkshire Woods Subdivision. Indeed, as a condition for the development of the Berkshire Woods Subdivision in 1976, the Okaloosa County Planning Commission required that former owner, Ron Blake, excavate the lake and make it ready for stormwater drainage from the proposed development of the Berkshire Woods Subdivision. In addition to the residential areas and the public school to the south, there is a private school to the north across the road on Clifford Street which also diverts water to the lake from its campus and parking lots. Okaloosa County has installed at least seven pipes which carry stormwater from the surrounding developed areas into Lake Blake. The only drainage out of Lake Blake is via the stormwater discharge pipe located at the southern boundary of the property on Lewis Street which was installed by Okaloosa County in the 1960's. Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system serving Lake Blake is integrated into a series of interconnecting underground stormwater pipes which route the flow of the water for approximately one-half mile before ultimately discharging water into Cinco Bayou. Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system which ultimately connects Lake Blake with Cinco Bayou is composed of buried pipes. DEP considers buried pipes or culverts which convey stormwater as excavated water bodies. The installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system required the excavation of land. Under DEP's interpretation of its rules, specifically Rule 62-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, the underground installation of stormwater pipes is sufficient to establish a series of excavated water bodies which connect Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. Prior to the installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge pipe on Lewis Street in the 1960's, there was no dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction which applied to the property containing Lake Blake. The stormwater discharge pipe has continuously existed on the southern boundary of the property since its installation in the 1960's to the present. Lake Blake was not originally designed, constructed nor permitted as a stormwater treatment or retention pond. Lake Blake incidentally resulted from the borrow pit excavations. Okaloosa County, however, has at least since 1976, utilized Lake Blake as part of its stormwater drainage system. Okaloosa County never acquired title to Lake Blake for use as part of its existing stormwater drainage system. In 1981, the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (who were not the owners of the property) applied for, and were issued by DER, a Construction Permit (No. RC-46-80-2031, dated May 27, 1981, which expired November 27, 1981) for "Blake Lake Modifications" which permit stated it was "to modify an existing stormwater drainage system." This permit allowed for, among other items, construction of "two earthen berms in Blake Lake" and "the diversion of lake flow from the western lake to the eastern lake." Although attempts were made to construct the two earthen berms, due to the white clay composition of the soil the berms were not successfully established. In 1984, DER issued another Construction Permit (No. 460853421 dated August 20, 1984, which expired August 15, 1987) to the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (who again were not the owners of the property) for the purpose constructing "two drainage channels . . . from a berm separating East and West Blake Lake." The drainage channels were thereafter completed and the east and west portions of the lake were eventually connected. On August 14, 1984, Okaloosa County also filed a Notice of New Stormwater Discharge with DER which proposed a re-routing of an existing stormwater drainage system which then diverted stormwater from the Candlewood Subdivision and Navy Street into Lake Blake. The stated purpose of the re-routing of the stormwater drainage system away from Lake Blake was to address flooding problems in the Candlewood Subdivision. By letter dated August 21, 1984, DER informed Okaloosa County that "the stormwater discharge is exempt from stormwater permitting requirements of the Department pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-25.03(2)(c)." DER came to this conclusion in 1984 because the proposed project was "the modification of an existing County stormwater management system not serving a new development or increasing pollution loading." Although Lake Blake was utilized by Okaloosa County as part of the existing Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system, which in 1984 qualified for a DER stormwater permitting exemption, nothing pertaining to this stormwater permitting exemption supports a finding that Lake Blake was originally constructed, permitted or designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment so as to qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction under Rule 62-312.050(4), Florida Administrative Code. Dredge and Fill Permitting Jurisdiction Prior to the installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge pipes on the property in the 1960's, there was no dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction which applied to the property and Lake Blake. Under current law, the Northwest District of Florida is governed by separate jurisdictional determination provisions. In order to initially establish DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over wetlands and surface waters in the Northwest District, DEP must demonstrate that the wetlands and surface waters are connected to the surface waters of the State. Since 1995, isolated wetlands in all of the rest of the State of Florida are regulated by DEP without regard to any connection to the surface waters of the State. In the Northwest District under Rule 62-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, "surface waters of the state are those waters listed below and excavated water bodies, except for those exempted by Section 62-312.050(4), F.A.C., which connect directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies . . ." to waters of the State. Under Rule 62- 312.045, Florida Administrative Code, however, "[i]solated wetlands that infrequently flow or otherwise exchange water with a described water body are not intended to be included within the dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department." By letter dated April 24, 2001, DEP advised Santa Rosa II, Inc., that the Lake Blake property was not subject to DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction. The letter was sent in response to an application seeking to fill 2.5 acres of the southeastern portion of the lake for the construction of an apartment complex. The letter was issued by DEP's Northwest District, and signed by Martin Gawronski on behalf of Larry O'Donnell, the Environmental Manager for Permitting Section of the Northwest District. The letter was issued after a visit to the property by one or more DEP employees, and based on an informal determination that Lake Blake was not connected to the waters of the State. In May of 2001, the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that the Lake Blake property was not within its jurisdiction. Subsequent to the issuance of the April 24, 2001, non- jurisdictional letter, certain employees of Okaloosa County (not specifically named in these proceedings) contacted DEP seeking reconsideration of DEP's decision. These Okaloosa County employees thereafter met with DEP employees at the property and communicated by telephone with DEP employees while DEP considered a re-determination of its non-jurisdictional decision. The property owners were then notified that DEP was in the process of re-evaluating its non-jurisdictional decision. By letter dated October 24, 2001, DEP advised Santa Rosa II, Inc., that DEP had made a "correction" to the letter of April 24, 2001, and had determined that the property was in fact subject to DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction, because the "pond" was "connected to jurisdictional waters" of the State. The October 24, 2001, letter, like the previous letter, was issued from DEP's Northwest District and signed by Martin Gawronski on behalf of Larry O'Donnell. Between April 24, 2001, and October 24, 2001, there were no man-made alterations made to the Lake Blake property. Between March and April 2002, Maddan filled in a portion of the property and the lacustrine wetland. Maddan also built two pedestrian footbridges over the lake to the small island in the middle of the lake. DEP asserted its dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction based upon the existence of a series of underground pipes installed by Okaloosa County as part of its stormwater drainage system that conveys excess stormwater from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. Installation of the underground pipes required excavation. Neither the April 24, 2001, letter, nor the subsequent October 24, 2001 letter issued by the Northwest District, is binding determination of DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over the wetlands and surface waters of Lake Blake. The authority to make a binding DEP dredge and fill permitting jurisdictional determination is vested in Dr. John Tobe, Environmental Administrator of the Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Section and his staff. DEP's Site Inspections/Jurisdictional Determination In April of 2002, Stacy Owens, DEP Environmental Specialist, received a telephone call from Chuck Bonta with the Okaloosa County Code Enforcement Department, and an unnamed homeowner, complaining that Lee Maddan had built two unpermitted pedestrian footbridges at Lake Blake and was also filling in part of Lake Blake. Ms. Owens initially investigated whether DEP had issued any permits for the placement of fill in Lake Blake or the surrounding wetlands, and determined that no permits had been issued. Ms. Owens further discovered that a prior Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action had been issued by DER in 1980 against the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners and Lloyd D. Junger (a lessor conducting mining operations). The 1980 case pertained to the discharge of turbidities from the Lewis Street Pond into Cinco Bayou. A final order in that case was entered on January 5, 1981, requiring Okaloosa County to make payment to DER and take corrective action. On April 23, 2002, Ms. Owens followed up on these complaints by performing a site visit to Lake Blake. At this time Ms. Owens observed two unpermitted pedestrian footbridges, unpermitted fill in a finger of Lake Blake, and unpermitted fill within a 20-foot by 25-foot lacustrine wetland area. On April 25, 2002, Maddan came to Ms. Owens' office to discuss whether permits were necessary for the placement of fill at Lake Blake. At that time, Maddan showed Ms. Owens the previous letters of April 24, 2001, and October 24, 2001, which had been sent from the Northwest District of DEP. Maddan stated that in his opinion no dredge and fill permit was needed because Lake Blake was not within the jurisdiction of DEP. Ms. Owens was then informed by employees of Okaloosa County that there were underground pipes connecting Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. She obtained from Gary Bogan of Okaloosa County, an aerial map of the drainage area for Lake Blake which identified the location of the culvert on Lewis Street which conveys excess flow from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. On April 30, 2002, Ms. Owens performed another site inspection at Lake Blake. During this site inspection, she tracked the connection from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou by personal observation. After her second site inspection, Ms. Owens e-mailed her findings to Dr. Tobe, and inquired whether the underground pipes satisfied the DEP requirements for connection to a water body of the State for the purpose of establishing DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction. Dr. Tobe replied to Ms. Owens that an underground pipe connection would satisfy DEP's dredge and fill jurisdictional requirements. On June 25, 2002, Dr. Tobe, Ms. Owens, and a DEP wetland delineation team visited the Lake Blake property for the purpose of making a jurisdictional determination. Maddan also accompanied Dr. Tobe and his team on the day of the site inspection. As a result of this inspection, Dr. Tobe completed and filed a Field Report for Lake Blake, Okaloosa County, dated June 25, 2002. As indicated in his Field Report, Dr. Tobe and his wetland delineation team determined that for jurisdictional purposes, Lake Blake was connected to the waters of the State by reason of the culvert on Lewis Street that ultimately discharges into Cinco Bayou. At the time of his inspection on June 22, 2002, Dr. Tobe did not observe water flowing from Lake Blake into the Lewis Street culvert. Dr. Tobe attributed this to an abnormal drought conditions the area was then experiencing. Maddan, who has observed this area for many years, testified that the lake was near or only slightly less than its normal water level on that date. Dr. Tobe conducted a further examination of the area to determine the ordinary high water line, and concluded that Lake Blake would at ordinary high water level flow into the Lewis Street culvert on a sufficiently regular frequency into Cinco Bayou, a water body of the State, for purposes of establishing DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction. In determining whether water exchange frequency is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, there is a DEP Interoffice Memorandum of October 31, 1988, setting out 25-year, 24-hour criteria which is used as guidance, but the criteria set in this Memorandum have not been adopted as a rule, and are not singularly determinative of DEP's jurisdiction. At this time, Dr. Tobe and his team also performed a wetland boundary delineation. Dr. Tobe found hydric soils and wetland plants dominating the area. The wetland delineation boundary was determined by the continual interpretation of vegetation, soils, and hydrologic indicators. As a result of his inspection and wetland boundary delineation, Dr. Tobe concluded that unpermitted fill had been placed within the surface waters of the State and in lacustrine wetland. Thereafter on July 18, 2002, DEP sent Maddan a Warning Letter (DF-SO-46-022) requesting that Maddan cease dredging, filling or construction activities at Lake Blake without obtaining a permit. Subsequent to DEP's sending Maddan the Warning Letter of July 18, 2002, Stacy Owens visited the Lake Blake site on numerous occasions beginning in October of 2002, and continuing through July of 2003. On most of these site visits, Ms. Owens observed water flowing from Lake Blake through the Lewis Street culvert. Ms. Owens documented water flowing from Lake Blake through the Lewis Street culvert on October 29, 2002, November 5, 2002, May 20, 2003, June 20, 2003, June 23, 2003, June 27, 2003, and July 8, 2003. The area was not experiencing abnormally excessive rainfall events at the times that Ms. Owens documented the water flowing from Lake Blake into the Lewis Street culvert. Maddan testified that in his personal observation over many years, Lake Blake generally discharges excess stormwater into the Lewis Street culvert only as a result from a significant rainfall event. Lake Blake discharges water into the Lewis Street culvert at regular intervals. Such discharged water from Lake Blake ultimately is conveyed through the Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system and released into the surface waters of Cinco Bayou, a water body of the State of Florida. The Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system connecting Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou is a series of excavated water bodies. Lake Blake is connected to the surface waters of Cinco Bayou and regularly exchanges water with Cinco Bayou. Exemptions from DEP's Jurisdiction To assert dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over this property, not only must Lake Blake be connected to the waters of the State, but the property must not be otherwise exempt from dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction under either statute or rule. On August 29, 2002, under the authority of the Corporation, Maddan filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP requesting an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction under Rule Chapter 17- 312, re-codified as Rule Chapter 62-312. Rule 62-312.050, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the recognized exemptions to DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction. Respondents primarily rely on Rule 62-312.050(4), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[n]o permit under this chapter shall be required for dredging or filling in waters which are contained in those artificially constructed stormwater treatment and conveyance systems designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment and that are regulated by the Department or the water management district." Lake Blake, however, is the result of excavations in a borrow pit. Because of surrounding development, Lake Blake receives stormwater runoff; however, the lake was not "designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment," and cannot therefore qualify for this exemption. Respondents also cite Rule 62-312.050(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, which provides an exemption for the "construction of seawalls or riprap, including only that backfilling needed to level land behind the seawalls or riprap, in artificially created waterways where such construction will not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or adversely affect flood control." Even assuming that the filling of the finger of Lake Blake meets the test of construction of a seawall, there is no evidence that such filling of Lake Blake was ever subjected to appropriate water quality tests, much less meeting such water quality tests as well as the other requirements of this exemption. In addition to the exemptions established by Rule 62- 312.050, Respondents cite statutory exemptions. The definition of "waters" which are regulated under Chapter 403, as set forth in Section 403.031(13), provides in pertinent part that "[w]aters owned entirely by one person other than the state are included only in regard to possible discharge on other property or water." Although Lake Blake is owned entirely by one person, this provision does not exempt Lake Blake because of not only its "possible discharge" but because of its actual discharge on the surface waters of Cinco Bayou. Respondents also cite Section 403.812, which provides that "[t]he department shall not require dredge and fill permits for stormwater management systems where such systems are located landward of the point of connection to waters of the state and are designed, constructed operated and maintained for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation, or irrigation." Although Lake Blake at least since 1976 has been utilized as part of Okaloosa County's stormwater drainage system, which is located landward of Cinco Bayou, it was not designed or constructed for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation or irrigation, and it is not being operated or maintained for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation or irrigation. Lake Blake does not qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction.
The Issue The issue is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should issue water use permit (WUP) No. 2004912.006 to the City of Lakeland (City), and if so, how much water should be allocated under the permit and what conditions should be imposed on the allocation, particularly in regard to withdrawals from the City's Northeast Wellfield (NEWF).
Findings Of Fact Introduction This is an unusual case in that the District gave notice of its intent to issue a permit that the City does not want and that the District staff testified that the City is not even entitled to based upon the information submitted prior to and at the final hearing. That said, there is no disagreement between the parties that a permit should be issued to the City. Indeed, despite the District Staff's testimony that the City failed to provide “reasonable assurances” prior to or at the final hearing on a variety of issues, the District takes the position in its PRO that a permit should be issued to the City, subject to various conditions and limitations. There is also no disagreement between the parties that the permit should include an allocation of 28.03 mgd from the City’s Northwest Wellfield (NWWF). The main areas of disagreement between the District and the City are the duration of the permit; the total allocation of water under the permit; and, perhaps most significant, the total allocation from the NEWF. Parties The City is an incorporated municipality located in Polk County. The City is within the boundaries of the District and is within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) designated by the District. The City is the applicant for the WUP at issue in this case, No. 20004912.006. The City operates a public water utility that provides potable water and wastewater services to customers in and around the City. The utility’s water service area extends beyond the City limits into surrounding unincorporated areas of Polk County. The District is the administrative agency responsible for conservation, protection, management and control of the water resources within its geographic boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 40D. The District is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on the WUP at issue in this case. Stipulated Facts The parties stipulated that the City’s substantial interests have been adversely affected by the District’s intent to issue the proposed permit, and that the proposed permit is different from the permit that the City applied for. The parties also stipulated that there is reasonable assurance that the City’s proposed water use will not interfere with a reservation of water as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-2.302; that the proposed use will not significantly induce saline water intrusion; that the proposed use will incorporate the use of alternative water supplies to the greatest extent practicable; and that the proposed use will not cause water to go to waste. The City’s Wellfields Overview The City obtains the water that its water utility provides to its customers from two wellfields, the NWWF and the NEWF. The NWWF is located north of Lake Parker in close proximity to Interstate 4 and Kathleen Road. It provides water to the Williams Water Treatment Plant, from which the water is distributed throughout the City water utility’s service area. The NWWF is located on the Lakeland Ridge, which is a geographic feature that is approximately 250 to 260 feet above sea level. The Lakeland Ridge has a thick clay intermediate confining unit that isolates the surficial aquifer from the underlying aquifers. The NEWF is located to the north of Interstate 4, adjacent to Old Polk City Road. It provides water to the Combee Water Treatment Plant (Combee), from which the water is distributed throughout the City water utility’s service area. The NEWF is located at an elevation of approximately 135 feet above sea level. The surficial aquifer at the NEWF is relatively thin, and the intermediate confining unit at the NEWF is not as thick as it is at the NWWF. The Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) begins at approximately 65 below land surface at the NEWF. The City’s water treatment plants are traditional lime softening plants and are not able to treat brackish groundwater or surface water to the extent necessary for human consumption. It would be cost-prohibitive to implement a process to treat brackish water at the plants. Relevant Permitting History The City’s water utility has been in operation for more than 100 years, and the NWWF has been in operation since at least the early 1980’s. The earliest permit for the NWWF contained in the record is permit No. 204912, which was issued by the District in January 1987. The permit authorized average annual withdrawals of 28.3 mgd, and had an expiration date of January 1993. The NEWF was first permitted by the District in December 1989. The permit, No. 209795.00, authorized the City to pump an average of 9.0 mgd from the NEWF. The permit had a six-year duration, with a December 1995 expiration date. The permits for the NWWF and the NEWF were combined into a single permit in October 1993. The permit, No. 204912.03, authorized the City to pump a total of 28.1 mgd, with 9.0 mgd from the NEWF. The permit had a 10-year duration, with an October 2003 expiration date. In December 2002, the City's WUP was administratively modified pursuant to the District’s SWUCA rules. The modified permit, No. 20004912.004, did not change the permitted quantities at the NEWF or the 2003 expiration date, but the total allocation was reduced to 28.03 mgd. In October 2003, prior to the expiration of the existing permit, the City submitted an application to renew and modify its WUP permit. The application requested a 20-year permit with a total allocation of 32.8 mgd, with up to 16.0 mgd from the NEWF. During the permit review process, the City amended its application to increase the requested total allocation by 4.0 mgd (from 32.8 mgd to 36.8 mgd) and to decrease the requested duration of the permit by five years (from 2023 to 2018). The 36.8 mgd requested by the City was to be allocated between the NWWF (28.03 mgd) and the NEWF (8.77 mgd). The City supplemented its application during the permit review process in response to multiple requests for additional information and clarification from the District. The information provided by the City in support of the application is extensive; the “permit file” received into evidence consisted of approximately 2,500 pages, and the entire file is approximately twice that size.2 The review process culminated in what the District staff considered to be a “negotiated permit”3 that would initially authorize pumping of 33.03 mgd, with 28.03 from the NWWF, 1.5 mgd from the NEWF, and 3.5 mgd from a production well to be constructed at Combee. The proposed permit includes a phasing schedule that would allow for increased withdrawals -- up to 35.03 mgd total and 4.0 mgd from the NEWF4 -- if the City is able to demonstrate to the District’s satisfaction that the increased pumping will not cause adverse environmental impacts. The District gave notice of its intent to issue the proposed permit on December 29, 2006, and the permit was placed on the “consent agenda” for the District Governing Board’s meeting on January 30, 2007. On January 23, 2007, before the proposed permit was considered by the Governing Board,5 the City timely filed a petition challenging the proposed permit. The petition alleges that the proposed permit does not allocate sufficient water to meet the City's projected population demands in 2018 and that it does not allocate water quantities from the NEWF and the NWWF in the manner requested by the City. The NEWF The NEWF is approximately 880 acres in size. Wetlands comprise approximately half of the site. The NEWF is located within the boundaries of the Green Swamp, which is an area of critical state concern (ACSC) designated under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The Green Swamp is a hydrologically and environmentally important feature of central Florida encompassing thousands of acres of cypress wetlands, marshes, and forests. In 1992, a task force recommended that public water supply wellfields “of capacity greater than 1.8 mgd (average 3.6 mgd maximum)” from the UFA be discouraged in the Green Swamp ACSC in favor of wells from the Lower Floridan Aquifer in order to “mitigate drawdown impacts to the surficial aquifer system and resulting dehydration of wetlands . . . .” There is no evidence of that recommendation being formally adopted by the District or any other governmental agency, and the District does not have more stringent permitting criteria for WUP applications in the Green Swamp, except that it considers potential adverse impacts to all isolated wetlands and not just those larger than one-half acre in size.6 The City installed five 16-inch production wells at the NEWF, along with a number of associated monitoring wells. The production wells, which are cased to approximately 120 feet with a total depth of approximately 750 feet, pump water from the UFA. Pumping at the NEWF started in October 2005. The City has been pumping 4.0 mgd from the NEWF since that time. The City has spent over $34 million to bring the NEWF into service. The costs directly related to the acquisition of the NEWF site and the installation of the wells at the site account for approximately $7.6 million of that amount; the remainder of the costs are for associated infrastructure, such as the installation of water lines from the NEWF site and the construction of Combee. The wetlands on the NEWF site are predominantly isolated cypress wetlands, although there are some connected systems. Isolated wetlands are more susceptible to impacts from water deprivation than are connected wetland systems. The uplands on the NEWF site consist primarily of open pasture and fields and areas of planted pines. Extensive drainage improvements were constructed on the NEWF site between 1941 and 1980 when the site was being used as improved pastureland for cattle grazing and managed woodland for logging and silviculture. The improvements included the construction of a network of drainage ditches, culverts, roads, a grass landing strip, and a gas pipeline. The intent and effect of the drainage improvements was to remove surface water from the onsite wetlands. Historical aerial photographs show that these efforts were successful. The wetlands on the NEWF were adversely impacted by the drainage improvements, but for the most part, they are still functioning, albeit low-quality wetlands. The extensive ditching on the NEWF site continues to have an adverse impact on the wetlands even though the ditches have not been maintained and do not function as efficiently as they once did. The planted pine trees on the NEWF site may also be adversely affecting the wetlands through increased evapotranspiration from the surficial aquifer. However, the evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent of the impact from evapotranspiration. The present condition of the wetlands at the NEWF is not the result of recent activity. The biological indicators in the wetlands (e.g., adventitious roots on cypress trunks, large oak trees in the wetlands, red maple trees in areas that had at one time been dominated by cypress trees) show that the degraded condition of the wetlands dates back decades. The progressive draining and degradation of the wetlands caused by the ditching and other drainage improvements constructed on the NEWF site is apparent in the historic aerial photographs of the site. The size of the wetlands and the “hydrologic signatures” (e.g., standing water around the rims of wetlands and across the site, extensive cypress canopies, etc.) visible on earlier aerial photographs are less visible or non- existent in more recent aerial photographs. The wetlands on the NEWF site have shown no biological indicators of impacts from the pumping at the NEWF that started in October 2005. This does not necessarily mean that the pumping is not impacting the wetlands because the parties' experts agree that it can take many years for such biological indicators to appear. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the historical drainage improvements on the NEWF site were the primary cause of the degraded condition of the wetlands.7 The more persuasive evidence also establishes that unless altered, the drainage improvements on the NEWF site will continue to have an adverse effect on the wetlands. The City proposed a conceptual Wetland Improvement Plan (WIP) that is designed to restore and enhance the wetlands on the NEWF. A central component of the WIP is the reengineering and alteration of the drainage features by installing “ditch blocks” in some areas and culverts in other areas. The WIP also includes not replanting the pine trees on the NEWF site once the existing planted pines are harvested. The ditch blocks and other modifications to the drainage features are intended to hold water on the NEWF site and redirect it to the wetlands. This will help to hydrate the wetlands, increase soil moisture levels, and allow more water to percolate into the surficial aquifer following rain events. The District staff expressed some concerns with the City’s WIP at the final hearing, but acknowledged that the plan’s “conception . . . has a lot of merit.” Indeed, in its PRO, the District recommends the “installation of ditch blocks and similar measures at the [NEWF] site.” The WIP, if properly implemented, has the potential to enhance the wetlands by returning them to a more natural condition. The City will likely need an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the District before any system of ditch blocks can be installed. The details of the WIP can be worked out during the ERP permitting process.8 A good monitoring plan is part of providing reasonable assurances. The parties agree that a monitoring plan should be included as a permit condition, and the EMMPs attached to the parties’ respective PROs appear to be materially the same. The City has monitored the wetlands at the NEWF since 1994, pursuant to a specific condition in the 1993 WUP permit. The methodology used by the City to monitor the wetlands was approved by the District, and despite the fact that the City has submitted biannual monitoring reports to the District for almost 14 years, the District expressed no concerns regarding the methodology or results of the monitoring until recently. The District commenced its own wetland assessment procedure at the NEWF in May 2007, which included setting “normal pools” in several of the wetlands. “Normal pool” describes the level at which water stands in a wetland in most years for long enough during the wet season to create biological indicators of the presence of water. The establishment of normal pools was part of the District’s efforts to establish the “existing natural system” against which any post-withdrawal adverse impacts at the NEWF would be measured in accordance with Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications (BOR).9 Normal pools could not be established in several of the wetlands because there was no measurable standing water above the surface in the wetland. District staff observed similar conditions –- i.e., no standing water in the wetlands –- on at least one occasion following a significant rain event prior to the start of pumping at the NEWF. The District does not have a rule governing the setting of normal pools, but the City’s experts did not take issue with the normal pools set by the District or the methodology used by the District to set the normal pools. The EMMP proposed by the City is an extensive monitoring plan that incorporates a series of onsite monitoring wells, wetland monitoring stations for vegetation and hydrogeology, monitoring of pumping rates and pumping data, and monitoring of rainfall data. The EMMP will make use of the extensive data that has been collected on the NEWF site since the 1990’s as well as the normal pools set by the District, and if properly implemented, the EMMP will detect any potential adverse impacts as they occur to allow for remedial mitigation. The District staff acknowledged at the final hearing that the EMMP proposed by the City “with some minor modifications” is an appropriate plan to monitor changes in the wetlands at the NEWF. The necessary "minor modifications" were not explained at the final hearing, and as noted above, there does not appear to be any material difference in the EMMPs attached to the parties’ respective PROs. The Green Swamp is generally viewed as a “leaky” area, with little or no confinement between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer. Regional data, including studies by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) and the District, reflect that the NEWF is located in a “transitional area” between areas of little or no confinement to the north, northwest, and east of the NEWF and areas of thicker confinement to the south. However, at least one study (published in 1977 USGS report) shows the NEWF in an area designated as "poor" for its relative potential for downward leakage. Regional data may be used to gain knowledge about the aquifer properties at a potential well site, but such data is not a valid substitute site-specific data. Indeed, the location of the NEWF in a “transitional area” makes site-specific data even more important. The City used geologic cross-sections (e.g., soil borings and core samples) at the NEWF to determine the site’s lithologic characteristics. By contrast, the District relied primarily on USGS reports and other regional data to postulate as to the lithologic characteristics of the NEWF. As a result, the City’s position regarding the lithologic characteristics of the NEWF was more persuasive than the District’s position. The lithology of the NEWF site consists of a shallow, sandy surficial aquifer, which extends to a depth of 3 to 5 feet, proceeding downward to sandy clay and clay sand semi- confining layers, alternating with impermeable clay units, interspersed with an intermediate aquifer composed of sandy clays and clay sands that contain water, proceeding downward to the limestone of the UFA. The presence of clay layers between the intermediate aquifer and the UFA, together with clay layers between the intermediate aquifer and the surficial aquifer, provide two layers of protection between the pumped aquifer and the surficial aquifer and wetlands, and serve to ameliorate any impacts to the surficial aquifer caused by withdrawals from the UFA. “Leakance” is a measure of vertical conductivity that describes the rate at which water flows through a confining unit. As a result, leakance is one of the most important factors to consider when modeling surficial aquifer impacts and potential wetland impacts from groundwater pumping. Generally, a higher leakance value is an indication of a “leakier” system with less confinement between the surficial aquifer and the UFA. The “leakier” the system, the greater the impacts of pumping on the surficial aquifer will be. The District contends that the confining unit underlying the NEWF is “leaky” and that the pumping at the NEWF is likely to directly and adversely affect the onsite wetlands. However, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the lower leakance value derived by the City based upon the site-specific lithology of the NEWF and the data from the aquifer performance tests (APTs) conducted at the NEWF is more accurate than the higher leakance value urged by the District. The purpose of an APT is to determine the hydrologic parameters of an aquifer. In particular, an APT is used to determine the transmissivity, leakance, and storage values of the aquifer. Transmissivity is a measure of how easily water flows through the ground, and storage is a measure of the amount of water in the porous spaces of the aquifer. Generally, a higher transmissivity value and a lower storage value indicate better confinement. There have been three APTs conducted at the NEWF. The first APT (APT-1) was conducted in 1989 as part of the initial permitting of the NEWF. A high transmissivity value and a low storage value were calculated in APT-1. A leakance value was not calculated. The results of APT-1 were presented to the District to justify the City’s request to pump 9.0 mgd from the NEWF, which the District approved. The 1993 permit combining the NWWF and the NEWF required the City to conduct a long-term APT in order to “determine the leakance parameter between the surficial and intermediate aquifers and the leakance parameter between the intermediate and Upper Floridan aquifers.” The permit stated that if the hydrologic parameters obtained in the APT were different from those used in the model submitted in support of the initial WUP, the City would have to revise the model and, if necessary, modify the WUP to reduce withdrawals. This second APT (APT-2) was a seven-day test conducted by the City in January 2001 in accordance with a methodology approved by the District. An “exceedingly low” leakance value of 4.5 x 10-4 gallons per day per cubic foot was calculated in APT-2. The transmissivity and storage values calculated in APT- 2 were essentially the same as the values calculated in APT-1. The District expressed concerns with the results of APT-2, and in December 2001, the District advised the City that it should “proceed with caution during the planning of infrastructure (pipelines) for the [NEWF]” because the “wellfield may not be able to produce the volume of water the City has stated that would like from the wellfield, without causing adverse impacts.”10 Based upon these concerns, the District conducted an APT (APT-3) at the NEWF in April and May 2003. The parties’ experts agree that data from APT-3 is reliable, but the experts disagree in their interpretation of the data, particularly in regards to the leakance value. The City’s experts calculated a leakance value of 1.4 x 10-4 feet per day per foot, which is a low leakance value. The expert presented by the District, Dann Yobbi, calculated a higher leakance value of 3.4 x 10-3 feet per day per foot, which suggests relatively “leaky” aquifer. The leakance value calculated by the City’s experts is more persuasive than the value calculated by Mr. Yobbi because Mr. Yobbi did not “de-trend” the data from APT-3 based upon the general declines in water levels occurring at the time of APT-3. Indeed, Mr. Yobbi testified that he is in the process of revising his report on APT-3 to address this issue and he acknowledged that the surficial aquifer showed only a “slight response” to the pumping during APT-3. The leakance value calculated by the City’s experts in APT-3 is consistent with the leakance value calculated in APT-2. The transmissivity and storage values calculated in APT-3 are also consistent with the values calculated in APT-1 and APT-2. The reliability of the leakance values and other aquifer parameters calculated by the City’s experts for the NEWF is confirmed by water level data compiled by the City pursuant to the monitoring requirements in the existing WUP. The water level data was collected from monitoring wells at the NEWF in the surficial aquifer, the intermediate aquifer, and the UFA. The City began collecting this data in 1994 and it continues to collect and report the data to the District as required by the existing WUP. The water level monitoring data reflects that the surficial aquifer at the NEWF responds almost immediately to rain events. By contrast, the intermediate aquifer and UFA show a more subdued response to rainfall events, which is indicative of good confinement, especially between the UFA and the surficial aquifer. The water level monitoring data shows that rainfall or lack of rainfall is the major controlling factor relative to the rate of surficial aquifer recharge at the NEWF. The water level monitoring data since pumping began at the NEWF shows that the pumping at 4.0 mgd is having a minimal impact on the surficial aquifer at the NEWF. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the general decline in water levels that has been observed in the monitoring wells at the NEWF over the past several years is more likely than not attributable to the severe drought in the area and the onsite drainage features, and not the pumping at the NEWF.11 Moreover, the more persuasive evidence shows that following the start of pumping at the NEWF in October 2005, the water levels in the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers returned to the historic patterns of up and down response to rainfall events shown throughout the thirteen-year period of record: the surficial aquifer fills quickly (as it receives the rainwater directly) and empties quickly (through a combination of surface drainage, evapotranspiration, evaporation, and leakage), while the UFA responds with more gradual rising and falling (as water enters the aquifer through recharge areas and slowly percolates into the aquifer through more confined areas). The analysis of the water level data collected during APT-3 showed a similar trend in the rates of decline in the surficial aquifer as were reflected in the hydrographic record of the monitoring well data collected by the City since 1994. The natural, post-rainfall rate of decline under non-pumping conditions was consistent with the rate of decline observed during pumping conditions in APT-3. In sum, the interpretation of the water level data by the City’s experts was more persuasive than the interpretation by the District’s experts. Modeling of Predicted Drawdowns and Impacts The City utilized two different models to predict drawdowns from the proposed pumping at the NWWF and NEWF: the USGS “Mega Model” and the District’s District-Wide Regulation Model (DWRM). The models incorporated regional data published by the USGS and the District as well as site-specific data from the NEWF, including the lithologic information collected through soil borings and the hydrologic parameters of the aquifers calculated in APT-3. The models were calibrated and de-trended to remove “background conditions” (e.g., regional water level declines) so that the models would only show the predicted effects of the pumping. Once the calibration was complete, the models were run to simulate the effect of the pumping on the groundwater flows in the area. The models produced contour maps that showed the predicted drawdowns in the surficial aquifer as a result of the pumping. The USGS Mega Model predicted that pumping the NEWF at 8.77 mgd would result in drawdowns of approximately 0.5 foot in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF. The DWRM model predicted a 0.18 foot drawdown in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF when pumping the NEWF at 4.0 mgd, and a drawdown of 0.4 foot when pumping at 8.77 mgd. The same models were used to predict the “cumulative” drawdowns by taking into account pumping by existing legal users as well as the pumping at the NWWF. The cumulative models assumed pumping of 36.8 mgd from the City’s wellfields. The USGS Mega Model predicted that cumulative drawdowns in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF would be an additional 0.3 feet, with 8.77 mgd of pumping at the NEWF. The DWRM model predicted that the cumulative drawdowns in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF would be 0.4 foot with 4.0 mgd of pumping at the NEWF, and 0.6 foot at 8.77 mgd of pumping at the NEWF. The City utilized the 1995 data set of existing legal users in its cumulative DWRM modeling because that was the data set provided by the District. The difference between the 1995 data set and the more current 2002 data set is on the order of 20 mgd, which is inconsequential in comparison to the 1.1 billion gallons per day of withdrawals included in the model that are spread over the geographic extent of the District. The predicted drawdowns in the surficial aquifers in and around the NEWF would be considerably greater if the hydrologic parameters calculated by Mr. Yobbi were used in the DWRM model. For example, the District’s modeling predicted drawdowns between 1.0 and 1.2 feet in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF when pumping 1.5 mgd from the NEWF, 3.5 mgd from Combee, and 28.03 mgd from the NWWF. The wetlands experts presented by the parties agreed that the level of drawdown predicted by the City at the NEWF has the potential to adversely impact the wetlands on the site. The experts also agreed that there is no bright line as to the amount of drawdown that will adversely impact the wetlands. The City’s expert, Dr. Michael Dennis, testified that drawdowns in the surficial aquifer between 0.18 foot and 0.5 foot “probably” would not affect the wetlands at all, or at least “not measurably.” He also testified that drawdowns between 0.5 foot and one foot “are the drawdowns that you need to be concerned about.” The District’s expert, John Emery, testified that a drawdown in the surficial aquifer of 0.4 foot “could” adversely affect the wetlands if no mitigation is provided, but that a drawdown of 0.2 to 0.3 foot might not.12 The WIP is expected to increase the amount of water that gets to the wetlands on the NEWF site. However, the extent to which the WIP will increase the water levels in the wetlands and offset the predicted drawdowns in the surficial aquifer is unknown at this point. Limiting pumping at the NEWF to 4.0 mgd is reasonable and prudent based upon the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the WIP and the experts’ testimony regarding the level of drawdowns that likely would, and would not, adversely affect the wetlands at the NEWF. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the drawdown predicted at 4.0 mgd of pumping –- 0.18 foot (individually) and 0.4 feet (cumulatively) –- is not likely to adversely impact the already significantly degraded wetlands at the NEWF, particularly if the WIP is properly implemented. Demand Projections The City did not use the full 28 mgd allocated under its existing WUP. It pumped only 21 mgd in the 12 months preceding October 2003, when the permit was scheduled to expire; it pumped only 26 mgd in 2006; and the pumping for 2007 was expected to be approximately 1 mgd lower than the pumping in 2006. The City's WUP application contained population and demand projections for different years in the future. For 2014 (the permit expiration date proposed by the District), the “functional population”13 of the service area was projected to be 183,264 and the average demand was projected to be 29.5 mgd; for 2023 (the original permit expiration date requested by the City), the projections were 203,721 people and 32.8 mgd; and for 2018 (the permit expiration date now requested by the City), the projections were 192,176 people and 30.9 mgd. The projections in the WUP application were prepared in 2003, and City's primary consultant, Charles Drake, testified that the data was “accurate” and “reliable.” However, more recent data shows that the population projections in the WUP application were slightly understated. The more recent data is contained in the “Water Services Territory Population Estimates and Projections” reports prepared by the City's utility department in March 2006 and March 2007. The reports include estimates of the functional population for prior years, and projections of the functional population for future years. The estimates reflect the “actual” population for a given year in the past, whereas the projections reflect the “expected” population for future years. The estimates and projections in these reports, like the projections in the WUP application, were prepared in accordance with the methodology contained in the BOR. The District did not take issue with the projections in the reports or the WUP application. The estimated functional population of the service area in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 exceeded the population projected for those years in the WUP application. On average, the projected populations for each year understated the “actual” populations by approximately 3,500 persons.14 Likewise, the population projections for future years in the March 2007 report are higher than the population projections for the same years in the WUP application. For example, the report projects that the functional population of the service area in 2014 will be 191,208 (as compared to 183,264 in the WUP application), and that population in 2018 will be 203,247 (as compared to 192,176 in the WUP application). The City presented “revised” population projections at the final hearing in City Exhibit 140. The revised projections were based on the projections in the March 2006 report, but also included data from the “water allocation waiting list” that is part of the City’s concurrency management system that was created by the City in response to legislation passed in 2005 requiring local governments to allocate and approve requests for water for new development. The population projections in City Exhibit 140 are 234,959 in 2014; 247,390 in 2018; and 264,556 in 2023. These projections include an additional 43,471 persons related to new development in the concurrency management system, as well as the additional 2,600 to 3,000 persons projected per year in the WUP application and the March 2006 report. The City failed to establish the reasonableness of the revised population projections. Indeed, among other things, the evidence was not persuasive that the additional population attributed to the new development in the concurrency management system is not already taken into account, at least in part, in the annual population increases projected in the March 2006 report.15 The most reasonable population projections for the service area of the City's utility are those in the March 2007 report.16 The record does not contain demand projections directly related to the population projections in the March 2007 report. However, demand projections for those population projections can be inferred from the WUP application (City Exhibit 1(a)(2), at 0036) and City Exhibit 140 (at page 0015). The 2014 projected population of 191,208 in the March 2007 report roughly corresponds to the projected population for 2018 in the WUP application (192,176) for which the projected demand was 30.9 mgd; and it also roughly corresponds to the projected population for 2008 in City Exhibit 140 (193,001), for which the projected demand was 28.7. Thus, in 2014, it is reasonable to expect that demand will be between 28.7 and 30.9 mgd. The 2018 projected population of 203,247 in the March 2007 report roughly corresponds to the projected population for 2023 in the WUP application (203,721) for which the projected demand was 32.8 mgd; and it also roughly corresponds to the projected population for 2009 in City Exhibit 140 (201,983), for which the projected demand was 30.2 mgd. Thus, in 2018, it is reasonable to expect that demand will be between 30.2 and 32.8 mgd. The demand projections in the WUP for 2014 (29.5 mgd) and 2018 (30.9 mgd) fall within the range inferred for the populations in the March 2007 report. Thus, even though the population projections in the WUP application for 2014 and 2018 are understated, the demand projections for those years in the WUP are still reasonable. The demand projections in City Exhibit 140 –- 35.3 mgd in 2014 and 36.6 mgd in 2018 –- are overstated as a result of unreliable population projections upon which they are based. Other Issues Duration of Permit The 1987 permit for the NWWF had a six-year duration, as did the original 1989 permit for the NEWF. The 1993 permit had a 10-year duration, but that permit did not increase the amount of authorized withdrawals; it simply combined the authorizations for the NWWF and the NEWF into a single permit. In this case, the City is requesting a permit that expires in 2018, which was a 15-year duration at the time the application was filed, but now is a 10-year duration. The District is proposing a permit with a six-year duration, expiring in 2014. The District is authorized to approve a WUP with a duration of up to 50 years. The District’s rules provide that the duration of the permit is to be determined based upon “the degree and likelihood of potential adverse impacts to the water resource or existing users.” The District’s rules require that in order for the District to approve a permit with a duration of more than 10 years, the applicant is required to present sufficient facts to demonstrate that such a permit is “appropriate.” Section 1.9 of the BOR provides “guidelines” regarding the duration of permits. The guidelines in the BOR are not binding on the District, but the nearly identical language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-2.321 is binding on the District. The BOR provides that a six-year permit is to be issued for renewal permits “with modification to increase the quantity withdrawn by more than or equal to 100,000 gpd or 10% or more of the existing permitted quantities, whichever is greater.” The BOR and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D- 2.321(2)(b) also provide that a six-year permit is to be issued “where the potential for significant adverse impacts are predicted.” The renewal permit that the City is seeking requests an increase of 8.7 mgd (from 28.1 mgd to 36.8 mgd) over the existing permitted quantities, which exceeds the 10 percent threshold in Section 1.9 of the BOR. Moreover, there is a potential for significant adverse impact from the renewal permit that the City is seeking. Accordingly, a six-year permit is appropriate under the District’s rules and the guidelines in the BOR. The City failed to demonstrate why a longer permit duration is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. District staff testified at the final hearing that the permit term should be calculated from the date the permit is issued, which will be some point in 2008. Therefore, the permit should have an expiration date of 2014. Offsite Impacts The City used the modeling described above to predict the drawdown in the UFA from the proposed pumping in order to determine whether there will be any adverse impacts on existing legal users. The predicted drawdown in the UFA in the vicinity of the NEWF ranges from 1.6 feet to 2.4 feet with 4.0 mgd of pumping at the NEWF, and between 3.4 feet and 5 feet with pumping at 8.77 mgd. The predicted drawdown in the UFA in the vicinity of the NWWF ranges from 10.0 to 14.0 feet, with 28.03 mgd of pumping at the NWWF.17 These predicted drawdowns are not expected to have any adverse impacts on existing legal users that have wells in the UFA. Most permitted wells in the UFA use vertical turbine pumps, which can easily accommodate fluctuations in water levels of five feet or more. The City has not received any complaints from existing users since it began pumping 4.0 mgd at the NEWF in October 2005. The pumping at the NWWF, which has been ongoing for more than 20 years, has not caused any adverse impacts to existing legal users. The City is required under the existing WUP to respond to any adverse impact complaints from existing legal users, and it is required to implement mitigation, as needed. In short, City is required to do whatever is necessary (e.g., relocating or increasing capacity of pump, lowering pipes) to return any well impacted by the pumping to its prior function. The City did not evaluate the potential impacts of its proposed pumping on unpermitted wells because the District does not maintain a database of unpermitted wells. However, the City acknowledges that if its pumping impacts an unpermitted well, it will be obligated to mitigate those impacts in the same manner that it is required to mitigate impacts to existing permitted users. The predicted drawdowns for water bodies in the vicinity of the NWWF and the NEWF that have designated Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) -- Lake Bonny, Lake Bonnett, and the Cone Ranch wetlands -- are minimal, on the order of 0.1 foot. The City evaluated the impacts of pumping on contaminated sites listed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in the vicinity of the NWWF and NEWF. Based upon the results of the modeling conducted by the City, there is no reason to expect that pumping at the NWWF and/or NEWF will have any measurable impact on those sites or lead to pollution of the aquifer. Potential Impacts of NWWF Pumping The only concern expressed by the District with respect to the pumping at the NWWF relates to the potential environmental impacts of the pumping on Lake Bonny and Lake Bonnett. The City agreed to include those lakes in its EMMP. Combee Combee is located approximately four miles south of the NEWF. There is a relatively thick clay confining unit at Combee, which, according to the District, makes it a better location for water withdrawals than the NEWF. The District conducted an APT at Combee in 2006. The hydrologic parameters derived from the APT, and the “preliminary modeling” performed by the District show that the City may be able to withdraw at least 3.0 mgd from wells at Combee. The proposed permit authorized pumping of 3.5 mgd from Combee. The proposed permit also included a phasing schedule pursuant to which pumping at Combee would be decreased to 3.0 mgd if pumping at the NEWF reached 4.0 mgd. The City expressed an interest in obtaining water from Combee throughout the permitting process. However, the City represented at the outset of the final hearing that the Combee well is “off the table because the City wishes to maximize the withdrawal allocation from [the NEWF].” The City stated in its PRO that it is “willing to consider permitting a production well at [Combee] as a potential mitigation resource, should unexpected adverse impacts require the City to divert production to a back-up resource.” The District stated in its PRO that the Combee well is “available for mitigation purposes," and that the City “should be encouraged to apply for a WUP for withdrawals from Combee up to 3.0 mgd to provide additional mitigation for pumping from the [NEWF].” Pump rotation Rotation of pumping between the wells in a wellfield is a standard practice, and it can be an effective mitigation technique. The City utilizes well rotation programs at the NWWF and the NEWF in order to minimize the stress on the production aquifers. Rotating pumping between the production wells at the NEWF is particularly appropriate because several of the wells are located in very close proximity to wetlands. Rotating the pumping will help to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the wetlands. The actual rotation schedule is an operational decision that is made based upon observed conditions at the wellfield site, rather than something that is typically included in the WUP. Conservation and Reuse The City has a four-tiered conservation rate structure, modeled after the District’s graduated water-rates prototype. The rate structure imposes higher unit costs as individual consumption increases, thereby discouraging wasteful uses of water. The City has a comprehensive leak detection program aimed at preventing the loss of water within the City’s water distribution system. This program has helped to reduce the per- capita per-day consumption rate for the City by reducing the volume of water that is wasted before it is delivered to the consumer. The City has implemented irrigation restrictions aimed at reducing the quantities of water used by domestic customers for lawn and garden watering. The per capita rate of water consumption is a measure of the effectiveness of a water conservation program; the lower the figure, the better. The City’s per capita rate has increased in recent years, but its adjusted gross per capita rate has decreased. The adjusted gross per capita rate takes into account “significant users,” which are defined as non-residential customers other than golf courses that use more than 25,000 gallons per day or that represent more than five percent of the utility’s annual water use.18 The City’s per capita rate in 2005 was 145.69 gallons per day, and its adjusted gross per capita rate in that year was 132.01 gallons per day. The adjusted gross per capita rate may not exceed 150 gallons per day within the SWUCA. Thus, the City will be required to continue its conservation programs (and implement additional programs, if necessary) to ensure that its adjusted gross per capita rate does not exceed 150 gallons per day over the life of the permit. A portion of the City’s treated wastewater is reused for cooling at the City’s McIntosh Power Plant pursuant to a permit from DEP under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The DEP permit, No. FL0039772 (Major), states in pertinent part: Industrial Reuse: Effluent is reused . . . as a non-contact cooling water at the City of Lakeland McIntosh Power Generating Plant. The volume of water used on a daily basis fluctuates on an as needed basis. There are no restrictions on the volume that can be routed to the reuse system. The power plant evaporates water in the cooling process or returns cooling water into the Glendale WWTP for final treatment in the manmade wetlands treatment system. The reuse in the power plant is not required as effluent disposal. . . . . The remainder of the City’s treated wastewater is “blended” with the water used at the power plant in order to meet the conductivity standards in the DEP permit and the conditions of certification for the power plant and/or directly discharged into an artificial wetland system that ultimately discharges to the Alafia River. Section 3.1 of the BOR (at page B3-2) provides that “Water Use Permittees within the SWUCA who generate treated domestic wastewater are encouraged to demonstrate that . . . 50% of the total annual effluent flows is beneficially reused.” (Emphasis supplied). The BOR lists a number of uses of treated wastewater that are considered to be beneficial reuse. The list includes “industrial uses for cooling water, process water and wash waters” and “environmental enhancement, including discharges to surface water to replace withdrawals.” The City’s use of treated wastewater for cooling at the McIntosh Power Plant is a beneficial reuse under the BOR. The treated wastewater directly discharged by the City into the artificial wetland system is not a beneficial reuse under the BOR because it is not replacing surface water withdrawals. The BOR requires all users within the SWUCA to investigate the feasibility of reuse, and requires the implementation of reuse “where economically, environmentally and technically feasible.” The City has not recently undertaken a study or otherwise evaluated the feasibility of increasing its reuse. The draft permit attached to the District's PRO includes a specific condition requiring the City to "provide a comprehensive study of reuse opportunities encompassing the [City's] water, wastewater, and electrical utilities systems" by January 1, 2009.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue WUP No. 2004912.006 with the terms and conditions contained in the draft permit attached to the District’s PRO, except that: The 2014 population referenced in the permit shall be 191,208; The adjusted gross per capita rate shall not exceed 150 gallons per day; Special Condition No. 2 shall be amended to authorize withdrawals from the NEWF at 4.0 mgd annual average and 4.8 mgd peak month, and the quantities listed in the Withdrawal Point Table for the NEWF wells shall be adjusted accordingly; Special Condition No. 4 shall be replaced with a reference to the EMMP and the conceptual WIP attached to the City’s PRO, and the list of monitoring stations in the EMMP shall be amended to include Lake Bonny and Lake Bonnet; and An additional specific condition shall be added encouraging the City to pursue a WUP for the Combee site for future water needs and/or for additional mitigation of the impacts of pumping at the NEWF. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 4th day of January, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether WRP, Inc.'s application for an Individual Water Use Permit to construct five 24-inch diameter wells in Walton County, Florida, and to withdraw an average of 4.84 million gallons per day for twenty years, should be issued, as proposed by the agency on June 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Respondent, Northwest Florida Water Management District (District), is an independent special district of the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 373.069, Florida Statutes. The District is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen-county area in Northwest Florida, including all of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. Respondent, WRP, Inc. (WRP), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with its headquarters in Walton County, Florida. It is jointly owned by Destin Water Users, Inc. (DWU) and South Walton Utility Company, Inc. (SWUC). Both DWU and SWUC are not- for-profit Florida corporations that own and operate water supply systems (with thirteen operating wells) in and around the southern portions of Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Established in 1995, WRP was originally organized as a partnership made up of DWU, SWUC, and Petitioner, Florida Community Services Corporation of Walton County, d/b/a Regional Utilities of Walton County (RU). This partnership was established for the purpose of cooperating in the development of an alternate water supply for the utilities' service areas. Thereafter, the partnership was dissolved, which led to the establishment of WRP. RU is no longer a part of this organization. Petitioner, City of DeFuniak Springs, is a municipal corporation in Walton County, Florida. The city owns and operates its own public water supply system. At the present time, it serves approximately 15,200 persons who reside both inside and outside the corporate limits of the city. Petitioner, City of Freeport, is a municipal corporation in Walton County, Florida, and owns and operates its own public water supply utility. RU is a not-for-profit Florida corporation which, pursuant to a lease, operates a public water supply system in the coastal area of Walton County under a permit issued by the District. It presently serves around 500 customers representing a population of 17,000. A portion of its water supply is also obtained from the City of Freeport. Petitioner, Walton County (County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida pursuant to Article 8, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution. The County owns the land and facilities used by RU for its public water supply system. However, under a lease agreement between those parties, RU operates the system. In addition, the County also owns a small well recently constructed near the Rock Hill area. Historical Background of the Area's Water Supply The District's overall responsibility in the consumptive use program is to provide for all citizens the sustainability of the water resources of Northwest Florida. It also seeks to allocate the resource in a manner that is reasonable and beneficial, that is in the public interest, and that will not interfere with the use associated with other existing legal users. This is often referred to as the three prong test. Ground water is measured by the location of its potentiometric surface in relation to sea level. The potentiometric surface is the level to which water will rise in a tightly cased well. In portions of coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties, the potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer is below sea level. At one coastal location the surface is at 110 feet below sea level as compared to elevations of more than 200 feet above sea level in the northern portions of those counties. When the potentiometric surface is below sea level it is called a cone of depression. As shown on District Exhibit 1, the cone of depression in the coastal area of Okaloosa and Walton Counties has grown from 1974 to 1995. The decline of these water levels in the coastal areas is further supported by the hydrographs found on the District's Exhibit 2 entitled Floridan Aquifer System Water Level Trends. These hydrographs document the reduction in the potentiometric surface over time. Of particular significance are the hydrographs of the "Okaloosa School Board" well which show the potentiometric surface to be 60 feet above sea level in the late 1930's when it was constructed and to be approximately 110 feet below sea level in 1996. As early as 1982, the District recognized a threat to the continued existence of a long-term sustainable water supply for the coastal regions of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. Significantly, the pumping of water from the Floridan Aquifer in this coastal region has caused a degradation to the aquifer and the water resources. As a result, the District began taking affirmative steps to protect the water resources in the coastal area of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. In 1982, the District undertook a regional water supply development plan entitled 1982 Regional Water Supply Development Plan (the 1982 Plan). The 1982 Plan assessed the sustainability of water resources in the coastal region of Okaloosa and Walton Counties, estimated the Floridan Aquifer's water supply capabilities in relation to expected long-term water demand, and addressed the need to find an alternative long-term water supply for these coastal regions. The 1982 Plan also discussed strategies for alternate water resource development including inland well fields, desalinization, conservation measures, and use of surface water from the Choctawhatchee River. In 1988, the District developed an addendum to the 1982 Plan, known as the 1988 Plan, which addressed similar issues. In particular, the 1988 Plan further emphasized the need for the coastal water utilities of DWU, SWUC, and RU to use inland well fields and/or desalinization as potential alternatives for the long-term water supply needs of the area. The 1988 Plan eliminated surface water from the Choctawhatchee River as a potential alternate source for the long-term water supply needs of the area because it was not technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. The thrust of these two studies is to encourage movement of withdrawals away from coastal areas. In 1989, the District implemented Rule 40A-2.801, Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes the declaration of areas of the District as "water resource caution areas." In that same year the District adopted Rule 40A-2.802(1), Florida Administrative Code, which designates the coastal area of Walton and Okaloosa Counties as a water resource caution area. This designation means that the water resources of the coastal area are limited and will not be sufficient to meet the water needs of the area within a period of twenty years. In addition, the rule prohibits non-potable uses of the Floridan Aquifer as against the public interest. Since 1989, the District has worked with DWU, SWUC, and other coastal water supply utilities to expedite the development of alternate water sources and implement water conservation measures. In Okaloosa County, the District has placed limitations on the diameters of wells and the amount of water that can be withdrawn from coastal wells. To promote conservation of water, the District has imposed stricter requirements for the reuse of wastewater; promoted the adoption by coastal utilities of inverted rate structures; required that utilities implement retrofit programs to replace old water fixtures with more efficient water-saving devices; required that utilities account for losses due to system leakage; required that utilities provide for education programs and public service announcements on the need to conserve water; and encouraged utilities to seek adoption of water efficiency landscape and irrigation ordinance by the appropriate local governments. The measures taken by the District are intended to address the harmful impacts to the Floridan Aquifer caused by increasing coastal water withdrawals. Because the District has determined that the water resources are limited, the District has mandated that alternative water supplies must be identified and developed in order to provide for a sustainable and long-term source of potable water in the coastal areas of Okaloosa and Walton Counties. There is no evidence to refute the District's concerns regarding the impact of continued coastal withdrawal and the need to find an alternative source of potable water to meet the region's long term demands. Based on the evidence, it is clear that coastal withdrawals of ground water cannot continue and that an alternate source of water must be found to meet the long-term water demands of the coastal areas of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. The Application In July 1996, WRP submitted a Consumptive Use Permit Application (CUPA) for the withdrawal of water from an inland wellfield in Walton County. The CUPA requested a maximum withdrawal of 7.2 million gallons of water per day (mgd) from two production wells with additional wells to be constructed on an as needed basis. The original application placed the wells along Highway 20 in the vicinity of the City of Freeport, or some twenty miles north of its present wellfields. This location concerned the District because of its proximity to the Choctawhatchee Bay and the saltwater/freshwater interface. In response to the District's concerns, WRP relocated the proposed wellfield farther north and inland to a 4,900 acre site approximately five miles north of the City of Freeport, known as the Rock Hill site. Under the proposed permit, WRP may withdraw an average of 4.84 mgd from the Floridan Aquifer from five 24-inch diameter wells. All withdrawals of water are authorized solely for public supply use. The proposed permit also authorizes a combined monthly withdrawal limit of 150,040,000 gallons. The permit is issued for a twenty-year period and has an expiration date of June 26, 2018. The proposed permit contains numerous conditions to issuance. They are primarily intended to implement water conservation and efficiency measures as well as monitor and mitigate any impacts to the Floridan Aquifer and existing legal users caused by the permitted water withdrawals. Compliance with Permitting Standards The District's overall responsibility in the consumptive use program is to provide for the sustainability of the water resources of Northwest Florida. In allocating water resources, the District seeks to do so in a manner that is reasonable and beneficial, that is in the public interest, and that will not interfere with the use associated with other existing legal users. WRP's compliance with these broad standards will be discussed in detail below. Reasonable and Beneficial Use of the Water In determining whether a water use is reasonable and beneficial, the District must consider the criteria set forth in Rule 62-40.410(2)(a)-(r), Florida Administrative Code. Quantity of Water Requested [62-40.410(2)(a)] In its original application, WRP requested withdrawals of 7.2 mgd. Because of the District's concern that the amount of withdrawals and projected annual rate of growth were too great, the permitted amount has been revised downward to 4.84 mgd. This quantity is not excessive, and the actual pumping under the permit will be less than the amount modeled for evaluation of impacts. Demonstrated Need [62-40.410.(2)(b)] The current water source for both DWU and SWUC is coastal Walton and Okaloosa Counties. That source is insufficient for future needs, and the demand placed on that resource should be reduced. As noted above, the need for coastal areas to develop an alternative wellfield was recognized by the District as early as 1982. This finding was reconfirmed in a District study completed in 1988. The record supports a finding that WRP has shown a demonstrated need for the alternative site. Suitability and Value of Use [62-40.410(2)(c) and (d)] WRP is requesting a withdrawal of water for public supply. This type of use within the Rock Hill area is a suitable use of that resource. Also, the Rock Hill area has long been identified as a good location for an inland wellfield. The suitability of the use to the source of water is demonstrated by the high quality of the raw water which can be easily treated for potable drinking water. The purpose is for domestic consumption, which is the highest use. The proposed wellfield is the closest available inland groundwater source with minimal impact. In terms of value, WRP is proposing to withdraw water from the Floridan Aquifer to provide the public with drinking water. The provision of a long-term, reliable source of water is a high value. It also helps to sustain the resource in coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties by reducing future demands on the source. The Extent and Amount of Harm Caused [62-40.410(2)(e)] The evidence establishes that neither the resource nor the existing legal users will be harmed by the proposed activity. Harm would occur, for example, when a domestic user would be permanently denied water as a result of a proposed pumping activity. Although this condition should not occur, the permit contains conditions to mitigate this event. WRP conducted a test well program and extensive groundwater modeling at its proposed wellfield to establish the drawdown curve that would exist in the Floridan Aquifer. The extent and amount of harm caused is not significant, and WRP has demonstrated that there will be no significant environmental impact or impact to other users. There will not be any drawdown impacts in the surficial aquifer, nor should there be any discernible impact on the Floridan Aquifer. Drawdowns as a result of WRP pumping in the potentiometric surface in the Freeport area are expected to be two feet in the year 2005, and around five feet in the year 2018. These are not considered significant drawdowns for a public supply well. Under the proposed permit, WRP will be required to mitigate any impacts attributable to its withdrawal that interfere with domestic users in the vicinity of the wellfield. Any problems encountered in domestic wells in the area can be remedied by adding a length of pipe, or lowering the pumps in the wells. The water resource will not be significantly impacted by saltwater intrusion as a result of the proposed use. The greatest part of the advance of the saltwater wedge is due to the City of Freeport's own pumping; WRP's contribution to the advance is minimal. This is because the City of Freeport is closer to the coast. Any impacts on wells within the City of Freeport from chlorides will be the result of their own pumping, and not that of WRP's proposed pumping. Mitigation of Harm [62-40.410(2)(f)] The District does not anticipate that any harm to other legal users will occur. Even assuming arguendo that some harm might occur, there are two conditions in the permit that can be invoked to ensure that the issues are addressed. Standard Condition 11 entitles the District to curtail permitted withdrawal rates if such withdrawal causes significant adverse impacts on existing legal uses of water, or adjacent use, while Special Condition 17 requires that WRP mitigate any impacts to existing legal users if such interference should occur. The District envisions the latter condition to be implemented through a telephone hotline and arrangements with a water well contractor to remedy any adverse impact. To the extent that any harm to area domestic wells may occur, WRP has agreed to correct any individual adverse impacts by either lowering the pump, deepening the well, replacing the well, or whatever may be necessary. This is consistent with Special Condition 17, which requires that WRP mitigate impacts attributable to its withdrawal which interfere with users of water in the vicinity of their wellfield. Finally, the proposed permit has a system of checks and balances by which the District can look at actual water uses over time and adjust them while still providing for coastal reductions. Impacts on Other Lands [62-40.410(2)(g)] Although WRP purchased approximately five thousand acres on which to site its wellfield, not all of the property is necessary to run the wellfield. The parcel was purchased so that any adverse effects from the pumping would not affect landowners, and the majority of the drawdown would be confined to the purchased property. The test well program conducted at the remote wellfield, and the modeling conducted by WRP Witness Maimone, establish that the greatest impacts will be on lands owned and controlled by WRP. Method and Efficiency of Use [62-40.410(2)(h)] The method and efficiency of use by WRP is demonstrated by its utilization of water conservation measures to ensure that efficiency is maximized throughout the system. The use of ground water from the inland wellfield is an efficient method of providing potable water for public supply. Water Conservation Measures [62-40.410(2)(i)] The District has mandated that certain conservation steps be taken to protect the resource in the Okaloosa and Walton County area. This is consistent with the District's efforts to require implementation of conservation measures by coastal water supply utilities. Reuse of treated wastewater has been encouraged, and it is used to irrigate golf courses and private landscapes. Also, the District is requiring DWU and SWUP to account for and correct water losses, and to undertake retrofit programs among homeowners and commercial establishments to install water-saving devices and other types of efficiency measures. Except on rare occasions, all DWU treated effluent is used for irrigation. Indeed, DWU is currently achieving a 100 percent reuse rate. Reuse water currently supplied to customers of DWU is not available for aquifer storage. As part of a general conservation effort, DWU has replaced almost 6,000 water meters in the last five years. The City of Destin, which is within DWU's service area, has distributed low-usage shower heads, and it has implemented a low volume toilet ordinance which requires these types of fixtures in all new construction. Currently, DWU has a 12 percent water loss and is attempting to meet the District's recommended goal of 10 percent. SWUC has various programs in place to conserve potable water. The conservation methods include an inverted block structure, reuse, and public education. Currently, SWUC provides reuse irrigation water to golf courses and a subdivision. The evidence supports a finding that the water use proposed by WRP will not be wasteful. Conditions 3 through 12 in the permit require WRP to implement a comprehensive series of water conservation and efficiency measures. Without the new wellfield, it would be impossible to conserve a sufficient amount of water to be able to provide for the future needs of the citizens to be served by WRP. The District will require WRP to comply with a comprehensive water conservation and efficiency program. The conservation and efficiency program includes implementation of a retrofit program, reduction of unaccounted for losses to less than ten percent, five-year audits, landscape ordinances, and irrigation ordinances. Feasibility of Other Sources [62-40.410(2)(j)] The District has identified no available surface water body from which WRP could meet its anticipated demands. In 1988, the Choctawhatchee River was determined not to be a feasible source. Additionally, the Sand and Gravel Aquifer is not suitable for a large, public supply utility to access. In 1982, Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin) was projected to be a location for regional wellfields. The 1988 Plan, however, removed Eglin as a possible solution for long-term water supply problems due to Eglin's decision not to allow wells on the reservation. SWUC, DWU, and WRP all produced water masterplans in order to identify options available to address the additional water supply needs in the area. Upon its formation, WRP undertook an investigation to determine whether additional water supplies could be provided best by a remote wellfield or by a reverse osmosis (RO) plant. The study was undertaken because the the available water supply clearly would be insufficient and other options should be considered. After being formed, WRP immediately purchased options from the Champion Paper Company for six well sites along Highway 20. At considerable expense, WRP investigated the RO alternative as a water supply source along with other alternative sources such as reclaimed water, stormwater, brackish water, and saltwater. WRP constructed a RO test well to evaluate that option. The test well extended into the Lower Floridan Aquifer since that aquifer was considered as a possible source of brackish water from which potable water could be produced. The District provided a $30,000 grant toward the RO evaluation, and it also provided technical assistance and guidance to ensure that WRP obtained the type of data that the District desired. Assumptions made in evaluating the cost of the RO option were designed to predict the lowest possible construction and operating costs. Also, a number of problems were identified with the RO process. These included long-term water quality, contamination, and disposal of the waste (reject water) produced. These concerns are addressed separately below. The potential for long-term change in water quality is the most important factor in evaluating the feasibility of the RO option. WRP's test well showed chlorides at 1,800 parts per million; 200 feet below that, the test well was half seawater; and at another 200 feet below, the test well was full of seawater. These results indicated that saltwater upconing was a severe concern. The data strongly indicated that water quality would not remain constant for very long in the RO well. An analysis made by WRP estimated that saltwater upconing would occur in less than a year and probably within a matter of months. The analysis considered only vertical movement for upconing within the RO test well, and it did not consider the effects of horizontal movement. These assumptions produce the most reliable result possible. The possibility of lateral movement is an additional risk to the water quality in the RO test well. Together with the potential for upconing shown in the study conducted by WRP, a great amount of uncertainty existed in the raw water source in terms of long-term stability and water quality. If seawater occurred within the aquifer at some close proximity to the RO test well, then ultimately the whole system could convert from brackish water to a seawater system. This would change the entire economics of the treatment process and plant design, and it would diminish WRP's ability to obtain a concentrate disposal permit. Without some certainty as to the quality of water over time, RO is not a viable alternative. The data summarized in WRP's report demonstrates that copper values in excess of 2.9 micrograms per liter (mcg/l) were present in the water withdrawn from the well. Samples taken directly from the Lower Floridan Aquifer using the Packard Stem Test indicated that the copper came from the aquifer formation. The established water quality standard for copper in Class II waters is 2.9 mcg/l. As noted above, this standard would be violated. The concentrate or reject water from the RO process utilizing the subject source would be expected to contain five times the copper concentration of the raw water. In addition to this concern, gross alpha, Radium 226, and Radium 228 were also present in grab samples and constituted another potential problem. These types of contamination render the RO option unfeasible because of problems with disposal of the concentrate or reject water. A RO option necessarily includes a brine disposal element. The disposal would be in the form of a reject stream that would be continuously discharged from the RO facility while in operation. The concentrate from the RO process is classified as an industrial waste. In Florida, the method for disposal for the reject water includes deep well injection and surface water disposal. However, the deep well injection of reject concentrate is not feasible for the RO well because the Lower Floridan Aquifer has no internal confinement between the zone of withdrawal and a proposed zone of injection. Moreover, there is no zone in Northwest Florida sufficient to be used for this type of injection in these volumes. The only other remaining option would be surface water discharge which requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Any surface water discharge with respect to RO would be to Class II waters, which would be far more difficult to permit than a Class III water, where such discharges have normally occurred. In addition, because of the high level of copper in the reject concentrate, it would be extremely difficult to receive a mixing zone for copper at the extended concentrations. Since 1982, the District has recommended that an inland wellfield be developed in the area north of the City of Freeport. An inland wellfield is a more reliable source of water with a greater amount of certainty, can be permitted within a reasonable period of time, and is less expensive. WRP's proposal for a remote, inland well in the Rock Hill area is consistent with these goals. Present and Projected Demand for Water [62-40.410(2)(k)] The District relied upon two studies to reach the conclusion that the average growth rate for water would be three percent per year in WRP's service area. This contrasts with WRP's projection that a five percent growth rate would be more accurate. Due to the high degree of uncertainty in the area of growth and water demand, the District has provided a mechanism to deal with underestimated growth which includes periodic review of the withdrawal amounts by the District and corresponding adjustments, if necessary. It is clear that the supply of water is adequate to provide water for WRP as well as other users in the area. Long-Term Yield Available from the Source of Water and Water Quality Degradation [62-40.410(2)(l) and (m)] Sufficient water resources exist in the Rock Hill area to meet projected water demands through the year 2018. No impact to the surficial aquifer is expected, while only minimal impact to nearby surface water is projected to occur. The movement of the saltwater wedge is not a factor. For some fifteen years, the District has taken steps to monitor and reduce coastal well withdrawals. More recently, it directed its staff to notify all existing non-potable users of the Floridan Aquifer that at the time of permit renewal, they may be required to find alternate sources. Starting two years ago, a number of these permits came up for renewal. In some cases, the applicants were given approximately two years to eliminate the Floridan Aquifer withdrawals, find an alternate source, and plug their wells. The potential for water quality degradation is evaluated through computer modeling. A modeling plan is a document that describes the approach that a modeler is going to use to build a model. It specifies the various components of the model, battery conditions, modeling techniques, model domain, and the modeler's conceptualization of the stratigraphy. WRP's model demonstrates a lack of degradation of the water resources. The modeling of the saltwater wedge indicates that the wells in the Freeport area will not be threatened. There will be negligible impacts to base stream and river flow and no impact to surface wetlands. Based on the present and projected demand for the source of water, no significant impact to the environment or to existing users will occur. To the extent water quality degradation might occur, it will cause a minimal amount of change in the position of the diffused chlorides in the coastal zone. The predicted impacts to water quality take into consideration the coastal reductions which will limit pumping of the coastal wells and switch withdrawals to the alternate inland source. Proposed Flood Damage [62-40.410(2)(n)] There is no indication that WRP's proposed withdrawal activity will cause any flood damage. The proposed use will not cause or contribute to flood damage due to its negligible affect on surface waters. Significant Inducement of Saltwater Intrusion [62-40.410(2)(o)] WRP's coastal saltwater intrusion model used worst case conditions when estimating the movement of the saltwater wedge. Indeed, the saltwater intrusion was computed so conservatively that the existing coastal wells were modeled pumping saltwater instead of the actual freshwater that they currently pump. The movement of the saltwater wedge is not projected to be dramatic over the next 50 years. The location of the saltwater wedge in the year 2050 would still be 600 feet below sea level. The wedge does not approach, nor would it threaten, the City of Freeport's wells. In fact, any potential risk of saltwater contamination in Freeport's wells is due to that City's current pumping rates. The Amount of Water Which Can be Withdrawn [62-40.410(2)(p)] The amount of water withdrawn by WRP will have no significant impact on the resource. This finding is supported by a WRP groundwater modeling study. The impacts of the wellfield on the potentiometric surface do not go below sea level. There will be no drawdown impact in the surficial aquifer or any discernable impact on the Floridan Aquifer. Adverse Effect on Public Health [62-40.410(2)(q)] No potential adverse effects on public health have been identified in the instant case, and there is no indication that WRP's withdrawals would affect public health. The resource is a high-quality use and would provide the public with a high-quality source of water for drinking purposes. Significant Effects on Natural Systems [62-40.410(2)(r)] The evidence established that there will be no impacts to surface wetlands and very minimal impacts to base stream flow. Base flow is the constant flow from groundwater into surrounding waters. Any reduction in the flow of groundwater to the Choctawhatchee River as a result of WRP pumping is negligible. Slight impacts were observed in the base flow of streams close to the proposed wellfield site. Impacts on the surface water are also minimal. Riparian wetlands would be unaffected by the water level decline that was simulated as a result of WRP pumping. Finally, any impacts associated with the construction of the transmission pipeline from the inland wellfield are temporary in nature and extend only through the period of construction. Consistent with the Public Interest The evidence demonstrates that the use of the water by WRP, as well as the water use reduction allocation, is consistent with the public interest. WRP is proposing to withdraw water from the Floridan Aquifer in the Rock Hill area to provide citizens with drinking water. The purpose of domestic consumption is the highest and best use of a water resource. The public interest is served through the proposed reduction in coastal groundwater withdrawals contained in the WRP permit. Reduction in the withdrawals from the coastal areas has been a long-term goal of the District in order to protect water resources in the area. WRP's proposed use is also consistent with the public interest in that the use will not affect natural systems in the area. Similarly, the use proposed by WRP is consistent with regional water supply planning needs. Finally, the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive planning goals of Walton County as expressed in its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The EAR commends WRP's efforts to fully analyze the alternative sources and its selection of the Rock Hill area on which to site a remote wellfield. Non-Interference with Existing Legal Users WRP purchased 5,000 acres on which to site its wellfield so that pumping from the well sites would not adversely affect adjacent landowners, and the majority of the drawdown would basically be confined to the property. Pertinent District rules only require that an applicant consider existing legal uses of water. However, WRP considered all existing legal uses of water and their future increases until the year 2018, and these existing and potential impacts were considered in its groundwater model. Even with the anticipated pumpage in the year 2018, the potentiometric surface at the WRP wellfield site location will not be drawn below sea level. The water level drawdowns associated with the withdrawal do not constitute a harm, they can be remedied, and the permit has been conditioned to provide for those remedies. For example, Standard Condition 11 and Specific Condition 17 provide protection to domestic wells users in the area. They should specifically address the legitimate concerns of public witnesses who testified at hearing. The Local Sources First Statutory Provision Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1998), also known as the local sources first statutory provision, enumerates a number of factors which the District must consider when evaluating whether a proposed use of water is consistent with the public interest. However, the law provided that water use permit applications pending with the District as of April 1, 1998, were exempted. The legislation was not enacted until October 1, 1998, and the notice of proposed agency action on the instant permit was issued in June 1998. Therefore, the District took the position that the legislation does not apply to the WRP permit. In an abundance of caution, however, the District reviewed the application as if the local sources first exception applied, and then again as if the exception did not apply. Under either scenario, the District concluded that the application met the criteria enumerated by the law. Assuming arguendo that the new law applies, WRP has met all criteria necessary for the issuance of a permit. The proposed wellfield site is the best suitable site to move water withdrawals inland away from the coastal area, and other locations closer to the coast would have resulted in interference and impacts; there are no other impoundments in the vicinity of the proposed wellfield site that are technically and economically feasible for the proposed use; there are no economically and technically feasible alternatives to the proposed source; there are no potential environmental impacts from the wellfields; there are no adequate existing sources of water available on the peninsula; the District has had numerous interactions with area local governments; and the District did not allow WRP's investment in 4,900 acres of land to influence its decision. Standing The only alleged basis for standing which went to fact finding at hearing was an allegation in paragraph (5)(a) of the Petition that "[t]he withdrawal of up to 4.8 million gallons per day of groundwater by WRP will adversely impact the quantity and quality of groundwater available for withdrawal by Petitioners." As to RU, which currently serves 500 customers representing a population of 17,000, it has no wells in the vicinity of WRP's proposed wellfield; its wellfields are located along the coastal area of Highway 30-A from Santa Rosa Beach to the east of Inlet Beach, on the Bay County line, or some twenty- five to thirty miles south of the proposed wellfield. It also purchases 500,000 gallons of water per day from the City of Freeport to meet its customers' demand. Because of RU's own continued pumping, at least four of its coastal wells are "going bad" due to saltwater intrusion and upconing. This condition will continue to occur even if WRP's application is not granted. Although it has a permit application for new inland wellfields pending with the District, at the time of hearing the application was incomplete and is therefore irrelevant to a standing determination. There was no direct evidence that RU's coastal wellfields will be adversely affected by WRP's proposed operation. Indeed, the projected decline in water levels in that area will be less than one foot and will have a de minimus impact. As to Walton County, it owns the land on which RU's coastal wells are located as well as the production facilities. Under a lease agreement between those parties, RU operates the system. The County also had one small exempt well in the vicinity of WRP's proposed wellfields which was installed after this case was filed, but shortly before the hearing began. There was no evidence as to the depth of the well, the source of water, or the well's pumping capacity. Likewise, there was no evidence that the well has actually been used. In addition, there was no evidence that the County relies on groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer to supply potable water to its citizens or customers, or that WRP's proposed withdrawal will adversely impact the quantity or quality of groundwater available for withdrawal by the County. As to the City of DeFuniak Springs, it operates its own public water supply system serving approximately 17,200 persons. It has four water supply wells located approximately nine miles north of WRP's proposed wellfields, and upstream from WRP's site. WRP's model predicts that the City's wellfields will be impacted, albeit very slightly, by WRP's pumping over the lifetime of the proposed permit. To this limited extent, the proposed activity affects its substantial interests. Finally, the City of Freeport owns and operates its own public water supply utility. It has existing wells which are permitted by the District and which lie five miles directly south of WRP's proposed wellfield. Like the City of DeFuniak Springs, the City of Freeport will also experience drawdown impacts, although not considered significant, over the lifetime of the proposed permit. To this extent, the permit will impact the City of Freeport. This is true in spite of the City's admission that its principal concern in this case is WRP's intention to sell water to customers outside Walton County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting Consumptive Water Use Permit No. I05349 to WRP, Inc., as proposed in its Notice of Proposed Agency Action issued on June 5, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1999. Douglas E. Barr, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District Route 1, Box 3100 Havana, Florida 32333-9700 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Jack R. Pepper, Jr., Esquire 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2543 George Ralph Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-0687 Clayton J. M. Adkinson, Esquire Post Office Box 1207 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435-1207 Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Stephen L. Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3059 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire 1345 Dupont Road Havana, Florida 32333
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent Jeffrey Hill should pay the administrative penalty and investigative costs, and should undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) in its Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Civil Penalty Assessment (“NOV”).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of a community water system and its associated piping, designated PWS No. 2124409, located on parcel ID No. 03-4S-17-07486-001 on Country Club Road, in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida (“the property”). Respondent is a “person” as defined in section 403.852(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a “supplier of water” as defined in section 403.852(8). The water system is a “public water system” and a “community water system” as defined in sections 403.852(2) and (3), respectively. The community water system is a Category V, Class D water system with a capacity of 28,800 gallons per day that supplies between 25 and 3,300 people, using groundwater as its source. Count I Count I of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for nitrate and nitrite in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count II Count II of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for primary inorganic contaminants for the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count III Count III of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to analyze for secondary contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IV Count IV of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for volatile organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count V Count V of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for synthetic organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VI Count VI of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for total coliform from June 2013 to date, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VII Count VII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to employ an operator for the system since May 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VIII Count VIII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to submit test results required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, and failure to file a monthly operation report since April 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IX Count IX of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to issue Tier 3 notices in May 2013 and March 2014, advising customers of the failure to monitor for certain contaminants, which Respondent admitted. Count X Count X of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to provide a consumer confidence report to his customers in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count XI In Count XI of the NOV, the Department states that it incurred $530 in investigative costs related to this enforcement matter, which is admitted by Respondent.
