The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should issue permit number 1C53-154132 to the applicant, IMC Fertilizer, Inc. (IMCF), for the modification of an existing industrial wastewater management system by constructing additional phosphogypsum storage capacity, or whether the permit should be denied as maintained by Manasota- 88 (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact The Parties IMCF is a Delaware Corporation properly registered to conduct business in the State of Florida, which owns real property known as the New Wales Chemical Complex located in western Polk County, Florida, approximately 5 miles southwest of Mulberry, l mile south of State Road 640, and east of the Hillsborough-Polk County line. The New Wales Chemical Complex began operations in April, 1975, and consists of approximately 1600 acres which are located within a 17,000 acre tract owned by IMCF known as the "Kingsford Mine". Generally, the distance from the New Wales Complex boundary to the Kings ford Mine property boundary is from one to two miles. IMCF produces phosphoric acid and other phosphate-related products, including animal feed ingredients, and stores the by-product called phosphogypsum within a gypsum stack or pile. The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to control and prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Department has the authority to consider and act upon the permit application at issue in this case. Petitioner is a public interest environmental protection organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida as a not-for-profit corporation, is headquartered in Palmetto, Florida, and is a citizen of the State of Florida for purposes of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has standing to maintain this action. The Application Process On or about August 31, 1988, IMCF filed with the Department an application for a permit to modify its industrial wastewater management system at the New Wales Complex by constructing additional phosphogypsum storage capacity. This permit application was assigned file number 1C53-154132. The Department requested additional information from IMCF concerning this initial application on or about September 29, 1988 and December 16, 1988, and IMCF timely responded on each occasion. On or about July 3, 1989, IMCF submitted an application supplement to the Department which substantially changed the nature and scope of its original application. The project proposed by IMCF for which it has sought the permit at issue in this proceeding is described and set forth in this supplement to IMCF's original application. The Department requested additional information concerning this application supplement on or about August 2, 1989, to which IMCF timely responded. On or about November 6, 1989, the Department filed its Intent to Issue permit number 1C53-154132, and thereafter, Petitioner timely instituted this action to challenge the issuance of this permit to IMCF. The Existing Operation At its New Wales Chemical Complex, IMCF operates sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid plants, granulated triple superphosphate and granulated ammonium phosphate plants, and a uranium recovery plant. The primary raw materials used at the New Wales Complex are sulfur and phosphate rock. Sulfur is used to produce sulfuric acid, which is then used to react with phosphate rock that has been mined by IMCF. This reaction produces phosphoric acid which is then further processed into fertilizer products and animal feed ingredients. Phosphogypsum or gypsum is a byproduct from the production of phosphoric acid. Approximately five tons of gypsum are produced for every ton of phosphoric acid which is produced. Gypsum is slurried and transported to an existing gypsum stack where it is allowed to settle in settling compartments. IMCF's existing gypsum stack is approximately 132 feet high, and it is reasonably estimated that it will reach its maximum useful height of 200 feet by May, 1992, at IMCF's current phosphoric acid production rate of 1.7 million tons per year, which results in approximately 8.5 million tons of gypsum per year. As the gypsum stack grows in height, the surface area on top of the stack that is available for gypsum deposition and management decreases, and at approximately 200 feet above ground surface there will be insufficient retention time for the slurried gypsum to settle out and to be used in continued construction of the stack. Therefore, when IMCF's existing stack reaches 200 feet in height, operations at the New Wales Complex will have to cease unless an alternative gypsum storage location is authorized through the issuance of the permit sought in this proceeding. The existing gypsum stack is unlined. In addition to the storage and management of gypsum, the existing gypsum stack at the New Wales Complex is also used to store rainfall that may fall on the stack and cooling pond. This storage capability allows IMCF to avoid discharging pond water to the surface waters of the State during heavy or extended rainfalls. During low rainfall periods, stored rainwater can be used to supplement pond water, and thereby reduce IMCF's need to pump fresh water from the aquifer to meet its cooling and scrubbing needs. Additionally, during the hot summer months, the area on top of the stack is also used for cooling purposes. A cooling pond approximately 247 acres in size is located to the immediate south of the existing stack, with additional cooling channels encircling the stack on its remaining three sides. This existing, unlined cooling system encompasses a total of approximately 281 acres, and recirculates approximately 150,000 to 170,000 gallons of water per minute through this entire cooling system and back to IMCF's production plants for reuse. Approximately twelve uncapped recharge wells, each eight inches in diameter, were drilled in the area under the cooling pond during mining operations. These recharge wells were broken off during mining operations, and it is estimated that these wells have been filled to the top of the confining layer above the Floridan aquifer by sand and debris. The production of fertilizers generates heat which must be dissipated through cooling, and gasses which must be cleaned by "scrubbing" them with water. IMCF's cooling system at the New Wales Complex carries out these cooling and scrubbing functions. Pond water is used to transport gypsum in slurry from the phosphoric acid plant to the top of the gypsum stack, where it is directed to one of three settling compartments on the top of the stack. Settled gypsum is periodically dredged out, and used to build up the diked area around the edges of the stack. The slurry water is then decanted to the perimeter ditch and returned to circulation. Waters collected at the New Wales Complex which do not come in contact with fertilizer products or raw materials are collected on the site and directed to an impoundment area referred to as "A-11" for recirculation and reuse in the plant. Excess noncontact water may be periodically released to the Kings ford Mine recirculating system during heavy or extended rainfall, and is managed separately from pond water. A 90 acre emergency holding pond is located to the west of the cooling pond and to the south of the production facility. However, IMCF has never had to discharge excess pond water into this emergency area. This emergency holding pond is unlined. IMCF's existing facility is a zero discharge to surface water facility. Other phosphate companies discharge pond waters to surface waters after treatment with calcium oxide or calcium carbonate. This existing facility can also store, without surface water discharge, rainfall and other waters in excess of Departmental and federal effluent guidelines Because IMCF's existing, unlined gypsum stack and cooling pond system release some seepage to the ground water, on or about September 8, 1989, IMCF and the Department executed a Consent Agreement in OGC Case Number 89-0657 pertaining to the operation of the existing gypsum stack and cooling pond, which states in pertinent part: Cooling pond water on the Site contains concen- trations of various constituents in excess of primary drinking water standards. (Finding 4) Contaminant concentrations in groundwater samples collected from the surficial aquifer and the uppermost segment of the intermediate aquifer system at certain locations on the Site are elevated with respect to unaffected groundwater quality. Monitoring well SA-4 . . . is located approximately 400 feet from the cooling pond channel and has indicated concentration levels of certain constituents in excess of primary and secondary drinking water standards . . . Analyses from monitoring well SA-6, located 1600 feet downgradient from well SA-4, have recently indicated sulfate and TDS concentra- tion levels slightly exceeding secondary drinking water standards. Therefore, the vertical and horizontal extent of groundwater contamination and the rate and direction of contaminant transport in groundwater require additional evaluation. (Finding 5) Some evidence indicates elevated contaminant concentrations above background levels in groundwater samples collected from one of seven monitoring wells that draw water from the lower segment of the intermediate aquifer system in a location adjacent to and down- gradient from the cooling pond. Therefore, additional evaluation of the potential impact of abandoned recharge wells underlying the cooling pond is required. (Finding 6) IMCF has collected ground water quality data pursuant to the requirements of Ground Water Monitoring Plan Permit No. MP53-75181, currently in effect, as well as data in connection with this expansion project. This data indicates that two monitoring wells have been impacted by seepage from the existing gypsum stack. Well No. NWC-2-S2A, located approximately 400 feet to the west of the edge of the gypsum stack, contains ground water with elevated levels of sodium in excess of concentrations set forth in applicable ground water quality rules, and has recorded sulfate levels which exceed standards. Well No. SA-4, located approximately 700 feet west of the existing stack, reflects concentrations of sodium, gross alpha, and radium-226 in excess of concentration limits set forth in applicable rules, and has also recorded exceedences for sulfate, total dissolved solids and iron. These two wells are located within the New Wales Complex, and draw water from the upper portion of the intermediate aquifer, probably being impacted by seepage from the stack westward through this zone. In addition, data collected from IMCF monitoring well NWC-5-I4A, located immediately west of, and adjacent to, the cooling pond, show elevated levels of temporary dissolved solids, arsenic, sulfate and sodium above background levels, although the sodium concentrations do not exceed the maximum concentration limits set forth in applicable Departmental ground water quality standards. This well draws water from the major producing zone of the intermediate aquifer system. Finally, water quality impacts are shown as a result of analysis of ground water samples taken from three other wells at the New Wales Complex, wells NWC-2-S1 and NWC-2-SIA which draw water from the surficial aquifer, and well SA-6 which draws water from the uppermost portion of the intermediate aquifer system. However, based upon the evidence and analysis presented by Dr. John Garlanger, who was accepted as an expert in ground water quality impact assessment, and notwithstanding the contrary opinion expressed by Steven R. Boyes, who was accepted as an expert in hydrogeology, it is likely that these impacts come from a source other than the gypsum stack. Based in part upon the findings set forth above, the Consent Agreement provides that IMCF will implement a series of stated corrective actions, including additional monitoring activities, and that IMCF will evaluate pertinent primary and secondary drinking water standard constituents in all potentially affected aquifers within, and/or beyond, its zone of discharge. Once this is done, IMCF may be required to evaluate various remedial action alternatives, and to ultimately implement a remedial action plan. The Consent Agreement also authorizes IMCF to install a slurry wall to the north and northeast of the existing stack to limit any seepage in that area. IMCF has committed to the Department that if ground water quality monitoring indicates significant contamination is approaching the limits of the IMCF production plant, it will also install a slurry wall along the western edge of the plant in order to intercept any such contamination in the surficial and upper intermediate aquifer systems and contain it within IMCF's property. Dr. Garlanger performed a modeling analysis concerning the impact of the existing cooling pond and stack upon the water quality of the major producing zone of the intermediate or Floridan aquifer, given that these existing facilities will not be closed, but will remain in use in connection with the new stack for an additional twenty years beyond 1992. Based upon that analysis, it is found that any seepage through the upper confining unit from either the existing stack or pond would not cause a violation of primary or secondary drinking water quality standards. In addition, even if the twelve recharge wells underlying the cooling pond area were each leaking at the rate of one gallon per minute, which was shown to be an overestimate of any reasonable leakage rate, Dr. Garlanger concluded that insignificant impacts would result in the major producing zone of the intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems. The precise vertical or downward extent of the zone of discharge has not yet been determined for the New Wales Complex, although a zone of discharge horizontally to the IMCF property line has been established. However, the Department has reasonably concluded that the water quality impacts at the site resulting from the existing stack and cooling pond, referred to above, are not violations of IMCF's current permit, or of applicable rules and standards. The Department does not currently have sufficient information to determine what, if any, remedial action would be appropriate for impacts resulting from the existing stack and cooling pond, but this information will be developed pursuant to the Consent Agreement. The Department has not ruled out any eventual remedial action alternative, including closure of the existing gypsum stack. The Proposed Project IMCF proposes to construct an additional 415 acres of gypsum storage capacity, including permimeter ditching, in a total project area of 520 acres which will be located immediately south of, and adjacent to, the existing cooling pond that is used in connection with the existing gypsum stack or pile. It is reasonably estimated that this new stack will be in operation for twenty years. A 60-mil high density polyethylene liner is to be installed over the entire base area, and the upstream slope of the perimeter dikes. The proposed liner will be chemically and physically compatible with conditions that will be encountered in the expanded gypsum stack area, and will be of sufficient strength to prevent failure during installation and operation. Textured liner material will be used around the outer edges of the stack area underlying the projected stack slope, while smooth material will be used under the remainder of the stack. The textured material provides an additional safety factor to prevent slope stability failure. IMCF's proposed gypsum stack is designed with a factor of safety significantly greater than that which is provided in other stack projects. The liner material will be delivered to the site in sheets which will be rolled out on site, overlapped, and bonded with adjacent sheets using an extrusion-fusion welding process. IMCF will follow an extensive quality assurance and control program to insure that the contractor installing the liner follows all required procedures, including inspections and evaluations, random destructive testing, and vacuum testing of every inch of liner welds. Three concentric rings of perimeter gravel drains with polyethyline collector pipes will be installed over the liner and beneath the projected slope of the gypsum stack in order to reduce the hydraulic head on the liner and improve the stability of the stack. The materials used in the drain system will be compatible with the environment which they will encounter in the gypsum stack. IMCF proposes to separate the existing cooling pond and the proposed new gypsum stack with a 2.5 foot thick soil-bentonite slurry wall constructed along and within the entire length of the northern perimeter dike of the expansion area, and keyed approximately 30 feet into the underlying bedrock- bedclay complex. This slurry wall will provide a barrier to lateral seepage from the existing cooling pond into the expansion area, and will effectively function as a vertical liner. Materials used to construct the slurry wall will not be adversely impacted by seepage from the cooling pond. Two culverts for routing the seepage, runoff and decant water from the gypsum stack perimeter collection ditch into the existing cooling pond are to be installed. An additional syphon spillway is to be constructed at the southwest corner of the existing cooling pond and directed into the emergency holding pond. There is no proposal to cap the twelve uncapped recharge wells located under the existing cooling pond. The existing cooling and emergency holding pond will remain in operation with the new proposed gypsum stack. Gypsum will be slurried by pipeline from the phosphoric acid plant to the proposed new stack after its completion, where it will be managed in a manner similar to that practiced on the currently operating stack. The transport water will be returned to the cooling pond system for recirculation. IMCF proposes to use the top of the existing stack for the storage of rainfall and for cooling purposes during times of excessive heat. The geology of the gypsum stack expansion project site is appropriate and suitable for this proposed use, as established through an evaluation of regional and site-specific information, including prospecting data collected by IMCF prior to mining this area and geophysical logging information from wells that have been installed in the area. Site-specific geological tests performed by IMCF included the drilling and evaluation of five core holes around the area of the expansion project, and evaluation of the geological conditions encountered during the drilling of thirty-one ground water monitoring-wells installed in the vicinity of the proposed project area, and an evaluation of soil borings taken from within the project site. Surface depressions and lineaments shown on pre-mining aerial photographs of the area were also evaluated. The physical evaluation and examination of the former locations of surface depressions was conducted, as was a sinkhole probability assessment. The hydrogeology underlying the site of the proposed expansion area does not contain any features which would adversely affect the siting of the expanded stack in this proposed location. There are three major aquifer systems underlying the proposed project area, including the surficial, intermediate and Floridan aquifer system. The surficial aquifer, extending from the top of the water table to a depth of approximately 60 feet, contains overburden and sands that have replaced the original "matrix" formation of phosphate ore which has been mined. The intermediate aquifer system underlies the surficial aquifer, with its upper portion having very low permeability, extending approximately 125 feet in thickness, and containing some water bearing zones which are not laterally continuous in the project area. The major producing zone, consisting of sandy limestone material, is located in the lower portion of the intermediate aquifer. There is a confining unit approximately ten feet in thickness, known as the "Tampa clay", at the very bottom of the intermediate aquifer, separating it from the Floridan aquifer. The Floridan aquifer system is a highly productive limestone aquifer, several hundred feet in thickness, that is the primary source of municipal drinking water and industrial water supplies in the area. The preparation of the site will begin with the removal of various materials deposited in the area during mining operations which have already taken place, and the diversion of surface water from the area. The site will be dewatered by allowing water to flow from the site into other mined-out portions of the Kingsford Mine further to the south. This dewatering process will not discharge any water to the waters of the State. After dewatering, the site will be graded to remove any materials that could potentially puncture the liner. The presence of existing wells in the project site will also be addressed by IMCF as part of its site preparation activities. Thirty-eight wells were previously installed in the project area, thirty-three of which were recharge wells that were used to drain water from the surficial aquifer system down to lower aquifer systems prior to mining. Twenty of these wells have been physically located, and IMCF will insure that these wells are abandoned and plugged in accordance with currently applicable regulatory requirements. The remaining eighteen wells in the project area cannot be physically located and plugged because they have been destroyed or otherwise impacted by mining operations. IMCF will install circular concrete caps, three feet in thickness and of varying diameters, over the former locations of these wells which have been determined using an analysis and evaluation of historical surveys and aerial photography, as well as computer modeling. It was established through the testimony of Richard Fountain and Dr. Nadim Fuleihan, who were accepted as experts in geological evaluation and consultation, and civil and geotechnical engineering, respectively, that these caps will reliably encompass the locations of these eighteen former wells, and will, further, maintain the structural integrity and stability of the lined gypsum stack. IMCF has provided reasonable assurances to the Department that the construction and operation of the proposed additional gypsum stack will not result in discharges that will cause pollution in violation of statutory provisions or Departmental rules or standards designed to protect surface and ground water quality. As discussed elsewhere herein, IMCF will include an extensive groundwater quality containment/protection system in this project, the essential elements of which include the slurry wall, synthetic liner and underdrain system. Surface waters will not be adversely affected by dewatering of the project area prior to construction, nor by rainfall that strikes disturbed areas during construction due to the diversion of such waters into the Kings ford Mine water recirculation system, thereby preventing direct discharge to surface waters of the State. Construction of the new gypsum stack will increase the area at the New Wales Complex that will catch rainfall and direct it towards the pond water recirculation system. However, based on the evidence presented by Dr. Fuleihan, even under extreme rainfall conditions there is a very low probability that IMCF would have to discharge pond water from the emergency holding pond, and even under this unlikely condition, IMCF has the capability of implementing a program to treat and reuse pond water in its production processes, and will not have to discharge pond water to surface waters of the State. The proposed one layer synthetic liner which IMCF will install with the new stack can reasonably be expected to prevent pollution of the ground water which would violate applicable statutory provisions, rules or standards. It was established through the testimony and evidence presented on behalf of IMCF, and particularly the evidence presented by Dr. Fuleihan, that the proposed liner to be used by IMCF is at least five times more protective (less permeable) than clay liners, and eight times more protective (less permeable) than the design liner which would be required by the Department's policy statement concerning the lining of gypsum stack expansion projects. This project will essentially involve zero discharge to ground water due to the extremely low permeability of the liner material. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Garlanger, any impacts reasonably expected to occur through liner seepage and defects would not result in an exceedence of applicable primary drinking water quality standards at the base of the surficial aquifer underlying the gypsum stack expansion area. No impacts at all were projected at any point lateral to the edge of the gypsum stack expansion area. In accordance with the terms of the permit the Department proposes to issue, IMCF will be required to monitor ground water quality in order to demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards. IMCF has provided reasonable assurance that it can locate and cap all uncapped recharge wells in the project area, and has proposed a method for capping such wells which is appropriate, and which can reasonably be expected to be effective in preventing the intrusion of pollutants into the ground water through these presently uncapped recharge wells.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Department enter a Final Order approving IMCF's permit application and issuing permit number 1C53-154132. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-5 Preliminary matters which are not proposed findings. Adopted in Findings 4, 6, 8, 24-28. Adopted in Findings 3, 8. Statement of issues and not a proposed finding. 9-10 Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 15. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 14-15 Adopted in Finding 16. Adopted in Findings 1, 11. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 13, 34. Adopted in Finding 13. Rejected in Finding 22 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 29. 22-23 Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 34, 37. 24-31 Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 18-20, and otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 32 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 33-34 Adopted in Finding 23, but otherwise Rejected in Finding 22 and as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 19, but Rejected in Finding 22 and as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings 24, 29, 30. Rejected as irrelevant. 38-39 Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 24, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 29, but otherwise Rejected as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 36, and otherwise as immaterial. Adopted in Finding 36, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and as a conclusion of law. Rejected in Finding 35. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, and without citation to the record as required by Rule 221-6.031(3). Rejected in Findings 21-23 and 35-37. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and as a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Findings 21 and 23, but otherwise Rejected as without citation to the record. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and without citation to the record. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 52-53 Rejected as immaterial since the circumstances of the Gardinier permit differ significantly from the facts in this case. 54 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and as immaterial. There was no explication of any nonrule policy which requires closure of an existing stack. 55-56 Rejected as immaterial. 57-58 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and as a conclusion of law. 59-60 Rejected as a conclusion of law and without citation to the record. Rejected as immaterial and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as simply argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as an incorrect conclusion of law. 64-68 Rejected as immaterial, not based on competent substantial evidence, and without citation to the record. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Finding 1. 2 Adopted in Finding 9. 3 Adopted in Finding 10. 4-5 Adopted in Findings 13, 14. 6-7 Adopted in Finding 12. 8 Adopted in Findings 24, 30. 9 Adopted in Finding 31. 10 Adopted in Finding 32. 11 Adopted in Finding 33. 12-13 Adopted in Finding 34. 14 Adopted in Finding 35. 15 Adopted in Finding 28. 16-17 Adopted in Finding 25. 18 Adopted in Finding 26. 19 Adopted in Finding 27. 20-22 Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 14, 35. Adopted in Findings 1, 11, 13, 17. Adopted in Finding 18. Adopted in Finding 19. Adopted in Finding 20. 28-29 Adopted in Finding 21. 30 Adopted in Finding 22. 31-32 Adopted in Finding 23. Rulings on IMCF's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Finding 1. 2 Adopted in Finding 9. 3 Adopted in Finding 10. 4 Adopted in Finding 13, 14. 5-6 Adopted in Finding 12. 7 8 Adopted in immaterial. Adopted in Finding Finding 4, but otherwise 6. Rejected as 9 Adopted in Finding 8. 10 Adopted in Findings 24, 30. 11 Adopted in Finding 31. 12 Adopted in Finding 32. 13 Adopted in Finding 33. 14-18 Adopted in Finding 34. 19 Adopted in Finding 35. 20 Adopted in Finding 28. 21-22 Adopted in Finding 25. 23 Adopted in Finding 26. 24 Adopted in Finding 27. 25-27 Adopted in Finding 36. 28-29 Adopted in Findings 14, 35. 30 Adopted in Findings 35, 36. 31 Adopted in Findings 1, 11, 13, 17. 32 Adopted in Finding 18. 33 Adopted in Finding 19. 34 Adopted in Finding 20. 35-36 Adopted in Finding 21. 37 Adopted in Finding 22. 38-39 Adopted in Finding 23. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Richard T. Donelan, Jr., Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Robert L. Rhodes, Jr., Esquire Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire P. O. Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent, W. B. Persico, should be issued a permit to construct a commercial marina as described in the Department's Intent to Issue, in Class III waters of the state in Charlotte County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc., was an association of property owners whose property is located in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision located in Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant, W. B. Persico, is the owner of a piece of property located adjacent to the subdivision and applicant for a permit to construct a marina on his property. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency responsible for the regulation and permitting of dredge and fill activities in the waters of the state. Mr. Persico's property is located on a dead end basin canal in Charlotte County, Florida. The canal is a Class III water but is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On July 31, 1989, Mr. Persico applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 75 slip, 5660 square foot commercial marina on his property within this artificial, dead end basin. Because of objections by the Department to several aspects of the proposed project, on February 27, 1990, Mr. Persico submitted a modification proposal in which he eliminated the use of pressure treated lumber for pilings, substituting concrete pilings; incorporated boat lifts in each slip; reduced the number of slips from 75 to 65; committed himself to installing a sewage pump-out facility at the site; committed to creating an inter-tidal littoral shelf planted with mangroves; agreed to face the existing vertical bulkhead seawall in the basin with rip-rap; and incorporated a commitment to include, as a part of his rental contract, long term agreements prohibiting vessel maintenance and liveaboards on boats at the site, and insuring the perpetual use of boat lifts and pump out facilities provided. He now proposes to market the marina as a condominium ownership operation. The basin in which the Persico project is proposed is 136 feet across at the entrance, (the narrowest point), and 326 feet across at the widest point. The length of the basin is more than 900 feet. The docking structure to be created will have fingers extending no more than 39 feet into the water from the existing vertical seawall. It will have a 4 foot wide walkway parallel to and 10 feet from the existing seawall from which the arms will extend 25 feet into the basin. The basin which is the proposed location for the marina is at the end of the easternmost canal in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision. It is located just west of and parallel to US Route 41, and at the entrance point, joins a perimeter waterway which meanders approximately 1 mile seaward toward a lock which joins that waterway to Alligator Creek which is an Outstanding Florida Water. The waterway from the basin through the lock into Alligator Creek and thereafter to the Gulf provides the only navigable access for most vessels moored in the Burnt Store canals and which would be moored in the proposed marina between Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. The lock which joints the Burnt Store canals to Alligator Creek consists of two hydraulically operated swinging gates which are operated by a boater entering or exiting the canal system. This lock was constructed as a part of a 1973 agreement between Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., a developer, and the state to prevent the construction and runoff polluted waters of the canal from freely mingling with the Outstanding Florida Water in Alligator Creek. The lock is now maintained in an open position from November 15 to May 15 because boaters complained of the inconvenience of having to operate the lock system. Available evidence indicates that a complete passage through the lock, one way when closed, takes 15 minutes. No more than 24 boats can complete a round trip in a 12 hour boating day. When the lock is open there is no appreciable delay. The residential lots which abut the Burnt Store canals are still mostly vacant. The City of Punta Gorda has assumed the responsibility of conducting a 5 year water quality monitoring program which was previously agreed to by Punt Gorda Isles, Inc. when the lock was built. The 1973 agreement was amended in 1984 to permit the operation of the lock in a closed position for an entire year if water quality monitoring should indicate a degradation of water quality in either Alligator Creek of the Burnt Store Isles canals. This has not been necessary. The Petitioners fear that pollution generated by the addition of 65 additional boats moored at and operating from the proposed marina will cause the Department to implement that clause and order the lock to operate from a closed position year round. This does not mean that the lock would not be opened for boats, but that it would be closed when not being used. Petitioners contend that the increased usage would create an intolerable traffic jam at the lock which would, for the most part, make their use of the waterway to the Gulf intolerable. Mr. Persico is a former road and bridge contractor. Though he has never owned a marina, at one time he rehabilitated one in the Chicago area. He has owned the property in question here for four years and now plans to develop a condominium ownership marina. When he decided to do so, he hired Mr. James M. Stilwell, an environmental consultant, to prepare and submit to the Department the application for the required dredge and fill permit. Initial discussions between Mr. Stilwell and the Department dealt with many environmental issues. Mr. Stilwell pointed out that the water in the canal might already be stale and avenues were explored to mitigate that problem. They did not discuss the type of docks to be installed or the potential for destruction of mangrove stands along the seawall, but even though the original plan called for the docks to be placed against the seawall, it was to be done in such a way as not to disturb the mangroves. The modified plan removing the docks to a point 10 feet off from the wall will obviate any damage to the mangroves. Admittedly, the original submittal prepared by Mr. Stilwell contained factors which were considered unacceptable to the Department. These included construction of the finger piers with pressure treated wood. To eliminate possible pollution from leaching, the pressure treated wood was replaced with a floating dock using concrete pilings. Liveaboards, and the potential contamination from that activity, have been prohibited. The provision and required use of a sewage pump-out facility should prevent any escape of polluting sewage into the waters of the basin. The use of power hoists at each slip should prevent pollution from bottom paint leaching, and boat maintenance at the marina is to be prohibited. Fueling of the vessels will not be permitted at the site thereby obviating the potential of polluting fuel spills. The construction of a 10 foot wide littoral shelf, planted with mangroves, between the dock and the sea wall will provide increased water filtration and improve water quality. It would also help the development of the fish and wildlife population and would reduce the flushing time. Air released into the water from the use of the boat lifts should add oxygen and contribute to improved water quality. At the present time, the ambient water quality in the basin, as it pertains to dissolved oxygen, is probably below standards in the lower depths of the basin, and of the outside channels as well, due to poor light penetration. The channel depth is anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. The oxygen level at the bottom is undoubtedly depleted. Mangroves are currently located along 300 feet of the 1,300 foot seawall. Mr. Stilwell's proposal, and that approved by the Department, does not call for removal of the mangroves, but they would be built around or possibly trimmed. Mr. Stilwell is of the opinion that provision for trimming of the mangroves is inherent in the granting of the permit though such permission was not specifically sought. There is no evidence to contradict this thesis. Water quality issues were raised subsequent to the filing of the original application, and the facility as now planned is designed to minimize impacts on the environment as best as can be done. Water quality would be improved, or at worst not adversely affected, by the prohibitions against liveaboards and fueling, the provision of boat lifts and a pump station, and the prohibition against other structures beyond the dock and slips. Flushing of the water is important considering the fact that the dissolved oxygen content in the water is already low. However, Mr. Stilwell is satisfied, and it would so appear, that water quality would be improved by the implementation of the proposals as included in the conditions to the permit. Mr. Stilwell, admittedly, did no dissolved oxygen tests because they were not considered as a part of the permit application. If the Department requests them, they are done, but they were not requested in this case. It is clear that the original application did not address all the environmental concerns that Petitioners feel are pertinent. Nonetheless, those items already discussed were treated, as were turbidity control during construction. As to others of concern to Petitioners, many are included in the state standards and need not be specifically addressed in the application. The Department considered the application in light of the state standards, and by the use of the conditions appended to the Intent to Issue, provided for the water quality and other environmental standards to be sufficiently addressed and met. In his February 22, 1990 letter to the Department, Mr. Stilwell directly addressed the public interest concerns including the mangroves and the construction of the littoral shelf. The Department was satisfied that the public interest criteria were met, and considered the plans to be environmentally sound. They appear to be so. Petitioners have raised some question as to the effect of the 39 foot long dock fingers interfering with navigation within the basin. Mr. Stilwell does not feel that the facility would create this problem, even at the narrowest point, and it is so found. The width of the canal there is 136 feet. The portion of the slip designed to accommodate vessels is no more than 25 feet long, and presumably, vessels of a length much greater than that would not visit the basin. Even subtracting 39 feet from the 136 feet narrow point, 97 feet of turning space remains, and this is almost four times the length of the normal vessel anticipated in the basin. Mr. Stilwell did not address the subject of the lock as it relates to navigation, but primarily as it relates to the impact on water quality and the environment. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that keeping the lock open on a year round basis would not trigger a change to the ongoing program under the agreement between the state and Punta Gorda Isles and result in the lock being closed year round. Mr. Shultz, the environmental specialist with the Department, reviewed the application here initially for file completeness, and when all required information was in, made a site visit. He evaluated the application and the attachments for permitability. For Class III waters, the project must meet water quality standards outlined in the Department's rules. Only one of the water quality criteria, that of dissolved oxygen, was shown to be not met. Since the water was already below that standard, the test to be applied then is whether the project will create some improvement." In Mr. Shultz' opinion, planting the mangroves, as proposed by the applicant, does this, as does the use of the lifts. The existing mangroves will not be impacted by the project as it is proposed, and the use of rip-rap, as proposed, will provide additional surface area for organisms which will improve the water quality. When first reviewed, the Department had some concern about on-water storage of boats. These concerns were treated by the use of hoists to hold the boats out of the water when not in use, and as a result, pollutants will not be introduced by bottom paint leaching and, presumably, bilge pumping. Standard conditions included in all Department Intents to Issue, require the project to comply with applicable state water quality standards or to give assurances that such general standards for surface waters and Class III waters will be met. In this case, Mr. Shultz is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that water quality standards will be maintained, and there was no evidence presented by the Petitioners to contradict this. Once water quality standards are shown to be protected, then the project is balanced against the public interest criteria outlined in the statute. Here, the requirement is for a showing that the project is not contra to the public interest. It does not, because of its nature, require a positive showing that the project is in the public interest. In his opinion this project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, (it will have no environmental effect on other property). It will not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife in their habitats, (the planting of mangroves will provide a net improvement to species habitat in the area). The project will not adversely affect navigation, flow of water, or erosion, (the width and length of the dock system appear to pose no threat to navigation in the basin and there would appear to be no obstruction or potential therefor as a result of this project; the project is within a no-wake zone; and the size of vessels is limited by the slip size). The permit will not adversely affect marine productivity, (there is currently very little productivity in the area now since waters below 0 depth of 6 feet are already low in oxygen, and the project would, at least minimally, improve this condition). The project is permanent and would not adversely affect historical or archeological resources in the area, (there are no objects or known resources in the area, but a standard condition in the permit requires immediate notification if known resources or objects are found). The project would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed in the area since the area is currently a real estate development which is far from completely built. Based on his consideration of these criteria, Mr. Shultz concludes that the project is not contrary to the public interest and this appears to be a valid conclusion. There appears to be no evidence of sufficient weight, presented by the Petitioners, either through direct evidence or through cross examination of the applicant and Department witnesses that would tend to diminish the credibility of Mr. Shultz' analysis. If there are subsequent violations, the Department has enforcement action available. There is, consistent with the multiple use zoning category applied to the area across the basin from the marina, the potential for up to an additional 100 docks to be constructed in the basin beyond those treated here. Nonetheless, the Department does not consider 165 boats to be a problem either in the basin or at the lock. This is not necessarily a supportable conclusion, however. Those 100 additional docks do not currently exist and their potential should not be considered in determining whether to approve the permit under consideration here. In opposition to the applicant, Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth both indicated that the addition of 65 more boats would seriously overtax the operation of the lock and make it difficult, if not hazardous, to operate boats in that area between the Burnt Store Isles subdivision and Alligator Creek. Both individuals agree, and it is so found, that in general, motor boats pollute to some degree the waters on which that are operated as a result of oil leaks from engine operation, leakage of bilge oil, escape of sewage, and leaching of copper paint and other solvents. In addition, manatee have been seen in the area, and the increase of boating operations could present some hazard to the manatee population. There is, however, no indication that a manatee population is permanently in residence there or is even there frequently. It is also accepted that boat wake has an adverse effect on sea walls, and all of these factors should have been and, in fact were, considered in the analysis of the permitability of the project. The concerns of Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth were echoed by Mr. Gunderson who, over 30 years operating boats, has seen what he considers to be a definite lack of concern for the environment by many boaters who pump bilges directly into the water, throw debris overboard, and use detergents to wash their boats at marinas. He is of the opinion that renters of slips are generally less concerned about water quality than those who live on the water, and take a more cavalier approach to water quality standards. These sentiments are also held by Mr. Young who, over the years, has owned marinas in Connecticut and has observed the approach of nonowning slip users to the water at their disposal. His concerns could be met by the strict enforcement of standards at the marina. Mr. Powell, a nurseryman who owns the lot across the basin from the site of the proposed marina, fishes from his lot and has observed the an increase of pollution in the canal. He routinely sees floating dead fish, palm leaves, cocoanuts, bottles, slicks and other debris, and though he owns a multifamily lot, would have a difficult time putting in many slips since his lot, at the entrance to the basin at the narrow point, would be across from the slips proposed by applicant and their proximity would, he feels, hinder his ability to build out into the basin as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing Permit No. 081679445, to W. B. Persico as modified and outlined in the Intent to Issue dated March 16, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. Accepted but applicable only when the locks are closed. Accepted. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. Accepted as valid when the lock is operated from a closed position. However, the evidence indicates that currently the lock is left open from November 15 to May 15 of each year and this does not cause delay. Accepted if the lock is operated from a closed position. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. FOR THE APPLICANT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: Accepted. and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. Lynch Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc. P.O. Box 956 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent Laniger Enterprises of America, Inc. (Laniger), is liable to Petitioner Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for penalties and costs for the violations alleged in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Laniger is a Florida corporation that owns and operates the WWTP that is the subject of this case, located at 1662 Northeast Dixie Highway, Jensen Beach, Martin County, Florida. The WWTP is referred to in the Department permit documents as the Beacon 21 WWTP. The WWTP Laniger acquired the WWTP in 1988 in a foreclosure action. At that time, the WWTP was in a "dilapidated" condition and was operating under a consent order with the Department. After acquiring the WWTP, Laniger brought it into compliance with the Department's requirements. Laniger's WWTP is commonly referred to as a "package plant."3 The WWTP's treatment processes are extended aeration, chlorination, and effluent disposal to percolation ponds. The WWTP does not have a direct discharge to surface water. It was permitted to treat 99,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Its average daily flow during the past year was about 56,000 gallons. The east side of the WWTP site is adjacent to Warner Creek. On the north side of the WWTP site, an earthen berm separates the WWTP's percolation ponds from a drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. Warner Creek is a tributary to the St. Lucie River. The St. Lucie River is part of the Indian River Lagoon System. The Indian River Lagoon Act In 1989, the St. Johns River Water Management District and the South Florida Water Management District jointly produced a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for the Indian River Lagoon System ("the lagoon system"). For the purpose of the planning effort, the lagoon system was defined as composed of Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River Lagoon, and Banana River Lagoon. It extends from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County to Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County, a distance of 155 miles. The SWIM Plan identified high levels of nutrients as a major problem affecting the water quality of the lagoon system. Domestic wastewater was identified as the major source of the nutrients. The SWIM Plan designated 12 problem areas within the lagoon system and targeted these areas for "research, restoration and conservation projects under the SWIM programs." Department Exhibit 2 at 11-13. Neither Warner Creek nor the St. Lucie River area near Laniger's WWTP is within any of the 12 problem areas identified in the SWIM Plan. With regard to package plants, the SWIM Plan stated: There are numerous, privately operated, "package" domestic WWTPs which discharge indirectly or directly to the lagoon. These facilities are a continual threat to water quality because of intermittent treatment process failure, seepage to the lagoon from effluent containment areas, or overflow to the lagoon during storm events. Additionally, because of the large number of "package" plants and the lack of enforcement staff, these facilities are not inspected or monitored as regularly as they should be. Where possible, such plants should be phased out and replaced with centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. Department Exhibit 2, at 64. In 1990, the Legislature passed the Indian River Lagoon Act, Chapter 90-262, Laws of Florida. Section 1 of the Act defined the Indian River Lagoon System as including the same water bodies as described in the SWIM Plan, and their tributaries. Section 4 of the Act provided: Before July 1, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation shall identify areas served by package sewage treatment plants which are considered a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System. In response to this legislative directive, the Department issued a report in July 1991, entitled "Indian River Lagoon System: Water Quality Threats from Package Wastewater Treatment Plants." The 1991 report found 322 package plants operating within the lagoon system and identified 155 plants as threats to water quality. The 1991 report described the criteria the Department used to determine which package plants were threats: Facilities that have direct discharges to the system were considered threats. Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal; systems located within 100 feet of the shoreline or within 100 feet of any canal or drainage ditch that discharges or may discharge to the lagoon system during wet periods were considered threats. * * * Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal systems located more than 100 feet from surface water bodies in the system were evaluated case-by-case based on [operating history, inspection reports, level of treatment, and facility reliability]. Laniger's package plant was listed in the 1991 report as a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system because it was within 100 feet of Warner Creek and the drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. The Department notified Laniger that its WWTP was listed as a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system soon after the 1991 report was issued. The Department's 1991 report concluded that the solution for package plants threats was to replace them with centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. To date, over 90 of the package plants identified in the Department's 1991 report as threats to the water quality of the lagoon system have been connected to centralized sewage collection and treatment systems. The 1999 Permit and Administrative Order On August 26, 1999, the Department issued Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit No. FLA013879 to Laniger for the operation of its WWTP. Attached to and incorporated into Laniger's 1999 permit was Administrative Order No. AO 99-008- DW43SED. The administrative order indicates it was issued pursuant to Section 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes. That statute pertains to discharges that "will not meet permit conditions or applicable statutes and rules" and requires that the permit for such a discharge be accompanied by an order establishing a schedule for achieving compliance. The administrative order contains a finding that the Beacon 21 WWTP is a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system and that the WWTP "has not provided reasonable assurance . . . that operation of the facility will not cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403, F.S., and Chapter [sic] 62-610.850 of the Florida Administrative Code." The cited rule provides that "land application projects shall not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in surface waters." Most of the parties' evidence and argument was directed to the following requirements of the administrative order: Beacon 21 WWTP shall connect to the centralized wastewater collection and treatment within 150 days of its availability and properly abandoned facility [sic] or provide reasonable assurance in accordance with Chapter 62-620.320(1) of the Florida Administrative Code that continued operation of the wastewater facility is not a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System and will not cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403, F.S. and Chapter 62-610.850 of the Florida Administrative Code. * * * (3) Beacon 21 WWTP shall provide this office with semi annual reports outlining progress toward compliance with the time frames specified in paragraph 1 of this section, beginning on the issuance date of permit number FLA013879-002-DW3P. The administrative order contained a "Notice of Rights" which informed Laniger of the procedures that had to be followed to challenge the administrative order. Laniger did not challenge the administrative order. As a result of an unrelated enforcement action taken by the Department against Martin County, and in lieu of a monetary penalty, Martin County agreed to extend a force main from its centralized sewage collection and treatment facility so that the Laniger WWTP could be connected. The extension of the force main was completed in April 2003. The force main was not extended to the boundary of the Laniger WWTP site. The force main terminates approximately 150 feet north of the Laniger WWTP site and is separated from the WWTP site by a railroad. Correspondence Regarding Compliance Issues On August 21, 2001, following an inspection of the Laniger WWTP, the Department sent Laniger a letter that identified some deficiencies, one of which was Laniger's failure to submit the semi-annual progress reports required by the administrative order. Reginald Burge, president of Laniger and owner of the WWTP, responded by letter to William Thiel of the Department, stating that, "All reports were sent to the West Palm Beach office. Copies are attached." Mr. Thiel testified that the progress reports were not attached to Laniger's letter and he informed Laniger that the reports were not attached. Mr. Burge testified that he subsequently hand-delivered the reports. At the hearing, it was disclosed that Laniger believed its semi-annual groundwater monitoring reports satisfied the requirement for progress reports and it was the monitoring reports that Mr. Burge was referring to in his correspondence and which he hand-delivered to the Department. Laniger's position in this regard, however, was not made clear in its correspondence to the Department and the Department apparently never understood Laniger's position until after issuance of the NOV. On April 10, 2003, the Department notified Laniger by letter that a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system "is now available for the connection of Beacon 21." In the notification letter, the Department reminded Laniger of the requirement of the administrative order to connect within 150 days of availability. On May 9, 2003, the Department received a response from Laniger's attorney, stating that the administrative order allowed Laniger, as an alternative to connecting to the centralized wastewater collection and treatment system, to provide reasonable assurance that the WWTP was not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system, and Laniger had provided such reasonable assurance. It was also stated in the letter from Laniger's attorney that "due to the location of Martin County's wastewater facilities, such facilities are not available as that term is defined in the [administrative] Order."4 On May 29, 2003, the Department replied, pointing out that the administrative order had found that reasonable assurance was not provided at the time of the issuance of the permit in 1999, and Laniger had made no "improvements or upgrades to the facility." The Department also reiterated that the progress reports had not been submitted. On September 29, 2003, the Department issued a formal Warning Letter to Laniger for failure to connect to the Martin County force main and for not providing reasonable assurance that the WWTP will not cause pollution in contravention of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The progress reports were not mentioned in the Warning Letter. The Department took no further formal action until it issued the NOV in August 2005. Count I: Failure to Timely File for Permit Renewal and Operating Without a Permit Count I of the NOV alleges that Laniger failed to submit its permit renewal application at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the 1999 permit, failed to obtain renewal of its permit, and is operating the WWTP without a valid permit. The date that was 180 days before the expiration of the 1999 permit was on or about February 27, 2004. Laniger did not submit its permit renewal application until February 15, 2005. In an "enforcement meeting" between Laniger and the Department following the issuance of the warning letter in September 2003, the Department told Laniger that it would not renew Laniger's WWTP permit. It was not established in the record whether this enforcement meeting took place before or after February 27, 2004. When Laniger filed its permit renewal application in February 2005, the Department offered to send the application back so Laniger would not "waste" the filing fee, because the Department knew it was not going to approve the application. Laniger requested that the Department to act on the permit application, and the Department denied the application on April 6, 2005. The Department's Notice of Permit Denial stated that the permit was denied because Laniger had not connected to the available centralized wastewater collection and treatment system nor provided reasonable assurance that the WWTP "is not impacting water quality within the Indian River Lagoon System." Laniger filed a petition challenging the permit denial and that petition is the subject of DOAH Case 05-1599, which was consolidated for hearing with this enforcement case. Laniger's permit expired on August 25, 2004. Laniger has operated the plant continuously since the permit expired. Count II: Failure to Submit Progress Reports Count II of the NOV alleges that Laniger failed to comply with the requirement of the administrative order to provide the Department with semi-annual reports of Laniger's progress toward connecting to a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility or providing reasonable assurances that continued operation of the WWTP would not be a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. Laniger maintains that its groundwater monitoring reports satisfied the requirement for the semi-annual progress reports because they showed that the WWTP was meeting applicable water quality standards. The requirement for groundwater monitoring reports was set forth in a separate section of Laniger's permit from the requirement to provide the semi-annual progress reports. The monitoring reports were for the purpose of demonstrating whether the WWTP was violating drinking water quality standards in the groundwater beneath the WWTP site. They served a different purpose than the progress reports, which were to describe steps taken by Laniger to connect to a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility. Laniger's submittal of the groundwater monitoring reports did not satisfy the requirement for submitting semi-annual progress reports. There was testimony presented by the Department to suggest that it believed the semi-annual progress reports were also applicable to Laniger's demonstration of reasonable assurances that the WWTP was not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. However, the progress reports were for the express purpose of "outlining progress toward compliance with the time frames specified in paragraph 1." (emphasis added) The only time frame mentioned in paragraph 1 of the administrative order is connection to an available centralized wastewater collection and treatment facility "within 150 days of its availability." There is no reasonable construction of the wording of this condition that would require Laniger to submit semi-annual progress reports related to reasonable assurances that the WWTP is not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. Count III: Department Costs In Count III of the NOV, the Department demands $1,000.00 for its reasonable costs incurred in this case. Laniger did not dispute the Department's costs.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's "groundwater monitoring plan," embodied as a condition in the present operating permit, should be modified at the behest of the Department of Environmental Regulation.
Findings Of Fact On October 2, 1985, the Department issued to Charlotte County a permit to operate a Class I Sanitary landfill, pursuant to Section 403.087 and 403.707, Florida Statutes. A groundwater monitoring plan was part of that permit. One of the purposes of the groundwater monitoring plan was to detect any leachate plume of pollutants which might migrate off the site of the landfill in the groundwater. In accordance with the groundwater monitoring plan, as part of its conditions, the landfill has four monitoring wells, MW-1 - MW-4. One of those monitoring wells, MW-1, was established as a background well. Two of the monitoring wells, numbers 2 and 4, were installed as "interceptor" and "intermediate" wells. The fourth monitoring well is a "compliance well." The purpose of the background well at the landfill site is to determine the quality of the groundwater as it comes onto or enters the property subject to the operating permit. Specific condition number 2 of the monitoring plan incorporated, in the permit, required that once a year, beginning with the first quarter, sampling wells MW-1 and MW-2 should be analyzed for certain synthetic, organic compounds. Eight synthetic, organic compounds (SOCs) were tested for in accordance with Rule 17-22.104(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Those compounds were as follows: Trichloroethylene; Tetrachloroethylene; Carbon Tetrachloride; Vinyl Chloride; 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane; 1, 2-Dichloroethane; Benzene; and Ethylene-dibromide. On December 9, 1985, the Department received the results of the chemical analysis performed by its laboratory in Tallahassee on the samples collected by district personnel on August 5, 1985. Those test results indicate the presence of the following compounds in well MW-1: Ethylbenzene at a concentration of 1.0 micrograms per liter, Methylenechloride at a concentration of 4.5 micrograms per liter, Trichloroethane at a concentration of 3.2 micrograms per liter, Toluene at 2 micrograms per liter, Xylene at 2.4 micrograms per liter, and Acetone at 40 micrograms per liter, as well as other "purgables" at an aggregate of 30 micrograms per liter. On the basis of this analysis, the Department informed the County that it would modify the County's groundwater monitoring plan by requiring it to monitor for "purgables", (synthetic, organic compounds) in all four wells on a quarterly basis. The original groundwater monitoring plan had required monitoring for the eight original SOCs in two of the four wells on an annual basis. This proposed modification would thus modify the conditions of the landfill operation permit held by the County. Since the samples taken on August 5, 1985, further tests have been performed on water samples taken from the four subject wells at the landfill site by both the County and the Department. On December 9, 1985, the County obtained water samples from wells MW-1 and MW-2, which were analyzed for the eight primary SOCs enumerated in the original water monitoring plan. That analysis showed the following: MW-1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane - 1.8 micrograms per liter MW-2 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane - 4.1 micrograms per liter 1, 2-Dichloroethane - 1.1 micrograms per liter The Department took water samples on January 16, 1986, from all four wells. Results of the analyses for SOCs showed that as of that date, MW-1, which had been the well testing "positive," which resulted in the proposed change in the permit and monitoring plan was, on January 16, free of synthetic, organic compounds. Wells MW-2 and MW-3 were also free of purgables. The analysis of water sample from well MW-4 showed that it contained 4.67 micrograms per liter of Benzene, 1.58 micrograms per liter of Chlorobenzene, and 8.27 micrograms per liter of 1, 2- Dichloroethane. Sampling the wells MW-1 and MW-2 on March 13, 1986, the County analyzed for the complete list of "purgables" or SOCs with the result that well MW-1 was shown to contain 1.8 micrograms per liter of Ethylbenzene and 2.7 micrograms per liter of Toluene. Well MW-2 contained 1.3 micrograms per liter of Ethylbenzene and 2.0 micrograms per liter of Toluene. Almost two months later, on May 5, 1986, the Department sampled wells MW-1, MW-3 and MW-4, finding that MW-1 contained no purgables; MW-3 contained 1 microgram per liter of Methylenechloride (an isolated occurrence of this compound); and well MW-4 contained 1 microgram per liter of Chlorobenzene, 2 micrograms per liter of 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene, 10 micrograms per liter of Toluene, 2 micrograms per liter of Cis-1, 2, Dichloroethane and 6 micrograms per liter of "other purgables. Thus, it can be seen that in the August 1985 test, the first monitoring well tested, MW-1, contained SOCs. At the later test performed in December, that well contained SOCs in the form of Trichloroethane and yet on January 16, 1986, the well was free of detectable SOCs. On March 13, 1986, however, that well was shown to contain Ethylbenzene and Toluene. On the other hand, on the May 5, 1986, sample, the well contained no detectable purgable compounds. On the December 9 test, it can be seen that well MW-2 contained Trichloroethane and Dichloroethane and yet on January 16 was free of any detectable SOCs. However, on March 13, 1986, well MW-2 contained Ethylbenze and Toluene. Well MW-3 was free of SOCs at the December test, but on May 5, 1986, contained Methylenechloride, although in a very slight concentration, which could have resulted from contaminated testing equipment. Well MW-4 contained, in December, the above-noted concentrations of Benzene, Chlorobenzene, and Dichloroethane. On March 13, 1986, wells MW-3 and MW-4 were not tested. The Department's test of May 5, 1986, sampled MW-1, MW-3 and MW-4. On that date MW-4 contained Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzene, Toluene, Dichloroethane, and "other purgables." Thus, in consecutive samples taken and analyzed by the Department and the County since the date of its proposed modification of the groundwater monitoring plan, it has appeared that organic compounds detected in one sampling did not appear or were below the detection limits in subsequent analyses and yet showed up in other monitoring wells. It is especially significant, however, that well MW-4, which is the well farthest "down" the groundwater gradient and is indeed the compliance well for assessing whether the landfill is performing within the regulatory bounds of its operating permit has, whenever tested, demonstrated the presence of the above-noted contaminants. The fact that some wells demonstrate the presence of contaminants and on a later test, test negative for those contaminants was shown by the Department to likely occur because of variables attributable to rainfall. The amounts and occurrence of rainfall' can play a significant role in determining whether the concentrations in any amount exist in the monitoring wells and can determine in part what concentrations are found in samples from those monitoring wells. The compounds move through the soil or reside in the soil and the rainfall may cause certain compounds to be washed or leached out of the soil in varying amounts and at varying rates. Sampling shortly after a heavy rainfall might result in detection of certain compounds not detectable during a dry period or might increase the amounts detectable. The absence or slight concentrations of the subject contaminants in a well which increase with later samples would indicate that the leachate or contaminant "plume" in the groundwater is passing through that well. The down gradient well, MW-4, is the compliance well and is located down gradient from the perimeter ditch around the landfill. On both the samples taken in January and in May, that well was shown to be contaminated with SOCs as depicted above. Thus, it has been established that there are some leachate contaminant plumes moving in the groundwater through the location of that well, which establishes the likelihood that the leachate in the landfill will migrate off site by the flow of the groundwater. Thus, since DER issued the proposed modification of the monitoring plan, four additional groundwater samplings have revealed more SOCs at the landfill site. SOCs have been found in all wells at one time or another in detectable amounts. The presence or absence of SOCs and the varying amounts present at various sampling times at various wells is explained by variations in the migration rate of the contaminants due to variations in frequency and amount of rainfall percolating into and flowing through the substrate in which the wells are located. Groundwater in the area of the landfill is not well-protected from waste contamination. The landfill is located in an area where the groundwater table is one to two feet above the surface level during the wet season and only four to five feet below the surface level in the dry season. The landfill is not lined with clay or another impervious or semi-impervious material which could retard the migration of contaminants from the landfill itself into the groundwater acquifer. Because of this, ground water can migrate upward into the waste in the landfill during the wet season and the waste in the landfill can percolate into the groundwater acquifer in a downward and outward direction during the dry season. Additionally, the south and west slopes of the landfill are exposed and waste is thus exposed to the water contained in the perimeter ditch around the landfill, which water is connected hydrologically to the groundwater acquifer. The landfill is the only public solid waste disposal site in Charlotte County and thus receives all manner of waste, including some hazardous waste. Leachate contaminant plumes have already developed on the landfill site and may be in the process or may already have migrated off the site. This site is the only municipal landfill in the seven-county South Florida District of the Department where the SOCs are being detected in the groundwater. The groundwater in the area outside the landfill is designated as G-II, which is usable as a drinking water source. It is appropriate to sample the groundwater more frequently in the vicinity of such a landfill when that groundwater is designated as a drinking water supply. Although well number 1 was originally designated as a background well to check the background chemical status of the water before it migrates down gradient to the landfill site, that well, although located generally up gradient of the groundwater flow, has been shown to contain SOCs which in all probability emanated from the landfill. This is because the County has periodically added water from the landfill itself into the perimeter ditch around the landfill causing groundwater flow to move in both directions laterally from the ditch. Finally, although the Petitioner contends that some of the contamination found in the samples is a result of improper testing and contamination with laboratory solvents, the potential for laboratory contamination of the samples and sampling equipment is a possible explanation (although not proven) only for those SOCs found that are common laboratory solvents. Only Methylchloride, which occurred in one isolated sample, and the compound Toluene fit into this category of possible laboratory contaminants. The remaining SOCs found in the samples are not common laboratory solvents and therefore are present in the samples due to their presence in the groundwater itself from which the sample was taken.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the modified groundwater plan proposed by the Department in the December 18, 1985, letter to Charlotte County should be adopted into the groundwater monitoring plan for the Charlotte County landfill. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of November 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November 1986. APPENDIX - CASE NO. 86-0084 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 - 18. Accepted Rejected as not established by the evidence presented. Accepted, but dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as to its asserted import. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, except as to the last clause. Accepted. Rejected as to its asserted import. Accepted, but not dispositive of the materia issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 - 20. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew G. Minter, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Charlotte County 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948 Douglas L. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the rules promulgated by the Department of Environmental Regulation require the Respondent to employ the services of a state certified water system operator to operate the water systems at the two business locations involved in these proceedings.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was responsible for the operation of two water systems. One water system is located on Highway 92 West, Winter Haven, Polk County. The other water system is located on State Road 37 South, Mulberry, Polk County. The restaurant and bar business operated at the Winter Haven location is known as the Rainbow Club. Customers eat food and drink beverages prepared with water from the on site water system. The system serves at least twenty- five individuals daily, at least sixty days out of the year. The convenience store business operated in Mulberry serves ice tea, juices, and coffee to customers which is prepared with water from the on site water system. The system serves at least twenty-five individuals daily, at least sixty days out of the year. During the recent past, the Respondent retained a certified operator to meet the state requirements. He was not satisfied with the operator for the following reasons: (1) He had to show the man how to chlorinate the water. (2) The operator took the required chlorine samples from water that had not been chlorinated. (3) Visits were not made to the site as scheduled. (4) The pump at one of the establishments was harmed by the certified operator. (5) The expense of four hundred dollars a month for the testing of three sites operated by the Respondent was too much money. The Respondent wants to be able to chlorinate the water and maintain the systems himself. He has professional experience regulating the chemical balance of water in swimming pools. The samples he turned into the lab himself were good. The Respondent also wants to keep the old well next to the convenience store in Mulberry. He disagrees with the Department's request that he abandon the well because he needs it for an adjoining piece of property. This well is used for lawns, not for the convenience store business. The Department is amenable to the Respondent maintaining his own systems if he is certified to do so. The next examination is scheduled for November 1990.
The Issue Did Respondents violate the provisions of Rules 62-550.518(3), 62-555.320(4)(8), 62-560.410(2)(c), 62555.350(2), and 62-555.345, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, Case Nos. 96-653PW2442B and 96- 653PW2442C dated June 9, 1997?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department, through the Polk County Health Department, under the authority of an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection, was the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for inspecting and clearing Public Water Systems in Polk County Florida under Section 403.121, Florida Statutes. SDS Properties Investors Group, Inc. (SDS) is a Florida corporation authorized to do business as Budget Motel. SDS is owned by Shaikh. Sanitary surveys are conducted by the Department every three years and include the inspection of Public Water Systems (PWS) . On January 26, 1996, the Department conducted a routine sanitary survey of Budget Motel (Budget) located at 1418 Highway 17 South, Lake Wales, Florida, which should have included Budget's public water system, PWS 6532442. However, Polk County's inspector, Henry Tagioff, was shown a well, by a Budget employee, that was located on the adjacent property owned by Smokey's Mobile Home Park (Smokey's) and not a part of Budget's water system. Tagioff was not aware that the well he inspected was owned by Smokey's and not on Budget's property. During the inspection, Tagioff noted several violations and advised the Budget employee that Tagioff needed to discuss these violations with Shaikh. On January 29, 1996, Tagioff and Lee Forgey, another Polk County employee, met with Shaikh to discuss the violations noted by Tagioff on January 26, 1996. During this meeting, Shaikh, Tagioff, and Forgey discussed the violations previously found by Tagioff on January 26, 1996, concerning the well on Smokey's property. At no time during this meeting did Shaikh advise Tagioff or Forgey that neither he nor Budget own the well under discussion. The record is not clear, but sometime between January and May 1996, Budget's well had collapsed and was not useable. Subsequent to Budget's well collapsing, Shaikh contracted with George Dunham, after obtaining Smokey's permission, to connect Budget's water system (PWS6532442) to Smokey's well. At the time of connecting Budget's water system to Smokey's well, Dunham advised Shaikh that this was only a temporary solution and gave Shaikh a proposal for a new well since Budget's old well could not be repaired. On May 2, 1996, Tagioff made a reinspection of Budget's water system and found that Budget's well had collapsed and was inoperable, and that Budget had connected to Smokey's well to furnish water to the motel and its guests. Tagioff advised Shaikh that Budget would need a new well since its old well was inoperable and the connection to Smokey's well was only temporary. On May 21, 1996, Mark Fallah, a Polk County employee, conducted a site inspection and prepared a report for use in connection with Budget's application with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for a new well permit. In connection with Fallah's site inspection and report, the Department advised Shaikh by letter dated May 21, 1996, of certain things concerning the new well that had to be completed prior to placing the well into public use. The letter provides in pertinent part as follows: Upon completion of the drilling and the verification of the grouting procedure by the Water Management District, the following items, as required by Chapters 62-555 and 62550 of the Florida Administrative Code, are to be completed prior to this water system being placed into public use. * * * 2. A continuous chlorination unit that is electrically interlocked with the well pump circuit. * * * A flow measuring device is required on all Non-Community Water Systems. A copy of the well completion report must be furnished to this office by the well driller within thirty (30) days after the well installation. Bacteriological clearance of the well must be performed by submitting twenty (20) consecutive water samples for analysis to an HRS certified laboratory. A maximum of two (2) samples per day taken at least six hours apart may be collected. Additional samples may be required until twenty (20) consecutive satisfactory samples are received. * * * After the well and plant construction is completed, contact our office for an inspection so that written clearance can be issued. It is prohibited for any Public water system to be placed into use without clearance being issued from this department. (Emphasis Furnished). SWFWMD approved Budget's new well application and issued Budget Permit No. 579811.01 for drilling a new well. However, upon completion of the new well, there were certain conditions that had to be met as indicated in the letter from the Department dated May 21, 1996. On May 31, 1996, and July 10, 1996, Fallah inspected Budget's new water system for compliance and, on both occasions, found that Budget had failed to install the chlorination unit, the flow meter, and had not submitted a well completion report or bacteriological samples. On July 15, 1996, the Department issued a Warning Notice to Shaikh advising him that the system could not be used until approved by the Department. For enforcement purposes, the file was transferred to Lewis Taylor, enforcement officer for drinking water systems for Polk County. On November 14, 1996, Taylor conducted an inspection of Budget's water system and reported that: (1) Budget's well had been placed into service without approval from the Department; (2) there was no chlorinator in operation; (3) there was no flow meter; (4) the Department had not received any bacteriological samples since November 1995; (5) there was no certified operator servicing the motel's water system; and (6) Budget had not provided public notice to its customers of its failure to monitor its drinking water. A second Warning Notice was issued by the Department and furnished to Shaikh on November 22, 19-96, which in substance advised Shaikh that Budget was in violation of Rules 62-550 and 62- 555, Florida Administrative Code, for its: (1) failure to obtain the Department's clearance before placing its new well in service; (2) failure to provide quarterly bacteriological samples; (3) failure to maintain proper chlorine residual in the water system; failure to provide a flow meter in the water system; (5) failure to provide public notification to its customers that its water system had failed to comply with Rule 62-550, Florida Administrative Code; and (6) failure to provide the Department with verification of Budget retaining a certified operator to oversee the operation and maintenance of its water system. On March 3, 1997, Tagioff and John GoPaul, US Environmental Agency, inspected Budget's water system and found that: (1) there was no chlorine residual in the system; (2) the chlorination unit located at the motel was not in use; (3) there was no flow meter within the system; (4) no quarterly bacteriological samples had been furnished to the Department; and the well had not been cleared for use by the Department. Based on the testimony of Lewis Taylor which I find credible, the Department has expended the following in the inspection of Budget's water system: (1) 20.25 hours of professional time at a rate of $30.00 per hour for a total of $607.50; (2) three hours of clerical time at a rate of $15.00 per hour for a total of $45.00; and (3) $27.00 in travel costs and postage. The total amount expended in the inspection of this water system by the Department was $679.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of the violations as charged and requiring Respondents to comply with the Orders for Corrective Action as set out in the Notice of Violation and Orders of Corrective Action in Case Nos. 96-653PW2442B and 96-653PW2442C. It is further recommended that Respondents be required to pay the costs and expenses of investigating the violations and prosecuting this matter in the amount of $679.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740 Habib U. Shaikh 4014 Billingsgate Road Orlando, Florida 32839-7515 SDS Properties Investors Group, Inc. d/b/a Budget Motel 1418 Highway 17 South Lake Wales, Florida 33853
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Permit This case involves a 65-acre site in north Lee County owned by the City of Ft. Myers. At all material times, the land has been zoned under industrial- equivalent designations. By leases that are not part of this record, Ft. Myers has leased 21.4 acres of the 65 acres to various governmental agencies, including Lee County, Lee County Sheriff's Office, and possibly the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). The following facilities are presently located on the 21.4 acres: Juvenile Detention Center, Lee County Stockade, Price Halfway House, Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and Emergency Operations Center. By lease dated September 20, 1993, Ft. Myers leased the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres to Lee County for a term of 50 years. This lease allows Lee County to use the 43.6 acres for $1 per year, but only for the operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Under Paragraph 20 of the lease, Ft. Myers may terminate the lease if Lee County ceases to operate the facility. Likewise, Lee County may terminate the lease if the Department of Juvenile Justice ceases to fund the County's operation of the facility. Under the lease, preference is given to juvenile residents of Ft. Myers. Paragraph 22 of the lease allocates liability to Lee County for claims or damages arising from released fuels, including from pipelines. The lease is not assignable without Ft. Myer's consent. By agreement dated December 17, 1993, Ft. Myers consented to the sublease of the entire 43.6- acre parcel to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of the construction of a juvenile residential commitment facility. Lee County receives no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice. In Paragraph 10 of the agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice agrees to maintain, at its expense, "all improvements of every kind . . .." Lee County must make any repairs to improvements if the Department of Juvenile Justice fails to do so. By subsequent agreement, Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS) became the agent for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the design, permitting, and construction of the juvenile justice facility. By Application for a surface water management permit executed June 16, 1994, DMS applied for a surface water management permit for the construction and operation of a 10.9- acre project known as the Lee County Juvenile Commitment Facility. This 10.9-acre project is part of the 43.6 acres leased to Lee County and subleased to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The application states that the existing 21.4 acres of developed sites, which are leased under separate agreements to different governmental entities, "will be permitted as is." The Staff Review Summary of Respondent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) describes the purpose of the application as follows: This application is a request for Authorization for Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve a 10.9 acre Institutional project discharging to Six Mile [Cypress] Slough via onsite wetlands and road- side swales. The application also requests Authorization for Operation of a surface water management system serving a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Staff recommends approval of both authorizations with conditions. The Staff Review Summary accurately states that the owner of the land is Ft. Myers. Of questionable accuracy is the statement that Ft. Myers leases to Lee County the 21.4 acres devoted to the five existing facilities. Although Lee County probably is a lessee of some of these parcels, the Lee County Sheriff's Office is the lessee (or perhaps sublessee) of at least two parcels. One of the other parcels may involve a state agency, again under either a lease or a sublease. The Staff Review Summary inaccurately states that the project developer is Lee County. The project developer is DMS or its principal, the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Staff Review Summary reviews the existing development on the 21.4 acres. The improvements consist of the 4.8-acre Juvenile Detention Center, 2.9- acre Price Halfway House, 4.7-acre Lee County Stockade, 5.1-acre Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and 3.9-acre Emergency Operations Center. The Staff Review Summary states that the footer of the Juvenile Detention Center was inspected in February 1980. The site drains into a 1.2- acre retention pond, which was a natural pond dug out to accept the drainage from the Juvenile Detention Center. A small amount of surface flow drains from the Juvenile Detention Center to a perimeter swale that drains west into a ditch running along Ortiz Avenue. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Price Halfway House was issued in October 1982. The site drains into the 1.2-acre retention pond, which was apparently enlarged a second time to accept the additional flow. A small amount of the flow from the Price Halfway House also drains to the perimeter swale and west into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Lee County Stockade was issued on May 25, 1976. SFWMD issued an exemption and a determination that no permit was required for two additions to the stockade in 1988 and 1989. For the additional impervious surface added by these additions, one inch of water quality treatment was provided. After the abandonment of a pumping system, drainage of the stockade site consists of water building up in existing onsite ditches and sheet flowing into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary adds that a small retention area constructed at the southeast corner of the site treats stormwater from the stockade and the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. The summary adds that a small amount of stormwater drains north into an exterior swale that drains into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department in August 1977. Stormwater from the site sheetflows to exterior swales north and south of the building. When the swales fill up, the water flows into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Emergency Operations Center on October 11, 1977. Drainage from the center flows directly into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. Under "Water Quality," the Staff Review Summary reports that SFWMD "did not require compliance with discharge rate or criteria" based on Section 1.6, Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the [SFWMD] March 1994 (Basis of Review), which contains guidelines issued by SFWMD for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. The summary adds that there have been no "water quality or quantity complaints associated with this site over the past 18 years since its initial construction." Noting that a surface water management permit is requested for the entire 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary states that the above-described drainage systems for the five existing facilities are "operational and will remain as they now exist." Turning to the proposed development, the Staff Review Summary states that the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres "will also be leased to Lee County by the City for the proposed commitment facilities." The facilities are accurately described as a 5.2-acre halfway house and a 5.7-acre bootcamp, both of which will be drained by internal drainage swales and culverts flowing into detention areas, which will discharge through a control structure into onsite wetlands leading to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Addressing designed discharge rates, the Staff Review Summary acknowledges that the bootcamp's discharge rate will exceed the allowable rate for a 25-year, three-day storm event. The allowable rate is .33 cfs, and the design rate is .37 cfs. The Staff Review Summary explains that this discrepancy results from the use of the minimum size orifice (three inches) in the control structure. Addressing water quality, the Staff Review Summary reports that commercially zoned sites are required to provide one-half inch dry pretreatment for water quality unless reasonable assurance can be provided that hazardous material will not enter the surface water management system. Determining that no hazardous material will be stored or generated on the site, SFWMD did not require the one-half inch dry pretreatment of runoff. Noting that no surface water management permits have ever been issued for any part of the 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary recommends that, subject to the customary Limiting Conditions, SFWMD issue: Authorization for Construction and Operation of a 10.9 acre Institutional Project discharging to Six Mile Cypress Slough via onsite wetlands and roadside swales, Operation of a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Limiting Condition 4 states that the permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the "responsible operational entity accepted by [SFWMD], if different from the permittee." Limiting Condition 8 adds: A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirements in section 9.0, "Basis of Review . . .," has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. Special Condition 11 states: "Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of Lee County." The Permittee and the Entity Responsible for Maintenance The proposed permit consists of two authorizations. The first authorization is for the construction and operation of the surface water management system on the 10.9-acre parcel on which will be constructed the bootcamp and halfway house. The second authorization is for the operation of the existing surface water management system on the already-developed 21.4 acres and the unimproved surface water management system on the remaining 32.7 acres. There are two problems with the designation of Lee County as the entity responsible for maintaining the permitted surface water management systems. Basis of Review 9.1.B states: To satisfy [P]ermit [L]imiting [C]ondition [8], the Permittee must supply appropriate written proof, such as either by letter or resolution from the governmental entity that the governmental entity will accept the oper- ation and maintenance of all the surface water management system components . . .. The authorization for operation of the systems on the 21.4-acre and 32.7-acre parcels does not await any construction. Once the permit is issued, the authorization is effective. Therefore, all prerequisites to the designation must have been satisfied before the operation permit issues. For the 21.4-acre parcel, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County is the lessee or sublessee of all of the parcels underlying the five existing facilities. In fact, it appears that Lee County is not the lessee or sublessee of all of these parcels. Even if Lee County were the lessee or sublessee of these five parcels, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water management system for the five parcels. Contrary to Basis of Review 9.1.B, there is no written agreement by Lee County to assume operational responsibility, nor is there even an actual agreement to this effect. SFWMD's rules sensibly require that written consent be obtained before the operation permit is issued. Likewise, DMS has failed to show that Lee County has agreed to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the surface water management system for the 32.7-acre parcel. Again, SFWMD must obtain written consent before issuing the permit because no construction will precede operation for the surface water management system on this parcel. Unlike the situation as to the 21.4-acre parcel, the 32.7-acre parcel is leased to Lee County as part of the 43.6- acre parcel. But in the December 17, 1993, agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, assumes responsibility for maintaining all improvements, which arguably includes drainage improvements. As between Ft. Myers and Lee County, Lee County assumes secondary liability for the maintenance of all improvements. But the failure of the Department of Juvenile Justice to do so would likely represent a default under the agreement. In such a case, the lease and separate agreement probably would either be in litigation or Lee County would have terminated its obligations under the contracts. In either case, it is unlikely that Lee County would perform its secondary responsibility to maintain the drainage improvements, especially where it is receiving no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice and priority is given to Ft. Myers juveniles in admission decisions. Construction will precede operation as to the 10.9- acre parcel so the parties have an opportunity, even after the construction and operation permit is issued, to secure the necessary written consent before the operation permit goes into effect. But similar deficiencies exist with respect to the 10.9- acre parcel because the same agreement imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, the obligation to maintain improvements. An additional complication arises as to the 10.9-acre parcel. The Department of Juvenile Justice intends to contract with one or more private entities to operate the bootcamp and halfway house, so there is at least one more party that Lee County could claim was responsible for maintenance of the surface water management system. The question of who is responsible for maintaining the surface water management systems is important. Drainage quantities and directions can change if swales clog up with vegetation or other matter. In this case, one roadside swale in the area of the 21.4-acre parcel is blocked with vegetation. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the designated entity has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the existing systems or will assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the proposed system following its construction. Permit for Existing Development Section 1.6, Basis of Review, states: [SFWMD] issues construction and operation permits for proposed surface water management activities and operation permits for existing systems. The criteria herein are specifically designed to apply to proposed activities (construction and operation permits). Therefore, some of the criteria may not be applicable to the permitting of existing systems (operation permits). For example, in some cases, existing systems may not meet flood protection criteria. Criteria deviation for existing systems will be identified in staff reports. SFWMD has produced no evidence explicating the extent to which existing systems, such as the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, are entitled to operating permits without meeting some of the criteria applicable to proposed systems, such as the system on the 10.9-acre parcel. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to explain why certain existing systems might not have to meet certain criteria, such as flood protection criteria. Except for the quantity deviation discussed below, there is nothing in the record disclosing the extent to which SFWMD has waived, or even considered the applicability of, certain or all criteria prior to the issuance of operation permits for the existing systems. In practice, SFWMD does not adhere even to the vague standards implied in 1.6. According to the SFWMD witness, the practice of SFWMD, as reflected in this case as to the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, is to permit existing systems "as is, where is," as long as they have had no reported problems. There are numerous deficiencies in the "as is, where is" unwritten policy, apart from the obvious one that it conflicts with the assurance of 1.6 that only "some of the criteria may not be applicable" to existing systems. First, the record does not define what a "problem" is. Second, the record discloses no means by which reported problems are collected and later accessed, such as by a parcel index. The "as is, where is" policy is an abdication of the limited responsibilities that SFWMD imposes upon itself in 1.6, especially when applied to the present facts. The facts are straightforward. Neither Ft. Myers, Lee County, nor any other party has ever obtained a permit for any surface water management system, despite numerous improvements in the past 20 years requiring such permits, including the construction of a heliport, at which maintenance and refueling of helicopters takes place. In two relatively minor cases, discussed below, SFWMD erroneously determined that no permit was required. In one of those cases, the applicant, Lee County, candidly admitted the existence of a flooding problem. Based on the present record, neither DMS nor SFWMD has justified the issuance of an operation permit for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels based either on Basis of Review 1.6 or on the "as is, where is" unwritten policy. Construction of the five improvements on the 21.4 acres began between 1975 and December 1977 with construction of a portion of the Lee County Stockade building and parking, Emergency Operations Center building and parking, and a now- removed barn for the Lee County Sheriff's Office. At the same time, a lake was dug, probably for fill purposes. By the end of 1977, about 2.39 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface. From 1978 to March 1980, another 0.96 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface by the construction of a perimeter dike and road. During this period, construction commenced on the Juvenile Detention Center, adding another 1.63 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1980 and December 1981, additions were made to the Lee County Stockade building and the lake for an additional 0.45 acres of impervious area. Between December 1981 and March 1984, the Price Halfway House building and parking were constructed, adding another 0.79 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1984 and February 1986, a heliport facility and landing area were constructed for the Lee County Sheriff's Office, adding another 1.01 acres of impervious surface. Between February 1986 and February 1990, an additional 2.31 acres of impervious surface were added through additions to the Lee County Stockade and parking area, juvenile detention center, and Emergency Operations Center parking area. Between February 1990 and April 1993, another addition to the Lee County Stockade added 0.62 acres of impervious surface. An additional 0.17 acres of lake was excavated. During this time, applicable rules and statutes required permits for the construction of "works" affecting surface water, including ditches, culverts, and other construction that connects to, or draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state. The buildings, parking, other impervious surfaces, ditches, swales, dikes, lake excavations, and, at one point, addition of a now- abandoned pump all constituted "works" for which surface water management permits were required. In 1988, Lee County or Ft. Myers applied for an exemption for an addition to the Lee County Stockade. The basis for the claim of exemption was that the parcel consisted of less than 10 acres and the total impervious surface did not exceed two acres. Although rules in effect at the time required consideration of the contiguous 65 acres under common ownership and the total impervious surface for the 9.7-acre "parcel" exceeded two acres, SFWMD erroneously issued an exemption letter. The second instance involving a claim of exemption took place in 1989 when Lee County submitted plans for another addition to the Lee County Stockade, adding 0.51 acres of impervious surface. The submittal acknowledged a "flooding" problem, but promised a master drainage plan for the "entire site." SFWMD determined that no permit would be required due to the promise of a master drainage plan. No master drainage plan was ever prepared. The flooding problem precluded issuance of the operation permit on an "as is, where is" basis for the already-developed 21.4-acre parcel, even assuming that SFWMD adequately justified the use of this unwritten permitting procedure. In fact, SFWMD has not explained adequately its "as is, where is" permitting procedure or even the undelineated permitting criteria referenced in 1.6, Basis of Review. The 65- acre parcel is a poor candidate for preferential permitting of existing systems. The owner and developer constructed the existing systems in near total disregard of the law. The two times that the owner and developer complied with the permitting process involved small additions for which exemptions should not have been granted. In one case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity due to its error calculating minimum thresholds as to the areas of the parcel and the impervious surface. In the other case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity partly in reliance on a promised master drainage plan that was not later prepared. To issue operation permits for the existing systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels would reward the owner and developer of the 65-acre parcel for noncompliance with the law and provide an incentive for similarly situated landowners and developers likewise to ignore the law. Before issuing operation permits on systems that have received no comprehensive review and that have been added piecemeal over the years, SFWMD must evaluate the surface water systems on the entire 65-acre parcel to determine whether they meet all applicable criteria. The "as is, where is" unwritten policy has no applicability where there have been reports of flooding. If SFWMD chooses to dispense with criteria in reliance upon Basis of Review 1.6, it must be prepared to identify and explain which criteria are waived and why. Water Quality Basis of Review 5.2.2 provides that projects that are zoned commercial or industrial, such as the present one, must provide one-half inch of "dry" detention or retention pretreatment, unless reasonable assurances are provided "that hazardous materials will not enter the project's surface water management system." There is no existing or proposed dry detention on the 65 acres. The existing development includes the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, which serves as a heliport. The fueling and maintenance of helicopters means that contaminants may enter the stormwater draining off the site. The functioning of the surface water system on this site is therefore of particular importance. There also may be more reason to question the functioning of the surface water system on this site. It is south of the Lee County Stockade, where flooding has been reported. The heliport site has also been the subject of more elaborate drainage improvements, such as the location of a small retention pond near the Stockade boundary and a pump, the latter of which has since been abandoned. The existing system on the 21.4-acre parcel, as well as the existing and proposed systems on the remainder of the 65 acres, require dry pretreatment for reasons apart from the presence of the heliport. The materials likely to be used with the existing and proposed developments are similar to those found on residential sites. SFWMD and DMS contend that there is therefore no need to require dry pretreatment as to these areas. However, the existing and intended institutional uses, such as jails and bootcamps, represent an intensity of use that exceeds the use typical in areas zoned residential. This increased intensity implies the presence of typical residential contaminants, such as petroleum-based products or cleaning solvents, but in greater volumes or concentrations, if not also, in the case of solvents, different compositions. The lease addresses potential liability for released petroleum. In the absence of a showing that such hazardous materials are prevented from entering the runoff, SFWMD must require dry pretreatment for the systems occupying the entire 65-acre parcel. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quality criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quality criteria. Water Quantity The 65-acre parcel adjoins Ortiz Avenue on the west and property owned by Petitioners on the east and south that is undeveloped except for a borrow pit some distance from the 65- acre parcel. The parcel is roughly 1000 feet east- west and 2700 feet north-south. The proposed halfway house is at the north end of the parcel. The halfway house is situated between a proposed detention pond on the west and a recreation field on the east. A paved road divides the halfway house from the rest of the 65- acre parcel. South of the road are the Lee County Stockade on the west, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, and the Juvenile Detention Center on the east. A berm separates these two sites. The berm runs from the road along the west shore of the twice- enlarged 1.2- acre retention pond and the west boundary of the Price Halfway House, which is south of the Juvenile Detention Center. To the west of the berm, south of the Lee County Stockade, is the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department or heliport facility, which abuts Ortiz Avenue. South of the Aviation Department is an outparcel used by the Florida Department of Corrections that also abuts Ortiz Avenue. East of the outparcel is the proposed halfway house with a proposed detention pond west of the halfway house and south of the outparcel. The Emergency Operations Center, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, is south of the detention pond and surrounded on three sides by the 32.7 acres to be left undisturbed at this time. There are perimeter berms around all of the parcels except for the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, which are served by a single berm, and the Emergency Operations Center, which appears not to be bermed. The prevailing natural drainage is not pronounced either by direction or volume because the land is nearly level. The natural direction of drainage is to the south and west and remains so on Petitioners' land to the east and south and the undisturbed 32.7 acres to the south. The variety of drainage directions within the remainder of the 65- acre parcel reflects the extent to which berms, swales, ponds, pumps, roads, buildings, parking areas, and other works have been added to the northerly parcels. Runoff reaching the northern boundary of the 65 acres will be diverted due west around the proposed detention pond to the swale running along the east side of Ortiz Avenue. Runoff from the recreation field and halfway house building and parking area drain into the proposed detention pond, which releases water through a gravity control device to the Ortiz Avenue swale. There appears to be a connection routing some runoff from the south side of the recreation field to the Juvenile Detention Center, where it travels west in a roadside swale to the Ortiz Avenue swale. A little less than half of the area of the Juvenile Detention Center site drains into perimeter swales along the north and east borders and then to the west before emptying into the Ortiz Avenue swale. The remainder of the Juvenile Detention Center drains into the retention pond. The same is true of the Price Halfway House. The Lee County Stockade drains to each of its borders where the water then runs west along the north or south border to the Ortiz Avenue swale. The southern half of the Lee County Stockade site drains into the small retention pond at the northwest corner of the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. Most of the runoff from the heliport facility runs to the southwest corner of the parcel, which is the location of the abandoned pump. From there, the runoff continues to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Very little if any of the runoff from the heliport enters the small retention pond on the northwest corner of the parcel. The bootcamp drains into the detention pond, which then releases water by a gravity control structure into a portion of the undisturbed 32.7-acres before entering the Ortiz Avenue swale. The Emergency Operations Center site drains in all directions away from the building and parking area, eventually draining into the Ortiz Avenue swale. Stormwater discharge rates from the proposed halfway house and bootcamp are 0.28 cfs and 0.37 cfs. Under SFWMD rules, the allowable maximums in the Six Mile Cypress drainage basin are 0.30 cfs and 0.33 cfs, respectively. SFWMD and DMS contend that the excessive discharge from the bootcamp is acceptable because the gravity control device for the proposed detention pond is of the smallest size allowable, given the indisputable need to avoid clogging and ensuing upstream flooding. Initially, SFWMD approved the discharge rates for the halfway house and bootcamp because, when combined, they did not exceed the total allowable value. However, this approach was invalid for two reasons. First, the two sites contain entirely independent drainage systems separated by several hundred feet. Second, after correcting an initial understatement for the value for the halfway house, the actual total exceeds the maximum allowable total. SFWMD contends that the slight excess is acceptable because of the inability to use a smaller orifice in the gravity control structure. However, the discharge quantity easily could have been reduced by design alternatives, such as enlarging the detention pond, which is mostly surrounded by land that is to be left undisturbed. The ease with which the minimum-orifice problem could have been avoided rebuts the presumption contained in Basis of Review 7.2.A that excessive discharge quantities are presumably acceptable if due to the inability to use a smaller orifice. Also, SFWMD and DMS have failed to show that the effect of the excessive discharge quantities is negligible, so the exception in the SFWMD manual for negligible impacts is unavailable. Neither SFWMD nor DMS provided any reasonable assurance as to the quantity of discharge from the 21.4 acres. Rough estimates suggest it is more likely that the quantity of discharge may greatly exceed the allowable maximum. SFWMD must evaluate the water-quantity issues before issuing operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels and a construction and operation permit for the 10.9-acre parcel. Obviously, if SFWMD determines that all water quantity criteria are met as to the existing systems, it may issue operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels. Otherwise, SFWMD must quantify the extent of the deviation and, if it seeks to waive compliance with any or all quantity standards in reliance on Basis of Review 1.6, evaluate the effect of the waiver and explain the basis for the waiver. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quantity criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quantity criteria. Impacts on Adjacent Lands Petitioners' property is impacted by the above- described drainage in two ways. First, Petitioners' property abutting the east side of Ortiz Avenue, south of the 65 acres, is especially vulnerable to flooding because the Ortiz Avenue swale is not a V-notch, but a half-V. The closed side of the swale prevents the water from running onto Ortiz Avenue. The open side of swale abuts Petitioners' property, so, if the swale's capacity is exceeded, stormwater will be released onto Petitioners' land. Second, perimeter berming along the east side of the 10.9- and 21.4- acre parcels will impede flow off the part of Petitioners' property located to the east of the 65 acres. A swale between the proposed halfway house and the Juvenile Detention Center will receive runoff from a small portion of Petitioners' property to the east and mostly north of the 65 acres. But there is no indication how much runoff from Petitioners' property can be so accommodated, how much runoff is impeded by the existing berm along the east side of the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, and how much runoff will be impeded by the addition of new berms along the east side of the proposed halfway house and bootcamp. Basis of Review 6.8 requires that swales and dikes allow the passage of drainage from off-site areas to downstream areas. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality or quantity impacts on adjacent lands. Neither SFWMD nor DMS obtained topographical information for Petitioners' property, as required by the Basis of Review. Rough estimates suggest that the proposed project may require Petitioners' property to retain considerably more stormwater from the design storm event of 25 years, three days. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact on Petitioners' upstream and downstream land.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of the Department of Management Services for all permits for the operation and construction and operation of surface water management systems on the 65-acre parcel. ENTERED on June 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 19, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Petitioners 1-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-24 (first sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 24 (remainder)-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-53: rejected as subordinate. 54-64 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 64 (second sentence)-66: rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent SFWMD 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as unnecessary. 13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (except for last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-32 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 32 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that the proposed ponds are wet detention. 35 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 35 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-47: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 48-50 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 50 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 51-52, 55-57 (first sentence), and 58: adopted or adopted in substance, although insufficient water quality treatment. 53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance, except after "therefore." None of remainder logically follows from what is said in 1.6. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 62-64: rejected as subordinate, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. 65: rejected as subordinate. 66: rejected as irrelevant. The burden is on the applicant and SFWMD, if it wishes to issue the permits, to provide reasonable assurances as to the adverse impact of the drainage systems. 67-68: rejected as subordinate. 69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 71: rejected as repetitious. 72: rejected as irrelevant, except for past report of flooding, which is rejected as repetitious. 73: rejected as repetitious. 74: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 75 (first three sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 75 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 1 and 2: rejected as irrelevant insofar as the same result is reached with or without the permit modifications. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent DMS 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the excessive discharge was not "caused" by the minimum-sized orifice, only defended on that basis. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that no flooding problems existed. 16: rejected as recitation of evidence. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as irrelevant. 19: adopted or adopted in substance, to the extent that separateness of systems is relevant. 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23-30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, based on the present record. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and relevance. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Russell P. Schropp Harold N. Hume, Jr. Henderson Franklin P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, Fl 33902 O. Earl Black, Jr. Stephen S. Mathues Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Vincent J. Chen Toni M. Leidy South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc. (Saddlebrook), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and is wholly owned by the Dempsey family. Saddlebrook is located on approximately 480 acres in central Pasco County, east of I-75 and south of State Road 54. The Petitioner, Wiregrass Ranch, Inc. (Wiregrass) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and is wholly owned by the Porter family ("the Porters"). Wiregrass owns approximately 5,000 acres of property which extends from Saddlebrook west approximately one mile to State Road 581 and south for approximately four miles. The Respondent, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), is a political subdivision created pursuant to Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida, which exists and operates under the Water Resources Act, Fla. Stat., Ch. 373. SWFWMD is charged with regulating, among other things, surface water management systems in Pasco County. Saddlebrook discharges surface water onto Wiregrass at two locations on the southern and western boundaries of Saddlebrook, known as the south outfall and the west outfall. Saddlebrook's property is part of a drainage basin totalling approximately 1400 acres that contributes runoff to Wiregrass' property. Until approximately 1973, the Saddlebrook property was undeveloped and owned by the Porters. In approximately 1973, the Porters sold the Saddlebrook property to the Refram family, which began developing the property. In approximately 1979, Saddlebrook acquired the property from the Reframs. The Saddlebrook property includes residential development, a conference center, and golf course and tennis facilities. Wiregrass' property, which is largely undeveloped and used for ranching, consists of pine-palmetto flatwoods, wetland strands, isolated wetlands, and improved pastures. The Porters' Civil Action Against Saddlebrook. The Porters instituted a civil action against Saddlebrook, Porter, et al. v. Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., Case No. CA 83-1860, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Pasco County, complaining that post-development discharges from Saddlebrook exceed pre-development discharges. In the civil litigation, the Porters contended that Saddlebrook's peak flow discharges should be returned to pre-development, or 1973, levels. A primary purpose of Saddlebrook's proposed redesign is to return peak flow discharges to those levels that existed in 1973, in response to the Porters' complaints in the civil action. Saddlebrook's current surface water management system is deemed by SWFWMD to be in compliance with Rule 40D-4, and SWFWMD's regulations do not require redesign or modification of the current system. Prior to Saddlebrook's submission of its application, SWFWMD advised Saddlebrook that, because Rule 40D-4 became effective on October 1, 1984, SWFWMD considered that date to be the "pre-development" condition for purposes of evaluating Saddlebrook's discharges. Saddlebrook requested that SWFWMD evaluate its application using 1973 as the pre-development condition. SWFWMD advised Saddlebrook that it would apply 1973 as the pre-development condition if the Porters consented. By letter from the Porters' counsel to SWFWMD dated January 31, 1990, the Porters provided their express consent to SWFWMD's use of 1973 as the pre- development date for purposes of evaluating those discharges relevant to Saddlebrook's MSSW permit application. Saddlebrook's MSSW Permit Application. On or about February 8, 1990, Saddlebrook submitted its application for MSSW permit no. 497318.00, seeking SWFWMD's conceptual approval of the redesign of Saddlebrook's surface water management system. The proposed redesign calls for modification of most of the existing drainage control structures at Saddlebrook and installation of new control structures at several locations, including the south and west outfalls. After submission of its initial application, Saddlebrook made various subsequent submittals in response to SWFWMD requests for additional information. Saddlebrook's response to SWFWMD's requests culminated in final submittals on March 7, 1991 and April 5, 1991. In its various submittals, Saddlebrook provided, among other things, detailed descriptions of all proposed modifications to its drainage system, engineering reports, and computerized flood-routing analyses of runoff from Saddlebrook under pre-development (1973) and post-modification conditions. Saddlebrook provided all information requested, and SWFWMD thereafter deemed its application complete. SWFWMD's Review of Saddlebrook's Application. In the fifteen months following Saddlwbrook's initial February, 1990, submittal, SWFWMD conducted an intensive review of the application. During the course of this review, SWFWMD staff performed numerous field inspections, made an independent determination of all input data to the computer analyses of Saddlebrook's discharges, and made six separate formal requests for additional information. SWFWMD's requests for additional information required, among other things, that Saddlebrook modify various input data and rerun its computer analyses of discharges under the pre-development and post-modification conditions. In addition, SWFWMD required Saddlebrook to perform computer modelling analyses of discharges from Wiregrass' property onto the property of downstream landowners. Because, unlike the Porters, these downstream owners had not provided consent to use 1973 as the relevant pre-development date, SWFWMD required Saddlebrook to model this downstream discharge using a "pre- development" date of 1984. SWFWMD performed its standard review procedures in connection with Saddlebrooks' application. In addition, SWFWMD also performed its own computer-modelling analyses of Saddlebrook's discharges. This modelling was based on input data independently collected by SWFWMD staff in the field and from other sources. SWFWMD staff also met with the Porters' hydrologist, Dr. Gerald Seaburn, and thoroughly reviewed concerns he expressed in connection with Saddlebrook's application. In addressing these concerns, SWFWMD performed additional work, including conferring with an independent soils expert, performing additional field inspections, and modifying the SWFWMD computer modelling analyses based on alternative input parameters suggested by Dr. Seaburn. In reviewing Saddlebrook's application, SWFWMD applied the design and performance criteria set forth in its "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications" ("Basis of Review"), which is incorporated by reference in F.A.C. Rule Chapter 40D-4. Based upon its review of Saddlebrook's application, SWFWMD concluded that Saddlebrook had demonstrated compliance with the design and performance criteria set forth in SWFWMD's Basis of Review and the conditions for permit issuance under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301. By a Staff Report dated April 29, 1991, and Notice of Proposed Agency Action dated May 3, 1991, SWFWMD recommended approval of Saddlebrook's application. Compliance With SWFWMD Permitting Criteria. The design and performance criteria for MSSW permitting set forth in SWFWMD's Basis of Review fall into four categories: (1) water quantity, in terms of peak flow discharges for projects, like Saddlebrook's, located in open drainage basins; (2) flood protection; (3) water quality; and (4) wetlands impacts. Water Quantity. Under the Basis of Review's water quantity standards, SWFWMD requires that projected peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event under the proposed system be reasonably similar to peak flow discharges under the pre- development condition. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's water-quantity standards. This evidence demonstrated that peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event under the proposed system will be less than, but reasonably similar to, pre-development (1973) peak flow discharges. The evidence presented at the formal hearing also demonstrated that, under the proposed system, peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event from Wiregrass' property onto downstream landowners will be less than, but reasonably similar to, 1984 peak flow discharges. The evidence presented by Saddlebrook further demonstrated that storage will be increased under the proposed redesign versus the pre- development, 1973 condition. On Saddlebrook's property, there will be approximately 35 percent more storage than existed in 1973, and the total storage for Saddlebrook and the contributing drainage basin upstream of Saddlebrook will be increased by approximately 15 percent over that existing in 1973. Flood Protection. Under the flood-protection standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires that the applicant demonstrate that under the proposed condition the lower floor of all residential and other buildings on-site, and in areas affected by the site, will be above the 100-year flood elevation. SWFWMD also requires that there be no net encroachment into the flood plain, up to that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect conveyance, storage, water quality or adjacent lands. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's flood-protection standards. The testimony of Mr. Fuxan and Wiregrass' related exhibit, Ranch Ex. 35, purporting to show that in a 25-year, 24-hour storm Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will "flood the [Saddlebrook perimeter] roads and just sheet flow onto the Porter property" is not accurate. As part of its redesign, Saddlebrook will construct an additional berm along the southwestern and southern perimeters of its property. This berm will detain water on Saddlebrook's property during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and prevent it from "sheet-flowing" onto the Wiregrass property. Water Quality. Under the water-quality standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires, for systems like Saddlebrook's involving wet detention and isolated wetlands, that the applicant provide sufficient storage to treat one inch of runoff from the basins contributing runoff to the site. This volume must be discharged in no less than 120 hours, with no more than one-half of the volume being discharged within the first 60 hours. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's water-quality standards. Wetland Impacts. Under the wetland-impacts standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not adversely impact on-site and downstream wetlands. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will cause no adverse impacts to on-site wetlands. Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will impact only approximately .167 acres of on-site wetlands, for which Saddlebrook will fully mitigate by creating .174 acres of forested wetlands and buffer area. The evidence presented at the formal hearing also demonstrated that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will cause no adverse impacts to off-site wetlands. Reasonable assurance that off- site wetlands will not be adversely impacted was demonstrated by, among other things, evidence establishing that: (1) discharge points will not change under the proposed condition; (2) discharge elevations will be reasonably similar under the proposed condition; (3) there will be no significant variation in the water fluctuations in the wetlands adjacent to the south and west outfalls as a result of the proposed condition; (4) the drainage basin areas will be reasonably similar under the proposed condition; and (5) the proposed redesign will satisfy SWFWMD's water quality requirements. Wiregrass' Petition. In its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, Wiregrass focused primarily on water quality issues and stormwater runoff rates (or peak flow discharges), alleging the following "ultimate facts" which it claimed "entitle [it] to relief": The application, as submitted, contains insufficient storage to meet water quality criteria. The application, as submitted, will result in storage volumes on the project site which will not be recovered within 72 hours [sic] as required by the DISTRICT criteria. The application, as submitted, contains calculations based on erroneous hydraulic gradients. The application, as submitted, will result in storage volumes insufficient to meet water quality criteria as required by DISTRICT criteria. Post development stormwater runoff rates are underestimated in the application, resulting in system design with insufficient retention storage capacity to meet the DISTRICT's water quantity criteria. The failure to store stormwater or irrigation runoff impacts the substantial interest of the RANCH in that it deprives it of groundwater resources necessary for the successful operation of the ranch. Further, the lack of storage of stormwater and irrigation water is a prohibited waste of the water resources. At the formal hearing, Wiregrass presented no evidence to support any of the foregoing allegations of its Petition. Objections Raised by Wiregrass At The Hearing. At the final hearing, Wiregrass' opposition to Saddlebrook's permit application focused on three different grounds: For purposes of evaluating peak flow discharges, SWFWMD does not have jurisdiction to use a pre-development date prior to October 1, 1984. Under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), which provides that an applicant must give reasonable assurance that the surface water management systems "is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies," SWFWMD must apply not only its own permitting criteria but also those of other governmental entities, including county planning ordinan Under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(b), which provides that a permit application must give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system "will not cause adverse water . . . quantity impacts", SWFWMD must consider whether the annual volume of runoff will increase as a result of the proposed surface water management system. None of the foregoing objections was raised in Wiregrass' Petition as a basis for denying Saddlebrook's application. (Annual volume was alluded to in the Petition only as being pertinent to the question of Wiregrass' "substantial interest" for purposes of standing.) In any event, for the reasons set forth below, each of these objections was refuted by the evidence presented at the formal hearing. The 1973 Pre-Development Date. In their civil action against Saddlebrook, the Porters took the position that Saddlebrook's surface water management system should be redesigned so that discharges approximate those levels existing in 1973, before development of the Saddlebrook property. Dr. Gerald Seaburn, a hydrologist retained by the Porters, testified in the civil action that 1973 is the appropriate pre-development date for purposes of evaluating Saddlebrook's peak flow discharges. David Fuxan, a civil engineer retained by the Porters, took the position in the civil action that Saddlebrook should modify its surface water management system so as to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. At the formal hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Fuxan testified that it is still his position that Saddlebrook should modify its surface water management system so as to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. By letter from the Porters' counsel to SWFWMD dated January 31, 1990, the Porters provided their express consent to SWFWMD's use of 1973 as the pre- development date for evaluating those discharges relevant to Saddlebrook's MSSW permit application. Use of a 1984 "pre-development" date would prevent Saddlebrook from making the modifications the Porters claim in the civil litigation that it must make. Saddlebrook's existing system, about which the Porters complain in the civil litigation, is in all material respects the same system that was in place on October 1, 1984. Use of this existing system as the benchmark of comparison for attenuation of peak flows, therefore, would mean that substantial modifications to the existing system could not be made without substantially increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook. Substantially increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook is not possible due to the high water table and proximity of the lower aquifer. See Finding of Fact 70, below. In addition, a primary claim of the Porters in the civil action is that duration of flow under Saddlebrook's existing system exceeds 1973 levels and has resulted in expanded wetlands on the Porter property. But duration of flow and peak flow discharges are inversely related: duration of flow can be decreased only if peak flow discharges are increased. Accordingly, the only way that Saddlebrook can reduce the duration of flow onto Wiregrass to 1973 levels, as the Porters have demanded, other than increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook, is to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. Other Governmental Agencies' Requirements. F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i) provides that a permit applicant must give reasonable assurance that the surface water management system "is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies." SWFWMD has consistently interpreted this provision to be "advisory", i.e., to apprise applicants that they must also comply with other applicable laws and that issuance of an MSSW permit by the District does not relieve them of the responsibility to obtain all necessary local and other permits. SWFWMD's long-standing and consistently-applied interpretation and practice is not to require applicants to prove compliance with the regulations of other govermental agencies in order to obtain an MSSW permit. There are two primary reasons for this interpretation and practice. First, the Southwest Florida Water Management District includes 16 counties and 96 municipalities. In addition, other state and various federal agencies have jurisdiction within its territory. It is impracticable for SWFWMD to become familiar with, and to apply, the permitting and other regulations of more than 100 other agencies. Second, SWFWMD has concluded that, under Part 4 of Secton 373 of the Flordia Statutes, it does not have authority to deny a permit application based on its interpretation of another governmental agency's regulations. In any event, the evidence demonstrates that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will be "consistent with the requirements of other public agencies" as provided in F.A.C. Rule 40D- 4.301(1)(i). Limiting Condition No. 3 of the proposed permit requires that Saddlebrook must comply with Pasco County and other local requirements: The Permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. In addition, Standard Condition No.3 ensures that SWFWMD approval will not supersede any separate permitting or other requirements imposed by Pasco County: The issuance of this permit does not . . . authorize any . . . infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations. (Emphasis added.) Finally, the Pasco County ordinance upon which Wiregrass relies imposes requirements that are in substance identical to SWFWMD's with respect to MSSW permit applications. Saddlebrook's compliance with SWFWMD's regulations likewise would satisfy the substance of the requirements of the county ordinance. Annual Volume of Runoff. F.A.C. Rule 40D-4 (incorporating the Basis of Review) does not address, and SWFWMD does not regulate, the annual volume of runoff in open drainage basins. If annual volume of runoff is relevant under Rule 40D-4.301, as Wiregrass contends, that rule requires only that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that "the surface water management system" will not cause adverse quantity impacts. Saddlebrook's existing surface water management system has not caused a significant increase in the annual volume of runoff onto Wiregrass' property. The increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook that has occurred over the pre-development 1973 condition has resulted from the urbanization of Saddlebrook's property. The increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook over that existing prior to development (1973) is approximately 3.4 inches. This increase is only a small fraction of the natural year-to-year variation in runoff resulting from differences in rainfall alone. Rainfall can vary up to 30 inches on an annual basis, from 40 to 70 inches per year. The resulting year-to-year variations in runoff can total as much as 20 inches. The approximately 3.4 inches increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook due to urbanization has caused no adverse impact to Wiregrass. The natural drainage system on the Wiregrass property has in the past and throughout its history received and handled increases in the annual volume of runoff of up to 20 inches due to rainfall differences. Such increases simply flow through Wiregrass' property. Of the approximately 3.4 inch increase in annual runoff due to urbanization, only approximately one-third of an inch is due to the filling in of bayheads by Saddlebrook's prior owner. This increase is insignificant and has not caused a substantial adverse impact to Wiregrass. Any reduction of storage resulting from the filling of bayheads will be more than compensated for under the proposed redesign. Storage on Saddlebrook's property will be increased by approximately 35 percent under the proposed condition over that existing in 1973, before the bayheads were filled. In open drainage basins, like Saddlebrook's, downstream flooding is a function of the rate of peak flow of discharge, not the annual volume of runoff. This is one of the reasons why, in the case of open drainage basins, SWFWMD regulates peak flow discharges and not the annual volume of runoff. Because Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will attenuate peak flow discharges to those levels that existed in the pre-devlopment 1973 condition, Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that there will not be increased flooding on Wiregrass' property in the future. The evidence does not establish that Wiregrass has suffered, or will suffer, any adverse impact due to an increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook as a result of the design, or redesign, of the system, or as a result of urbanization, or otherwise. It is not possible to design a surface water management system at Saddlebrook that would reduce the annual volume of runoff. Such a system, which involves the percolation of surface water from retention ponds into a deeper, aquifer system, requires a deep water table. At Saddlebrook, the water table is near the ground surface. As a result, it is not possible to store a significant quantity of water in retention ponds between storm events. In addition, the water levels in the deeper and the shallower aquifer systems at Saddlebrook are approximately the same and, therefore, there is insufficient hydraulic pressure to push the water through the confining layer between the two systems and into the deeper aquifer system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Saddlebrook's application for surface water management permit no. 497318.00, subject to the terms and conditions in the SWFWMD Staff Report. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3658 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7.-9. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but not necessary. 12.-13. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but not necessary. The extent of the wetland expansion is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The rest is accepted. However, the increased volume is due in large part to urbanization, not to the surface water management system. It also is due in part to alterations to the property done by the Porters. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. However, this would occur only during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, and there was no evidence that one has occurred or, if it has, whether Mr. Porter was there to observe it. 18.-20. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Characterization "much of" is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that lichen lines, by themselves, are ordinarily are sufficient to set jurisdictional lines. 26.-29. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Even if it were proven that the wetlands had expanded, it was not proven, and is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, that Saddlebrook (and, especially, Saddlebrook's surface water management system) caused the expansion. First sentence, accepted but cumulative. The rest is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In any event, both factors are undeniably significant. 32.-34. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 39.-41. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that SWFWMD does not apply it. The evidence was that SWFWMD interprets it differently than Wiregrass proposes and applies its own interpretation. Under the SWFWMD interpretation, the permit conditions requiring compliance with other legal requirements constitute the necessary "reasonable assurance." In addition, SWFWMD's review and evaluation is not complete until this formal administrative proceeding is completed, and the Pasco County ordinance has been considered as part of this proceeding. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Again, SWFWMD's review and evaluation is not complete until this formal administrative proceeding is completed, and annual volume has been considered as part of this proceeding. That consideration has affirmed SWFWMD's position that, at least in this case, the proposed stormwater management system does not cause an increase in annual volume that would result in denial of the application. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted (although the characterization "far exceed" is imprecise) and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary that no "stipulation" was entered into. But the evidence is clear that Wiregrass, Saddlebrook and SWFWMD all agreed to the use of 1973 as the point of comparison for peak flow discharges. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. The proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order of Respondents Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., and Southwest Florida Water Management District are accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Foley & Lardner 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3650 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen R. Patton, Esquire Jeffrey A. Hall, Esquire Kirkland & Ellis East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Enola T. Brown, Esquire Lawson, McWhirter, Grandoff & Reeves East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 800 Post Office Box 3350 Tampa, Florida 33601-3350 Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Edward Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue is whether Sarasota County's application for a permit authorizing the construction of a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery well system at the Central County Water Reclamation Facility in Sarasota, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On September 14, 1999, the County, through its Utilities Department, filed with the Department an application for a permit to construct a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) test well and monitor well system at its Central County Water Reclamation Facility, 79005 South McIntosh Road, Sarasota, Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. On July 19, 2001, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to issue Permit No. 160882-001-UC. The permit authorizes the County to construct one test well to determine the feasibility for the storage and recovery of reclaimed water from the Suwannee Limestone of the Upper Floridan aquifer system at a depth of between 500 and 700 feet below land surface. Also, the County is authorized to construct three monitor wells, one into the target storage zone, the second into the first overlying transmissive unit, and the last into the overlying Arcadia Formation. The storage capacity of the test well is projected to be between one and two million gallons per day. On August 10, 2001, Petitioner, who is a citizen of the State of Florida, resides in Tallahassee, and is a long- time employee of Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., filed her verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) under Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In her Petition, she generally contended that the permitting would have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the water of the State because the proposed injectate (being placed in the well) will not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, may be harmful to human health, and will violate the minimum criteria for groundwater. She also contends that the permit application was not signed by the proper signatory and that the Department failed to require the County to first drill an exploratory well (as opposed to a test well). While these allegations were not sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner's substantial interests were affected by the proposed permitting, they were deemed sufficient (subject to proof at final hearing) to satisfy the pleading requirements of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Water Reuse Generally Water reuse is the use of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Because of Florida's continuing population growth and occasional water shortage, the use of reclaimed water is an important conservation tool. Indeed, in 2002 the Legislature showed strong support for water conservation and reuse by amending Section 403.064(1), Florida Statutes, and adding language which states that "the reuse of reclaimed water is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while sustaining natural systems." To this end, the County has filed its application for the purpose of using reclaimed water for such lesser uses as irrigation so that the existing high quality fresh groundwater can be used for higher and better purposes such as drinking water for the general public. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) has also encouraged the use of reclaimed water by providing funding for this type of program to induce utilities to move forward with reuse programs. In addition, the Department has been proactive in promoting the reuse of water throughout the State in order to conserve water resources. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a reuse program encouraged by the Legislature, Department, and District. It involves the storage of water underground in a suitable formation, through a well, during times when water is available to put into the well, and then recovery of that stored water from the well during times when it is needed for some beneficial purpose. Put another way, an ASR operates like an underground storage tank. Water is placed into the ASR wells (by means of pumping) during recharge periods when it is raining and there is no demand for reclaimed water. When the water is pumped into the well, a stored water bubble is created by using buffer zones made of water with more salinity than the stored water. These buffer zones are designed so that there can be full recovery of the stored water. The recovery rate is generally around 100 percent. There are three ways to store reclaimed water: surface ponds, storage tanks, and ASR. The ASR storage method is the most efficient method of storing reclaimed water, and it has significant environmental, utility, and economic benefits. The ASR method has no impact on wetlands and ecosystems, and unlike pond storage (and to a lesser degree storage tanks), it does not require the use of large surface areas and is not affected by evapotranspiration and seepage. (There is typically a 60 percent loss of water due to evaporation in surface storage areas.) It also results in cost savings (up to a 50 percent reduction in capital costs) and avoidance of wetlands impacts. One of the goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan is to maximize the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. Because other storage methods have proved to be inefficient, ASR is the County's preferred storage method to meet this goal. At the time of the final hearing (August 2002), there were at least fifty-six ASR systems operating outside the State of Florida (and around one hundred more in various stages of development) and eleven ASR systems successfully operating in the State, the first one having been established in 1983. At that time, there were also two ASR test programs underway in the area, including one in the Englewood Water District, a few miles to the south of the proposed project, and the Northwest Hillsborough ASR program, which is located just north of the County. Also, ASR systems are located in Manatee County and near the Peace River, which is in the same storage area being proposed here. Therefore, the County has the benefit of drawing upon twenty years of experience with this type of system. The Permit The County began an informal water reuse program in 1988, when it first used effluent disposal for irrigation purposes at a local golf course. A formal program (the Reuse Master Plan) was commenced in 1994; however, the County still lacks the storage capacity to meet the seasonal demands of its reuse customers.3 Without storage, any excess water must be discharged and lost. In order to meet the County's goal of maximizing reclaimed water use, it must be able to adequately store reclaimed water. Due to projected population growth and issues concerning management of limited resources, in 1997 the County began considering the use of ASR as a means to better manage its reclaimed water supply and demand for those facilities which serve the North County Reuse System. If all necessary permits are obtained, the County intends to use reclaimed water from its Central County wastewater facility. Currently, that effluent receives advanced tertiary treatment with deep bed filtration and high level disinfection. The proposed test well will be approximately 700 feet deep; at that depth, the injection (or storage) zone will consist of the Suwannee Limestone formation of the Upper Floridan aquifer system. The storage zone is brackish, with the water quality or salinity having about six times the acceptable degree of salinity for a drinking water source. It is anticipated that the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the injection zone will be greater than 3,000 TDS. If water quality at the proposed injection zone is greater than 3,000 TDS, this fact will be revealed during the construction of the test injection well and during the various tests to be conducted during construction. (Assuming this level of TDS is found, then at that point the County would have to provide reasonable assurance that the water reclamation facility is providing full or principal treatment to the domestic waste.) The evidence establishes that there is some level of transmissivity in the confining layer overlying the proposed injection zone. That is to say, there is some small degree of connectivity between the proposed injection zone and the aquifer above it. The actual level of transmissivity will be determined based upon tests run during the construction of the first monitor well. The effluent produced from the County's water reclamation facility meets drinking water standards. If the plant is unable to produce effluent that meets or exceeds the applicable water quality standards, this issue is an operational concern which can be addressed in a permit modification authorizing operational testing. Under the Department's permit process, if the construction permit is approved, the County will construct a monitor well to obtain more site-specific information concerning such things as the geology, hydrology, and water quality at the site. (At this point, while the County has published literature sources and regional geologic information from two nearby ASR systems using the same storage area to rely upon, it has no specific data for the very small parcel where the well will be constructed.) Once the information is obtained, an engineering report is prepared and submitted to the Department. That report contains a wide array of technical data, including construction data, hydrogeologic data, formation samples, water quality samples, hydraulic data, core data, Packer data, and geophysical data. This information is then used by the Department (and a special advisory committee called the Technical Advisory Committee) to evaluate whether the site can be authorized for cycle testing and later for operational purposes. If cycle testing is appropriate, the County must then request a modification to its construction permit to authorize cycle testing of its ASR well. That modification, and any others that may be warranted by the new information, are "final agency action subject to the procedural safeguards contained in Chapter 120, F.S." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.100(2). When the test injection well is constructed and eventually placed into operation, monitor wells will be used to monitor background water in both the injection zone and in the two aquifers overlying the proposed injection zone. However, until further Department approval is obtained, no injection of reclaimed water is authorized; the permit being sought here authorizes only the construction of the well itself. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.640(1)(a) requires that the County obtain a separate operation permit after the construction permit has been issued and testing completed. Criteria and Standards for a Class V Well Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528 governs all injection wells defined as Class I, III, IV, or V wells. (In Class II wells, the injected fluids are used in connection with oil and natural gas production and are regulated by the Florida Geological Survey under Chapter 377, Florida Statutes.) The category of wells in which the County seeks a permit is a Class V, Group 3 permit, which includes all domestic wastewater wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.300(1)(e)3. A Group 3 well involves the injection of fluids that have been processed through a permitted domestic wastewater treatment plant. Even though the County is requesting a permit for a Class V well, at the request of the Department, it submitted a different (and more stringent) type of application (a "900" application) since the Department has the authority to apply "any of the criteria for Class I wells" if it believes that the well may cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of primary or secondary drinking water standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.605(2). (A Class I well is a well used to inject hazardous waste below the lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water.) In this case, the Department opted to apply certain Class I construction standards for the well, in addition to the normal standards for Class V wells. Those standards are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.400. This means that the County will be held to a higher standard than a general underground injection control permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605 contains the Class V well construction standards. For the following reasons, the County has given reasonable assurance that all criteria will be met. Subsection (1) of the rule requires that "a well shall be designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices, and the design and construction shall be approved by the Department with a permit." The evidence clearly establishes that good engineering practices have been followed by the County for the design and construction of the well. Subsection (2) requires that an applicant design and construct the well so that it will not "cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of a primary or secondary drinking water standard . . . or may cause fluids of significantly differing water quality to migrate between underground sources of drinking water." Subsection (3) is also directed at the migration of fluids. The evidence shows that the migration of fluids between aquifers will be prevented as a part of the design and construction of the ASR well program. The design chosen by the County has been proven to prevent migration of fluids between aquifers, and it will preserve the integrity of the confining beds. The combination of steel casing and cementing prevents the migration of fluids along the borehole. The well will be constructed by a Florida licensed contractor, as required by Subsection (4). The remaining criteria in the rule will be satisfied during the construction process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.620 contains reporting requirements for Class V wells. All of these requirements are included in the draft permit and will be met by the County. The Department has also included Special Condition 1(h) in the draft permit, which provides that nothing will be injected into the well that does not meet the Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard. This condition is drawn from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.307, which specifies general conditions to be included in underground injection control permits. In accordance with this condition, the County will monitor the movement of fluid to ensure that there are no violations. The County has also demonstrated that there will be no hazardous waste injection, as prohibited by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.600(1)(a). Finally, the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.630(3) do not apply at this time since the proposed permit is only for construction of a well, and not the injection of water. Class I Well Construction Standards Because the Department has imposed more stringent construction standards on the County, the Class I well construction standards found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(1) come into play. The County has demonstrated that it has complied with the requirement that the well be cemented and cased. In addition, the County has considered corrosion protection in the cementing and casing of the proposed well. Because the casing will be cemented, coating is not required. Finally, there will be no open annulus (spacing between the casings and the bore hole) in the ASR test well. Other Requirements Drilling Geophysical surveys will be conducted during the pilot hole drilling stages to collect hydrogeologic information. Further, drill stem tests will be conducted throughout the drilling, and a driller's log will be maintained. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.410(3). Casing Steel casing will be used, taking into consideration the possible corrosion of steel. The life expectancy of the well was considered, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(4)(a), and was determined to be unknown. Cement Type 2 cement will be used, which is sulfate resistant and is specifically designed for use in regions such as Florida. Testing Geophysical logs will be used during the construction and testing of the well to verify the physical conditions of the well and confirm that construction is proceeding according to the plan. Also, geophysical surveys will be conducted during pilot hole drilling stages to collect subsurface hydrogeologic information. Environmental concerns Once a drilling contractor is selected, the location for the disposal of drilling fluids will be submitted for Department approval in accordance with Special Condition 1(b) in the draft permit. Monitor well construction standards The monitor well will meet all construction requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.420. (The same standards that are applied to Class V wells are also applied to monitor wells.) General design considerations Exploratory pilot hole drilling stages will be conducted to collect hydrogeologic information, and complete sets of geophysical surveys will be performed. Because cement generates heat, temperature surveys will be run as a part of the construction sequence to verify coverage of the cement. This means that tools will be lowered into the hole after each cementing stage to verify coverage. Monitoring requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(d) requires that an applicant perform "a demonstration of mechanical integrity . . . at least once every five years during the life of the well." Details to accomplish this are found in both the application and the draft permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(f) requires that the background water quality of the injection zone and monitoring zone be determined prior to injection. The County will perform this task before injection occurs. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(g) requires that monitor wells be installed above the injection zone near the project. The County will construct three wells, as required by the rule. They will also be placed at a sufficient distance from the project, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(h), and the specific monitoring intervals are detailed in the draft permit. Reporting requirements The Department requires periodic data reports and progress reports regarding eight separate types of information. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.430(1)(a). These reporting requirements will be performed and followed. Because a Class V well may be required to be plugged and abandoned, the Department requires a plugging and abandonment report. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.625. All requirements under this rule have been met, and the County has the financial resources to accomplish this task, when required. General Class I permitting requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440 sets forth general permitting requirements for Class I and III wells. Because the Department has opted to impose certain Class I criteria on the County's application, some of the criteria in this rule apply. They include special conditions 1(a), (c), and (e) in the permit for well construction, system modification, and fluid injection, all of which have been, or will be, met by the County. In addition, the duration for the operation permit cannot exceed five years, and the County was required to submit an application for a permit which conformed with the requirements of the rule. As a part of its application, the County established an area of review for the construction permit, taking into account the zone of endangering influence. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(4). (An area of review is the area surrounding an injection well, including the area of possible endangering influence.) This requirement was met because the established area of review is one mile even though the predicted area of influence is expected to be no more than 400 feet. As a part of the preceding analysis, the County also conducted an area of review study, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440(6)(a). In doing so, the County evaluated the impact on the ASR well, and the impact the ASR well would have on the surrounding area. That evaluation determined that there are no water supply wells within the area of review. Because the construction permit only has a duration of five years, and given the County's supporting information submitted with the area of influence study, the Department has not required that the County provide a corrective action plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(5)(a). Class I well construction permit criteria All guidelines for constructing the well have been followed, and the construction of the well will not be a source of pollution. The County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will function in accordance with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62- 528. Hydrological modeling Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.405 specifies criteria for evaluating the geologic and hydrologic environment of Class I wells. The County has satisfied all criteria in the rule. Other Issues Exploratory well Petitioner contends that the Department should require the County to construct an exploratory well, as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.603(1), rather than a test well. That rule defines an exploratory well as one being "drilled for the specific purpose of obtaining information to determine the feasibility of underground injection at the proposed site." However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.450(1)(b) requires an exploratory well only "for those projects located in an area where available information is lacking concerning geologic or hydraulic confinement or existing information indicates that geologic or hydraulic confinement may be poor or lacking." For example, an exploratory well would be required in a remote area (such as certain parts of Polk County) where the Department had insufficient literature, studies, or prior history concerning the general geology across and around the site. In this case, two nearby ASR systems are located in the Englewood Water District and near the Peace River and use the same storage zone as that proposed by the County. Those systems have been operating for a number of years, and the County and Department can draw upon that experience. Given this significant regional geologic information, an exploratory well is not required. More importantly, the requirement for an exploratory well applies only to Class I well construction, and not Class V wells, and the Department properly exercised its discretion to not apply that requirement to the County's Class V application. Signature on the application and other documents Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.340(1)(c) requires that all permit applications by a local government be signed by "either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official." Also, subsection (2) of the same rule requires that "reports required by permits and other information requested by the Department shall be signed by a person described in subsection (1) of this section [a principal executive officer or the highest ranking elected official], or by a duly authorized representative of that person." Petitioner contends that these requirements were not met. The County's application was signed by James E. Caldwell, who was then the Manager of Sarasota County Utilities. At that time, Mr. Caldwell had overall responsibility for the County's utility operations. On August 27, 2002, James L. Ley, the County Administrator (and principal executive officer of the County), also executed the original copy of the application. (That is, on that date he signed the original application underneath Mr. Caldwell's signature.) By doing so, Mr. Ley cured any previous technical deficiency in the application. Responses to requests for additional information which were submitted to the Department during the review process were signed by one of the County's outside consultants. However, on January 13, 2002, Mr. Ley submitted a letter to the Department authorizing various County employees and agents to act on his behalf in processing the instant application. Accordingly, the outside consultant was a duly-authorized representative of the chief executive and was authorized to sign those documents. Satisfaction of injection criteria Petitioner also contends that before a construction permit may be issued, the County must meet all principal treatment and disinfection requirements, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-610.466 and 62-528.563. However, those rules apply to permits which authorize the injection of reclaimed water into the groundwater. Here, the requested permit does not authorize injection, and therefore those requirements do not apply. Groundwater criteria Even though Petitioner conceded at hearing that the issue of whether the construction of the proposed wells would harm the environment was not raised in her Petition, the County provided reasonable assurance that this was not an issue of concern. Adequacy of permit conditions Petitioner also suggested at hearing that the proposed conditions in the permit are insufficient. However, she failed to show in what respect they were insufficient or how they should be amended. Water quality concerns Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605(3) requires that a Class V well be constructed so that its intended use does not violate the applicable water quality standards. On this issue, the evidence establishes that the construction of the proposed test well and monitor system will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution. Indeed, a well and monitor station does not emit or discharge pollution and, if constructed according to the technical requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528, does not cause pollution. Therefore, the County's compliance with the technical requirements of the Department's regulations is reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not cause pollution. I. Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theory that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party who has participated for a "frivolous, meritless, and improper purpose" within the meaning of Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. This argument is based on the assertion that Petitioner is a non- prevailing party, that is, she failed to substantially change the outcome of the proposed final agency action which is the subject of this proceeding, and she "failed to produce any witnesses or evidence to support [her] claim that the proposed permit that was the subject of this proceeding should not be issued." While it is true that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party, she attempted to utilize the testimony of three expert witnesses previously retained by the City of Venice, a former party in Case No. 01-3516. Those subpoenas, however, were quashed on August 16, 2002, and that ruling was memorialized in an Order dated August 19, 2002, or just before the final hearing began. Without those witnesses, Petitioner's presentation was obviously limited in some respects.4 Further, until the final hearing, Petitioner assumed that evidence in support of her allegation that the injectate would harm the water quality would be admissible and relevant. (As this Recommended Order clearly points out, however, not a single drop of water can be injected into the well until a modification of the permit is obtained, and therefore such evidence is irrelevant.) During the course of the hearing, the undersigned sustained objections by the County and Department to the introduction of such evidence. This ruling had the effect of limiting the scope of the issues to be tried. Despite these limitations, her participation cannot be described as being frivolous or meritless, as claimed by the County, and it is found that she did not participate for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Permit No. 160882-001- UC authorizing the County to construct one Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery injection well and monitor well system in Sarasota County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2004, 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 19th day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing; the following facts relevant to the issue presented for determination are found: The prime complaint heard from petitioner's customers who testified at the hearing was the objectionable odor of the water received in their homes. The water was described as smelling like chlorine or like sewer, swamp or sulphur water. Such an objectionable odor affects the water's taste, and several customers testified that they were compelled to use filters to make the water bearable to drink. Another witness testified that the water tasted like quinine. Other complaints regarding the quality of water provided by petitioner to its customers included the presence of debris, such as sand, silt or dirt, in the water, the staining of white sinks by the water and inadequate water pressure. Complaints with regard to the service provided by petitioner to its customers were also voiced. These complaints included interruptions in water service without prior notice, the presence of air in the water lines and the necessity of making long-distance telephone calls to Orlando when inquiring about their bills. One customer testified that even though he had paid for a temporary disconnection of his water when he was away from his residence, he was still billed a minimum charge for service. Several customers testified that petitioner's office personnel failed to timely or adequately respond to their complaints or inquiries regarding their bills. Charles Sweat, the vice president of operations for petitioner's fifty- one systems in eight counties, visits each of the systems at least once a month. At the time that petitioner took over the operation of the Intercession City water system in 1977, the system was under citation by the Department of Environmental Regulation for inadequate chlorination of the water. The Department of Environmental Regulation does have a minimum requirement as to the amount of chlorine which must be added to the water. Petitioner corrected this deficiency and the citation was removed. Neither of the two water systems involved in this proceeding - Intercession City and Tropical Park - are presently under citation by any state or local regulatory agency. Analyses of monthly laboratory samples of water from the Intercession City and the Tropical Park systems indicate that the water quality will meet the Department of Environmental Regulation's secondary drinking water standards which went into effect on January 13, 1981. Petitioner now provides a toll-free telephone number which Osceola County customers may use to call Orlando. Notice of this toll-free number was included in the water bills sent to customers in September or October of 1980. A log is maintained by petitioner of all interruptions of water service. On one occasion occurring on March 3, 1980, there was a water outage. The outage was caused by low temperatures freezing the pressure switch at a time when it was at a high pressure level. When there was no pressure, the switch, being frozen, was incapable of sending an on-signal to the pump. It was necessary for petitioner to use torches to thaw out the pipes to make the system work properly. Cold weather sufficient to cause such an effect rarely occurs in Florida. On January 16, 1981, there was an interruption in service caused by the county cutting a water line. Another interruption of service occurred on January 18, 1981. This was caused by the malfunction of an air release valve which releases excess air from the pressure tank. Air was eventually caused to go into the distribution system and consequently into the homes of the customers. Petitioner's personnel have been instructed to watch this type of situation more carefully and more often. Petitioner's vice president of operations was not aware of recent complaints from customers concerning air problems, but testified that he would immediately and personally follow up on the problem.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the quality of water service provided by petitioner to its customers in Osceola County be found to be satisfactory and that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner in its application for a rate increase as a result of the quality of its service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4 - Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
