The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Alliance is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 203 Northeast First Street, Gainesville, Florida. Its mission is to ensure the restoration, preservation, and protection for future generations of the ecosystems along the Ichetucknee River, including its associated springs. The Alliance has approximately 40 members. Seventeen members appeared at the final hearing and testified that they regularly use the Ichetucknee River and its associated priority springs for recreation, wildlife observation, and other purposes. Seventeen members is a substantial number of the total membership of the Alliance. Petitioner Still is a natural person who owns 117 acres of land in Bradford County. He uses the land primarily for timber production. He does not have a consumptive (water) use permit. He has used the Lower Santa Fe River and associated springs for recreation since 1979 and continues to visit the river and springs for this purpose. Petitioner FWF is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Blairstone Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The mission of FWF includes the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and wildlife habitat. In the parties’ Pre-Hearing Stipulation, FWF identified Manley Fuller, its President, as its witness for organizational standing. It also listed “standing witnesses as needed,” but did not name them. At his deposition, Mr. Fuller stated that he did not know how many FWF members use the MFL water bodies. At the beginning of the final hearing, FWF made an oral proffer that it was prepared to call “10 members who are using the water bodies.” Later, FWF stated that some members were unwilling or unable to come to Tallahassee, but suggested that 10 or 15 might (now) be talked into coming to the final hearing or testifying by video. FWF also proffered a membership list, showing the number of members by county. It shows that FWF has a total of 11,788 members. In the six counties in the vicinity of the MFL water bodies (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, and Union) there are 457 FWF members. Ten, 15, or 20 members is not a substantial number of FWF’s 11,788 total members, nor is it a substantial number of its 457 members who live in the vicinity of the MFL waterbodies. Respondent DEP is a state agency with powers and duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the power and duty under section 373.042(1), which it shares with the water management districts, to establish minimum flows for surface watercourses and minimum levels for groundwater (“MFLs”) and recovery strategies when MFLs will not be achieved. Respondent/Intervenor SRWMD is a regional water management district with powers and duties under chapter 373, including powers and duties related to MFLs. The MFL waterbodies are located within SRWMD. Intervenor SJRWMD is the water management district adjacent to SRWMD. A portion of SJRWMD is included within the planning area created for the MFL waterbodies. Intervenor NFUCG is a regional trade organization representing interests of public water supply utilities in North Florida that hold consumptive use permits and are subject to the Proposed Rules. Intervenors CCUA and JEA are two members of NFUCG. Intervenors Alachua County, Gilchrist County, Suwannee County, Bradford County, and Columbia County are political subdivisions of the State in geographic proximity to the MFL water bodies. These Counties have the duty to plan for and protect the MFL water bodies as part of their local government comprehensive planning responsibilities under chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Minimum Flows and Recovery Strategies The water management districts and the DEP are required to establish minimum flows for surface water courses. § 373.042(1), Fla. Stat. Minimum flows are “the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.” § 373.042(1)(a), Fla. Stat. If the existing flow in a water body is below its established minimum flow, DEP or the district is required to develop a “recovery strategy” designed to “[a]chieve recovery to the established minimum flow or level as soon as practicable.” § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. MFLs and recovery strategies are required to be included in a water management district’s regional water supply plan. § 373.709(2)(c) and (g), Fla. Stat. Water management districts must develop regional water supply plans in regions where they determine existing sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future users and to sustain water resources and related natural systems. § 373.709(1), Fla. Stat. SRWMD does not have a regional water supply plan. It is working on a draft plan that is expected to be completed in late 2015. The MFL Water Bodies The Lower Santa Fe River runs for approximately 30 miles from Santa Fe River Rise Spring to its confluence with the Suwannee River. The Lower Santa Fe is fed primarily by groundwater discharge from the Upper Floridan aquifer including the baseflow provided by several major springs. The Lower Santa Fe River system, including its tributary, the Ichetucknee River (below State Road 27), is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water, a designation conferred on waters “with exceptional recreational or ecological significance.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(3). The Ichetucknee River runs for six miles from the Head Spring to its confluence with the Lower Santa Fe. Its flow is derived almost entirely from springflow. The ecological, recreational, and economic values of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are widely recognized. Both rivers flow through lands preserved for public use as part of the State Park System. SRWMD published a Water Supply Assessment in 2010 to determine whether water demands could be met for the 2010-2030 planning period without adversely affecting natural resources. The North Florida Groundwater Flow Model was used to evaluate groundwater withdrawals and their effect on aquifer levels and the flows in springs and rivers. The 2010 assessment concluded that groundwater levels of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the eastern and northeastern portions of the District were in decline. The District’s analysis of river and streamflows also found declining trends. It was concluded that existing water sources would not be able to meet projected water demands over the planning period. As a result, the Lower Santa Fe River Basin (including the Ichetucknee River) was designated as a water supply planning region and SRWMD began to develop minimum flows for these water bodies. Because groundwater withdrawals within the adjacent SJRWMD were also affecting the MFL waterbodies1/, DEP, SRWMD, and SJRWMD entered into an interagency agreement in 2011 to work together on water supply issues and the development of a joint regional groundwater model. Development of the Minimum Flows The procedural difficulties faced in establishing minimum flows affected by water uses in two water management districts eventually lead to the Legislature’s creation of section 373.042(4) in 2013, which authorizes DEP to adopt relevant rules which can be applied by the water management districts without the need for their own rulemaking. In June 2013, SRWMD requested that DEP adopt minimum flows for the MFL waterbodies pursuant to the new law. A gage2/ for the Lower Santa Fe River near Fort White, and a gage for the Ichetucknee River on US 27 were selected for establishment of the respective minimum flows. The minimum flows were determined by first establishing a hydrologic baseline condition at the two gages. Then, SRWMD determined a departure from the baseline that would cause significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. The minimum flows are expressed as stage duration curves rather than a single number, in order to account for the changes in flow that occur naturally due to seasonal, climatic, and other factors affecting rainfall. Once the minimum flows were determined, SRWMD evaluated whether they are being met. It concluded that the minimum flows are not being met. Therefore, in accordance with section 373.0421(2), a recovery strategy had to be prepared and implemented. The Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy is a plan for achieving a return to adopted MFLs and will generally include plans for developing new water supplies and implementing conservation and efficiency measures. See § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. The practice of the water management districts has been to also adopt regulatory measures that are used in the review of consumptive use permits as part of a recovery strategy. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-80.074. That practice was followed for the MFL water bodies. The Recovery Strategy includes planning, water conservation, water supply development, and water resource development components. These components comprise the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy, entitled “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” is the regulatory portion and is incorporated by reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(d). The Recovery Strategy is to be implemented in two phases and the objectives of each phase are described in Table 4-1 of the Recovery Strategy. Phase I includes adoption of supplemental regulatory measures, work with user groups to implement water conservation measures, completion of an improved regional groundwater model, and identification and investigation of water supply projects. In Phase II of the Recovery Strategy, DEP plans to use the new regional model to develop long-term regulatory measures to address regional impacts to the MFLs water bodies. In addition, SRWMD and SJRWMD would develop and implement additional water resource and supply projects. The Proposed Rules The Proposed Rules would create three sections in a new chapter 62-42 of the Florida Administrative Code. Rules 62- and 62-42.200 set forth the scope and definitions: 62-42.100 Scope The purpose of this chapter is to set forth Department-adopted minimum flows and levels (MFLS) and the regulatory provisions of any required recovery or prevention strategy as provided in Section 373.042(4), F.S. The Department recognizes that recovery and prevention strategies may contain both regulatory and non-regulatory provisions. The non-regulatory provisions are not included in this rule, and will be included in the applicable regional water supply plans approved by the appropriate districts pursuant to Section 373.0421(2) and Section 373.709, F.S. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] 62-42.200 Definitions When used in this chapter, the following words shall have the indicated meanings unless the rule indicates otherwise: Flow Duration Curve means a plot of magnitude of flow versus percent of time the magnitude of flow is equaled or exceeded. Flow Duration Frequency means the percentage of time that a given flow is equaled or exceeded. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] Rule 62-42.300 is where the proposed minimum flows are set forth. The minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(a); the minimum flows for the Ichetucknee River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(b); and the minimum flows for 16 priority springs are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(c). The minimum flows for the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are expressed as water flow in cubic feet per second (“cfs”) at various points on a flow duration curve. The minimum flows for ten named springs associated with the Santa Fe River and six named springs associated with the Ichetucknee River are set forth as a “percent reduction from the median baseline flow contribution of the spring to the flow” at a particular river gage. This approach, which ties spring flow to river flow, was used by DEP because there is minimal flow data for the springs. Rule 62-42.300(1)(d) adopts by reference “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” which is Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy. Rule 62-42.300(1)(e) states that DEP, in coordination with SRWMD and SJRWMD, shall reevaluate these minimum flows after completion of the North Florida Southeast Georgia Regional Groundwater Flow Model, which is currently under development. The rule also states that DEP will “strike” rules 62-42.300(1)(a) through (d) and adopt new rules no later than three years after completion of the final peer review report regarding the new groundwater model, or by December 31, 2019, whichever date is earlier. The Supplemental Regulatory Measures adopted by reference in rule 62-42.300(1)(d) are intended to provide additional criteria for review of consumptive use permit applications during Phase I. These measures would be applied to water uses within the North Florida Regional Water Supply Planning Area. For the purposes of the issues raised in these consolidated cases, it is necessary to discuss three categories of permit applications and how they would be treated under the Supplemental Regulatory Measures in Phase I: (1) A new permit application that shows a “potential impact” to the MFL water bodies must eliminate or offset the potential impact; (2) An application to renew a permit, which does not seek to increase the amount of water used, would be renewed for five years no matter what impact it is having on the MFL water bodies; however, if the impact is eliminated or offset, the renewal would not be limited to five years; and (3) An application to renew a permit which seeks an increased quantity of water would have to eliminate or offset the potential impact to the MFL water bodies associated only with the increase. This category of permits is limited to a five-year renewal unless the existing impacts are also eliminated or offset. See § 6.5(a)-(d) of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.5(e) states that existing permits that do not expire during Phase I are considered consistent with the Recovery Strategy and are not subject to modification during the term of their permits. Many permits are issued for a 20-year period, so Phase I would not capture all existing permits because they would not all expire during Phase I.3/ DEP stated that existing permits may be affected by the regulatory measures DEP plans to adopt for Phase II. Section 6.5(f) of the Supplemental Regulatory Measures states that permittees are not responsible for impacts to the MFL water bodies caused by water users in Georgia, or for more than the permittee’s “proportionate share of impacts.” The record evidence established that the effect of Georgia water users on the MFL water bodies is small. Section 6.6(b) requires permits for agricultural use in the counties surrounding the MFL water bodies to include a condition requiring participation in the Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL) program. The purpose of SRWMD’s MIL program is to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems. SRWMD provides cost- sharing in this program. Whether DEP Must Adopt the Entire Recovery Strategy by Rule Petitioners contend that proposed rules 62-42.100(1) and (2) enlarge, modify, or contravene sections 373.042(4) and 373.0421(2) because these statutes require DEP to adopt all of a recovery strategy by rule, not just the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy. Respondents contend that it was consistent with the law for DEP to adopt only the regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy by rule and have SRWMD approve the non- regulatory portion and implement it through a regional water supply plan. It has been the practice of the water management districts to adopt by rule only the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy and to implement the non-regulatory portion as a component of their regional water supply plans. This is primarily a legal issue and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law where it is concluded that DEP is not required to adopt the entire Recovery Strategy by rule. Whether SRWMD Must Adopt the Recovery Strategy By Rule Petitioner Still challenged SRWMD’s approval of the Recovery Strategy as violating the rulemaking requirements of section 120.54. However, Petitioner Still presented no evidence in support of his claim that the Recovery Strategy contains statements that meet the definition of a rule, but were not adopted as rules. Whether the Non-Regulatory Portion of the Recovery Strategy Will Prevent Recovery The Alliance claims that there are flaws in the non- regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy that was approved by SRWMD, primarily related to the estimate of flow deficits in the MFL water bodies and the corresponding amount of water that must be returned to the system to achieve the minimum flows. There is unrefuted record evidence indicating that SRWMD did not account for consumptive use permits issued in the last three or four years. Therefore, the Recovery Strategy probably underestimates the flow deficits in the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and the amount of water needed to achieve the minimum flows.4/ However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Alliance cannot challenge the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy in this proceeding. The Recovery Strategy, including the non-regulatory portion approved by SRWMD, is in Phase I. SRWMD can revise the Recovery Strategy at any time, and in Phase II can do so with the improved analysis made possible with the new regional model. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the non-regulatory portion does not have to achieve recovery in Phase I. Whether the Minimum Flows are Based on the Best Information Available Petitioner Still contends that the minimum flows are not based on the best information available as required by section 373.042(1)(b). He claims that the wrong method was used to estimate streamflow, the modeling was based on a false assumption about the relationship between groundwater levels and river flows, the relationship between withdrawals and flows was not properly accounted for, withdrawals and other anthropogenic impacts were not properly distinguished, tailwater effects were not properly accounted for, and the wrong period of record was used. Petitioner Still’s arguments in this respect are based largely on his own opinions about the quality and significance of the technical data that was used and how it affects the modeling results used in establishing the minimum flows. Petitioner Still does not have the requisite expertise to express these opinions and he did not get expert witnesses at the final hearing to agree with his claims. Petitioner Still does not have an expertise in modeling to express an opinion about the ability of the model to use particular data or how the model accounts for various surface and groundwater phenomena. Petitioner Still failed to prove that the minimum flows are not based on the best available information. Whether the Proposed Rules Are Vague Petitioner Still contends the Proposed Rules are invalid because they use terms that are vague. Some of the terms which Petitioner Still objects to are the same or similar to terms commonly used in other environmental regulations, such as “best available information,” “impact,” “offset,” and “eliminate.” The term “potential impact” is not materially different than the term “impact.” The term “best available modeling tools” is not vague. It reflects the recognition that, like best available information, hydrologic models and technical information are continually being created and updated. Petitioner Still contends that the definitions of “Flow Duration Curve” and “Flow Duration Frequency” in proposed rules 62-42.200(1) and (2), respectively, are vague because they do not state whether “synthetic” data may be used in the production of the flow duration curve, or that they are based on a specific period of record. Synthetic data are numeric inputs used to account for missing data and are created by extrapolating from existing data. As an example, they can be used to satisfy a model’s need to have a water flow entry for every month in a multi-year period being analyzed when there is no actual data available for some of the months. The use of synthetic data is a regular and accepted practice in modeling and does not have to be mentioned in the rule. Flow duration curves and flow duration frequencies are calculated from data covering specific periods of record. Although the definitions of these two terms in proposed rule 62-42.200 could contain more information than is provided, the proposed definitions are not inaccurate. They are not vague. Petitioner Still contends that proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is vague because it establishes the minimum flows for the Santa Fe River at a location without precisely identifying the location. The record shows that the reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” is the actual name of the United States Geological Survey flow gage that has been in use for many years. Furthermore, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(c), which establishes the minimum flows for the priority springs, refers to “the respective river gages listed in paragraphs 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b).” Therefore, it is made clear that the reference to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is a reference to a river gage. The rule is not vague. Petitioner Still asserts that the minimum flows in proposed 62-42.300(1) are vague because they do not identify the period of record that was used in deriving the flow duration curves which are used in the rule. He compared the wording in the proposed rule to SRWMD’s existing rule 40B-8.061(1), which identifies the technical report from which the flow duration curve in that rule was derived. A general description of flow duration curves is found in “Minimum Flows and Levels for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River and Priority Springs” dated November 22, 2013 (“MFL Technical Document”), at page 3-6: They show the percent of time specified discharges were equaled or exceeded for a continuous record in a given period. For example, during the period 1932 to 2010, the daily mean flow of the Santa Fe River near Fort White (Figure 3-2) was at least 767 cfs, 90 percent of the time. The curves are influenced by the period of record used in their creation, but for comparison purposes between different scenarios over a fixed time period they are extremely useful. [Emphasis added.] However, proposed rule 62-42.300(1) does not give the period of record for the flow duration curves that will be used to determine compliance with the minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. Respondents argued that identifying the period of record is unnecessary because anyone interested in knowing the period of record or anything else pertaining to how the flow duration curves were produced could refer to the MFL Technical Document. This is not a situation where a specific number and unit, such as 100 cfs, has been established as a criterion based on technical analyses that can be found in documents. In such a case, the technical documents are not needed to determine compliance with the criterion; they simply explain why the criterion was selected. In the case of a flow duration curve, however, the period of record for the data to be used must be known to determine compliance. For example, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a)1. would establish the following criterion: “3,101 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a flow duration frequency of five percent.” Five percent of what? Five percent of what data set? Data from what time period? Must the same synthetic data be used? The rule does not inform persons subject to the rule what data SRWMD will use to determine compliance. They would not know how to calculate flow duration frequencies without reviewing the MFL Technical Document. Because the minimum flows are not completely identified in the rule, they are vague. Whether a Minimum Flow Should be Established for Each Priority Spring Petitioner Still contends that the Proposed Rules are invalid because minimum flows are not established for each priority spring, which causes them to be unprotected. He claims that each spring needs its own minimum flow “that takes into account the surface and ground water inputs to its flow.” DEP and SRWMD presented evidence that establishing minimum flows for each spring was impracticable because there were insufficient data for the springs. Petitioner Still did not refute this evidence. Whether the Proposed Rules Allow Further Degradation of the MFL Water Bodies The Alliance contends that the Proposed Rules must reduce permitted withdrawals in Phase I and must require monitoring of water use by agricultural water users, but it did not present evidence that these alternative regulatory measures are practicable in SRWMD in Phase I. The Alliance did not show there are permitting mechanisms that have been used by other water management districts as part of the first phase of a recovery strategy that are practicable for use in SRWMD and would be more effective. The only evidence presented on the subject of what regulatory measures other water management districts have adopted as part of a recovery strategy pertained to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”). That evidence showed that SWFWMD took a similar approach of allowing existing permitted uses to continue their water withdrawals while new water supplies and conservation mechanisms were developed. The Alliance contends that the Supplemental Regulatory Measures do not prevent further degradation because there are projected to be numerous, new agricultural water uses in Phase I. However, under section 6.5(b), new water uses will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. The Alliance makes a similar argument regarding existing agricultural water users who will request an increase in water. Under section 6.5(c), increases in water use will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. Whether the SERC and Revised SERC are Good Faith Estimates and Whether the Proposed Rules Impose the Lowest Cost Regulatory Alternatives Petitioner Still failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that DEP’s original SERC or the revised SERC were not good faith estimates of regulatory costs associated with the Proposed Rules. The record evidence shows they are good faith estimates. He also failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that the objectives of the law being implemented could be substantially accomplished by a less costly regulatory alternative.
Findings Of Fact This application is a request for a consumptive use permit for two wells located in Pasco County, Florida, within the Pithlachascotee Basin. The subject wells are also located in that area wherein the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District declared a water shortage in Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 95,000 gallons with a maximum daily withdrawal of 360,000 gallons. The use of this water is for public supply involving effluent disposal by on-site percolation and ponding. This-use was existing prior to January 1, 1975 with am average daily withdrawal for 1974 of 74,000 gallons. The testimony presented by staff members of the Southwest Florida Water Management District establishes that the consumptive use for which a permit is sought will not violate any of the criteria set forth in Subsections 163- 2.11(2)(3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code, except that the use may significantly induce salt water encroachment. No evidence was presented showing that the sought for consumptive use will, in fact, significantly induce salt water encroachment. In the twelve month period ending October, 1975, applicant's highest average daily withdrawal was 81,000 gallons. This time frame corresponds to that time frame referred to in paragraph 1 of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. In view of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District, the staff recommends granting of the permit for an average daily withdrawal of 81,000 gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of four times that figure or 234,000 gallons. The staff further recommends imposition of the following conditions: That the permittee shall install totalizer flow meters of the propeller driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the permit with the exception of those wells which are currently ganged together using a single meter. That the permittee shall submit to the District a record of his pumpage for each meter, said pumpage to be read on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District on April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter. That all individual connections to the system be metered. That the permittee have water samples from all wells permitted analyzed for chloride on a monthly basis and results submitted to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar year.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether proposed rules 62-40.410(3) and 62-40.474, in whole or in part, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2005).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties AFCD is a non-profit association representing 52 companies, including land developers, property owners, and other professionals involved in the planning, design, licensing, construction, and marketing of master-planned communities with multiple land uses, including residential uses, throughout the State of Florida. AFCD was established for the purpose of advancing the commercial and residential land development projects of its members, including informing state government policy makers and regulators about current issues affecting the community development industry. FHBA is a trade association working to promote and protect Florida’s residential construction industry. FHBA’s activities on behalf of its members include monitoring public policy and working with state agencies on environmental and land use regulations affecting the residential construction industry. The Environmental Groups are not-for-profit corporations whose principle activities include advocacy for the protection of Florida's fish and wildlife. They have thousands of members who live near and use Florida waters for recreational, educational and other purposes. SFWMD and SJRWMD are regional agencies that are authorized by statute to make water reservations within their respective jurisdictions. Any rule they adopt to create a water reservation will be subject to review by DEP to determine whether it is consistent with the proposed rule. The Proposed Rules On December 20, 2002, DEP published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the F.A.W. for various provisions of the WRIR. Notices of changes were also published in the F.A.W. on February 21, 2003, August 15, 2003, and February 27, 2004. The version of the rules at issue in this case was published in the August 15, 2003, issue of the F.A.W. DEP held nine rule development workshops around the State and one public rule adoption hearing for the proposed rules. DEP solicited comments from the public and stakeholders, including local governments, regional water supply authorities, water utility organizations and water management districts throughout the rulemaking process. Proposed rule 62-40.474 provides as follows: The governing board or the department, by rule, may reserve water from use by permit applicants, pursuant to section 373.223(4), F.S., in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as in its judgment may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety. Such reservations shall be subject to periodic review at least every five years, and revised if necessary in light of changed conditions. However, all presently existing legal uses of water shall be protected so long as such use is not contrary to the public interest. Reservations may be used for the protection of fish and wildlife to: Aid in a recovery or prevention strategy for a water resource with an established minimum flow or level; Aid in the restoration of natural systems which provide fish and wildlife habitat; Protect flows or levels that support fish and wildlife before harm occurs; Protect fish and wildlife within an Outstanding Florida Water, an Aquatic Preserve, a state park, or other publicly owned conservation land with significant ecological value; or Prevent withdrawals in any other circumstance required to protect fish and wildlife. Reservations may be used for the protection of public health and safety to: Prevent sinkhole formation; Prevent or decrease saltwater intrusion; Prevent the movement or withdrawal of groundwater pollutants; or Prevent withdrawals in any other circumstance required to protect public health and safety. Reservations shall, to the extent practical, clearly describe the location, quantity, timing, and distribution of the water reserved. Reservations can be adopted prospectively for water quantities anticipated to be made available. When water is reserved prospectively, the reservation rule shall state when the quantities are anticipated to become available and how the reserved quantities will be adjusted if the actual water made available is different than the quantity anticipated. The District shall conduct an independent scientific peer review of all scientific or technical data, methodologies, and models, including all scientific and technical assumptions employed in each model, used to establish a reservation if the District determines such a review is needed. As part of its determination of the necessity of conducting a peer review, the District shall consider whether a substantially affected person has requested such a review. Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 403.036(1)(d), 373.171, FS. Law Implemented 373.023, 373.026, 373.036(1)(d), 373.042, 373.046, 373.103, 373.106, 373.171, 373.175, 373.1961, 373.223, 373.246, 373.418, 373.451, 373.453, 403.0891, FS. History - New The proposed change to rule 62-40.410(3), indicated by underscoring, provides: Water may be reserved from permit use in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as is required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health or safety. Such reservations shall be subject to periodic review and revision in light of changed conditions. However, all presently existing legal users of water shall be protected so long as such use is not contrary to the public interest. Reservations shall be established in accordance with section 62-40.474, F.A.C. Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.036(1)(d), 373.171, FS. Law Implemented 373.023, 373.026, 373.036(1)(d), 373.042, 373.0421, 373.103, 373.171, 373.175, 373.1961, 373.223, 373.233, 373.246, 373.250, 403.064, 403.0891, FS. History -- New 7-20-95, Amended. The validity of the proposed change to rule 62-40.410(3) is derivative of, and dependent on, the validity of proposed rule 62-40.474. Therefore, the discussion that follows will focus on proposed rule 62-40.474, and references to "the proposed rule" will mean rule 62-40.474. Water Reservations Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, provides: The governing board or the department, by regulation, may reserve from use by permit applicants, water in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as in its judgment may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety. Such reservations shall be subject to periodic review and revision in the light of changed conditions. However, all presently existing legal uses of water shall be protected so long as such use is not contrary to the public interest. Water reservations are important for what they enable--the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety, but they are also important for what they preclude-- use of the reserved water by any water use permit applicant. DEP does not believe the challenged rule is necessary to enable the water management districts to make reservations of water. DEP's purpose in enacting the rule is to provide goals, objectives, and guidance to the water management districts regarding water reservations. The proposed rule is intended to provide examples of "the types of situations that may be appropriate for the use of reservations." The proposed rule does not establish a water reservation. Each reservation of water must be accomplished through the adoption of a rule by a water management district or by DEP. There has been only one water reservation ever made pursuant to Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes. It was made by SJRWMD in 1994 and is codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-2.302: The Governing Board finds that reserving a certain portion of the surface water flow through Prairie Creek and Camps Canal south of Newnans Lake in Alachua County, Florida, is necessary in order to protect the fish and wildlife which utilize the Paynes Prairie State Preserve, in Alachua County, Florida. The Board therefore reserves from use by permit applicants that portion of surface water flow in Prairie Creek and Camps Canal that drains by gravity through an existing multiple culvert structure into Paynes Prairie. This reservation is for an average flow of 35 cubic feet per second (23 million gallons per day) representing approximately forty-five percent (45%) of the calculated historic flow of surface water through Paynes Creek and Camps Canal. Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, was part of the original Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 ("the 1972 Act"). Ch. 72-299, § 3, Laws of Fla. The wording of the subsection is unchanged since its enactment in 1972. Much of the 1972 Act was derived, verbatim, from A Model Water Code, drafted at the University of Florida College of Law between 1967 and 1971 by Dean Frank Maloney, Professor Richard Ausness, and Professor J. Scott Morris. Maloney, et al., A Model Water Code, Univ. of Fla. Press (1971). However, the Legislature did not adopt the exact wording of the water reservation provision that was offered in A Model Water Code. In A Model Water Code, water was to be reserved when "required to implement a provision of the State Water Plan." Id. at 21, 181. The State Water Plan was composed of a State Water Use Plan and a State Water Quality Plan. Id. at 9. The following commentary accompanied the water reservation provision in A Model Water Code: This provision is designed to integrate the operation of the permit system with the State Water Use Plan and State Water Quality Plan. Under this subsection, the governing board by regulation may set aside a fixed quantity of water; no future permit application can be made for water reserved in this fashion. [This provision] would be of particular value in connection with the maintenance of water quality standards, as it would provide a margin of safety during periods of low flow. Id. at 181. The State Water Plan was to address many subjects, including minimum flows and levels, water supply development, water quality improvement, environmental protection, conservation and recreation. By providing that water could be reserved when "required to implement a provision of the State Water Plan," A Model Water Code contemplated that water could be reserved to address any of these subjects. Although the 1972 Legislature provided for a comprehensive plan similar to the State Water Plan, it did not make reference to the plan in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes (1972). The reason the Legislature chose not to use the wording "when required to implement a provision of the State Water Plan" in A Model Water Code but, instead chose to use "when required to protect fish and wildlife or the public health and safety" in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, is not explained in any exhibit in the record or in any primary or secondary source cited in the briefs of the parties. It remains a matter of speculation. Petitioners believe that it is clear from the Legislature's choice of words that it intended to strictly limit the circumstances in which a reservation would be used. Petitioners believe that other, more specific findings about what the 1972 Legislature would have considered an inappropriate use of a water reservation can be inferred from the Legislature's decision not to use the wording proposed in A Model Water Code. After considerable thought and review of the commentary in A Model Water Code and the provisions of the 1972 Act, it is concluded that there is an insufficient basis to make findings of fact regarding the 1972 Legislature's intent in not using the exact wording from A Model Water Code in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' theory of the Legislature's intent is plausible, but is not the only plausible theory. The only certainty is that, from the alternatives considered by the 1972 Legislature, it chose to express the purposes for which water can be reserved as "protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety." There are three other references in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to water reservations. None were a part of the 1972 Act. Section 373.0361(2)(a)2., Florida Statutes, directs that water reservations be taken into account in proposals for alternative water supply projects. Section 373.0361(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires regional water supply plans of the water management districts to include a listing of "Reservations adopted by rule pursuant to s. 373.223(4) within each planning region." Section 373.470(3)(c), Florida Statutes, refers to the use of water reservations in conjunction with restoration of the Everglades. Much of the argument and testimony in this case addressed Petitioners' contention that the proposed rule's provision for the use of water reservations "to aid in the restoration of natural systems" went far beyond "protection of fish and wildlife," the purpose stated in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes. References were made to the dictionary definitions of "protection" and "restoration" and all the expert witnesses offered opinions about their meanings. The term "protection" is not defined in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or in any DEP rule. The dictionary meaning of "protect" is to shield or defend against danger or injury; to cover or shield something from exposure, injury or destruction; to maintain the status or integrity of something; to guard. "Protection" is the act of protecting or the state of being protected. See, e.g., The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 803 (1988); Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 938 10th Ed. (1996). DEP does not interpret the phrase "protection of fish and wildlife" in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, as limited to keeping alive only those specific fish and wildlife organisms existing at the time a water reservation is established. DEP witness Janet Llewellyn testified that DEP has consistently interpreted this phrase to mean ensuring a healthy and sustainable, native fish and wildlife community; one that can remain healthy and viable through natural cycles of drought, flood, and population variation. Petitioners' experts did not dispute DEP's interpretation of "protection of fish and wildlife" to include the concepts of "native" species and species "communities." Petitioners contend, however, that the statute should be interpreted to apply only to existing, native fish and wildlife communities. The term "restore" is not defined in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or in any DEP rule. The dictionary meaning of "restore" is to put back or bring back into an original or former state or condition. "Restoration" is the act of restoring or the condition of being restored. See, e.g., The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 834 (1988); Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 998 10th Ed. (1996). DEP intends the word "restoration," as used in the proposed rule, to have its common meaning. All the experts who testified in this case acknowledged that "protection" and "restoration" are different concepts and they each articulated an understanding of the meaning of these terms that was consistent with the dictionary meanings of the terms. The experts differed, however, in how they applied the terms "protection" and "restoration" to examples of environmental improvement activities. In general, Petitioners' experts thought a relatively clear line could be drawn between protection and restoration activities. The experts presented by DEP and Audubon, on the other hand, stated that the concepts are often overlapping and are not mutually exclusive. Petitioners' experts believe that when a project will have results that include more than maintenance of the current state, such as increasing numbers of organisms, increasing diversity, increasing habitat, or improving water quality, then the activity is no longer "protection," and becomes "restoration." In contrast, the DEP and Audubon experts believe that environmental conditions must sometimes be restored in order to protect existing fish and wildlife. DEP agrees that protection is not the same thing as restoration. It is DEP's position that the proposed rule cannot authorize, for example, the reservation of water for restoration of habitat or ground or surface water levels, except to the "extent needed for the protection of fish and wildlife or public health and safety." DEP agrees that a water reservation cannot be used "merely because restoration is desired." Ms. Llewellyn explained further: When a water management district initiates rulemaking to adopt a reservation, if the reservation is in aid of any restoration, the district will have to show that the aid to such restoration is no more than necessary to protect fish and wildlife or public health and safety. Ms. Llewellyn gave examples of how a reservation could be properly used as part of a restoration project to protect fish and wildlife. She stated that an estuary that previously supported a healthy population of oysters could be adversely affected by reduced inflows of fresh water due to diversions of water from the drainage basin which have increased the salinity of the water in the estuary. The water management district might construct a reservoir to store water in the rainy season for release in the dry season to keep salinities in the estuary at the proper level to protect the health of oysters. In this example, it is inferred that Ms. Llewellyn intended to convey that the release of reservoir water in the dry season would constitute restoration of a previously existing volume of freshwater inflow to the estuary, or restoration of the salinity level that would exist if the diversions had not occurred. The more persuasive evidence in the record supports a finding that, in the context of the comprehensive water resources program established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, protection and restoration are not mutually exclusive terms and it is possible to take action that meets the dictionary definition of restoration, but which does no more than protect (ensure the health and sustainability of) existing fish and wildlife communities. A restoration project could go beyond "protection" of fish and wildlife if, rather than merely restoring an environmental condition required for the health and sustainability of existing fish and wildlife communities, the project resulted in significantly larger fish and wildlife communities. Whether water reserved to restore an environmental condition is required for the protection of fish and wildlife depends on the particular circumstances involved.
Findings Of Fact Mr. George Szell was presented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and sworn as a witness. Mr. Szell was qualified and accepted as an expert hydrogeologist employed by the District. Included within Mr. Szell's responsibilities to the District were evaluation of the subject application. An application for consumptive use permit has been filed in proper from by Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc., and it was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1. The water source are two existing wells located on a 580.1 acre tract of land in Hillsborough County, Florida, legal description of which is included and admitted into evidence as part of Exhibit 1. A maximum daily withdrawal of each of the wells is 591,700 gallons and the average daily withdrawal of each of the two wells is 295,850 gallons. The total average daily withdrawal for both wells combined is 591,700 gallons, or 94.43 percent of the water crop of the applicant as defined in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. 85 percent of the water used would be used for general residential purposes and 15 percent of the water used would be used for watering the grounds of the development. Letters of objection were received from Joseph and Roseamn Clements, C. C. and Ida M. Weisner, Sr.,. Miguel and Juanita Perez, Howard R. Lewis, Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie F. Lovell, Stephen J. KucIar (sic), and Carmen Vasquez. Reasons for the objections as stated in these letters was the effect the pending application would have upon the wells of the persons objecting. Mr. Szell testified that none of the matter set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) and (4), F.A.C. exists so as to require the denial of the permit. Mr. Earl Bessent testified that 55 acres of holding ponds were to be constructed on the property during the development and that the effect of these holding ponds would be to increase the input of waters from the 580 acres to the surface aquifer.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500087, submitted by Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc., 111 Fountainbleau Boulevard, Miami, Florida, be granted for a maximum daily withdrawal of 1,183,400 gallons and an average daily withdrawal of 591,700 gallons, subject to the installation of flow meters on each of the wells and monthly readings thereof reported to the District quarterly. Entered this 4th day of August, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. T. Ahern, Esquire C. C. and Ida Weismer, Sr. Staff Attorney Route 7, Box 635-J Southwest Florida Water Tampa, Florida 33614 Management District Post Office Box 457 Miguel and Juanita Perez Brooksville, Florida 33501 Route 7, Box 635-K Tampa, Florida 33614 Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Lovell 111 Fountainbleau Boulevard Route 5, Box 485-A Miami, Florida 33126 Tampa, Florida 33614 Howard R. Lewis Carmen Vasquez Route 5, box 485-AB Route 7, Box 635 Tampa, Florida 33614 Tampa, Florida 33615 Mr. Earl Bessent Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman, Inc. 3708 Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 Joseph and Roseann Clememts Route 7, Box 634-J Tampa, Florida 33614
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made:
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the District enter a Final Order denying the City's petition for a variance from the established lawn and landscape irrigation restrictions imposed under the District's Governing Board Order 92-12, as amended. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7161 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner, City of Bradenton 1. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(7); 2(10); 3(12); 4(11); 6(13); 8-9(3); 12(15a); 16(3); 17(37); 19(38); 23-24(39); 48(40); 49(44); 50,51(42), 53-65(42), 67-70(42); 71(41); 72(42); 76(15a); 77-78(15b); 81- 82(15c); 84(15a); 101(17); 107-119(20-21); 120-126(22-27); 127-131(28); 132- 139(29); 140(25-28); 141(20-24); 142(23-24); 143(47); and 145-146(41). 2. Proposed findings of fact 5, 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 20-22, 25-32, 35-47, 52, 66, 73-75, 79, 80, 83, 85, 87-95, 97, 99, and 102-106 are either immaterial, irrelevant, subordinate or unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 7 is covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed findings of fact 33, 34, 86, 96, 98, and 100 are not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District The following proposed finding(s) of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(7); 2(9); 3(7,8); 4(10,12); 5(4); 6(15); 7-8(6); 9(18); 10(17); 11-12(19); 13(20); 14(21); 16(22,23); 17(23,24); 18(25); 19(26); 20(27); 21-22(28); 24(47); 25(46); 26(29); 27(29); 28(30,35); 29-31(31); 32(45); 33(32); 34(33); 35(34); 36(36); 37(37,39); 38(40); 39(41); 40(43); 41(42); 42(43); and 43(44). Proposed findings of fact 15, 23 and 44 are not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara B. Levin, Esquire Davis, Persson, Smith & Darnell 2033 Main Street, Suite 406 Sarasota, Florida 34237 William Lisch, Esquire 519 13th Street West Bradenton, Florida 34205 James A. Robinson, Esquire Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Southwest Florid 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
Findings Of Fact Existing Conditions Between 1952 and 1957 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Florida Central and Southern Flood Control District (the forerunner of SFWMD) constructed a chain of levees, L-1, L-2, L-3 and later L-4 in eastern Hendry County, Florida. These levees which begin approximately 10 miles to the southwest of Lake Okeechobee run first east, then south and then east again for a distance of approximately 38 miles. The purpose of these levees is to shield the land5/ to the east of them from the natural sheet flow of water which comes from the west during the area's rainy season. The EAA which is protected from natural flooding consist of rich muck soils which have been successfully exploited for years by sugar cane farming. The present levees were created by excavating a "borrow" canal parallel to the southern and western sides of L-1, 2, 3 and 4. The borrow canal is no larger than was required to provide sufficient material for construction of the levees; nevertheless, the canal has a considerable water carrying capacity in the amount of 1,260 CFS 6/ at peak flow. The canal is a navigable fresh water of the state. It interconnects into other navigable canals which terminate in either Lake Okeechobee or the Miami River. The water carried by the borrow canal flows south and discharges into the Miami canal via either a pumping station designated S-8, or via the borrow canal next to L-28.7/ The water which enters the Miami canal ultimately travels to canal C-60 and then into the section of WCA-3 south of Alligator Alley (State Road 84). Flooding The rain water which once moved from west to east directly across the eastern portion of Hendry County, Florida into the EAA is now interdicted by L- 1, 2 and 3. As a result it ponds in the corner of the intersection of L-1 and L-2 (known in these proceedings as the L-1 angle). The area flooded is grass land used by Hendry County ranchers for the open grazing of beef cattle. Some of the pasture is improved, that is fertilized, but the majority of the area is unimproved range. During flood times the ranchers move their cattle to alternative pastures either to the north or to the west. The deepest flooding, when it occurs, is immediately next to the levees in the L-1 angle. The flooding has been known to reach depths as great as 10 feet and to extend westward for several miles. Because the land to the west of the L-1 angle is higher, the depth of the flooding decreases in a westerly direction. The duration of the ponding immediately in the L-1 angle has been as long as 80 days after a prolonged and heavy rainfall event. This flooding occurs despite the capacity of the borrow canal to remove 0.18 inch of flood water per day from the inundated area. When there is flooding in the L-1 angle there is also high water In the northeast corner of WCA-3A where some of the water from the borrow canal is presently discharged. During a dry season the land immediately adjacent to the present borrow canal suffers overdraining due to seepage of ground water into the canal and its resulting evaporation or conveyance south. Water Conservation Area 3A is part of a series of conservation areas established as their name implies to conserve water. Extending over portions of several South Florida counties including Palm Beach, Broward and Dade, they provide the recharge source for the Biscayne Aquifer and other aquifers which are the water supply for metropolitan South Florida. The water conservation areas are also wildlife refuges and provide natural habitats for numerous South Florida animals such as deer, alligator, and wading birds. Description of Project The Hendry County plan as described by the Corps in General Design Memorandum No. 2, 8/ envisions the construction of a flood control canal, C- 139, with two water flow control structures, S-239 and S-243. To create C-139, the Corps plans to further excavate the existing borrow canal next to L-2, L-3 and L-4 for a total distance of 37 miles. See Illustration I.* This excavation will result in the removal of 5.2 million cubic yards of earth and limestone. Some of the resulting spoil will be used to create a levee along the west side of C-139. Most of the excavation will be done by draglines on the canal banks. Upon its completion C-139 will be an immense water conveyance. At its northern end the canal will be only five feet across the bottom with a depth of 10.6 feet, but by the time the canal reaches WCA-3A it will have enlarged to a bottom width of 80 feet across and a depth of 19.5 feet. Its peak design capacity is 3,000 CFS. That is more than twice the present capacity of the existing borrow canal. Downstream from S-239 C-139 turns south to be designated C-139(S) and to gradually become increasingly shallower. This will cause a discharge pattern designed to create a sheet flow across WCA-3A. Benefits, Future Land Use It appears that when levees L-1, 2 and 3 were constructed the Corps failed to fully consider the adverse effect which would result from the impoundment of water by the new levees. According to the General Design Memorandum, Levees 1, 2, 3 and 4 were constructed in the mid 1950s to prevent flood waters originating on the then sparsely developed lands westward of the levees from contri- buting to flooding on the rich agricultural lands lying to the east of the levees. The original borrow canals were sized based on materials needed for the levee construction. The sparse economic development of the lands to the west precluded increasing the con- veyance capacity of these canals to prevent flooding on those lands. Construction of the levees and the subsequent increased de- velopment over the drainage area have aggra- vated flooding problems on the lands. Water stands on some of the land during practically the entire wet season virtually every year. As the landowners developed the land, they became increasingly vociferous about con- struction of works to alleviate the flooding for which they contend is project-induced. There is merit in their contention in that the adjacent project works adversely affected both depth and duration of flooding in the area west of Levees 1, 2 and 3. (Emphasis added) The facts presented at the instant final hearing are somewhat to the contrary, in that there was no showing of significant subsequent development west of the levees after their construction. For many decades vast family ranches have raised cattle on the mentioned lands as they continue to do today. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to now provide flood control to an approximately 261 square mile drainage basin west of the flood-causing levees.9/ With a design capacity of 3,000 CFS, C-139 can handle twice the water which drains through the present borrow canal. By way of comparison the present canal has a drainage capacity of .18 inches per day from the flooded area during a ten-year flood,10/ while C-139 has the capacity to drain .43 inches per day. This heightened discharge rate will cause land in the L-1 angle to flood less, and once flooded, to be underwater for a shorter period of time. For instance, an area which during a ten-year storm might have been submerged for 40 days prior to the construction of the project Is estimated to have an inundation period of only 10 days upon the project's completion. The significance of the reduced flooding to the landowners in the flooded area is difficult to gauge from the evidence. Because an intensification of land use would result in a lowering in the quality of the water which runs off the land and into C-139 and thence into the environmentally sensitive water conservation area,11/ the landowners supporting the project were understandably reluctant to testify that the project will allow them to use their land for more than continued cattle grazing. The testimony of Mr. Joe Hillard, a partner in Hillard Bros. of Florida, Inc., one of the larger ranches is illustrative: Q If this project, the flood control portion, were built, would your company change any of its land uses on this land that you described? A No, sir, not at all. Not with what I understand is going to be done with the project I wouldn't change anything. In response to the Hearing Officer's later inquiry, Mr. Hillard explained that the project would allow pasture land to be used for twelve months per year as opposed to the current nine months per year during a flood season. He does not anticipate grazing any more head per acre after the project. This evidence contrasted with the assumptions made by the Corps in that part of the General Design Memorandum which discusses the cost-benefit ratio of the project. The Memorandum states at p. 52: As noted previously, the existing activity within the area is predominately agricultural with major emphasis in beef cattle production. Local landowners and managers were asked to indicate the production changes they expected to make with the reduced flood hazards available under with (sic) project condi- tions. These expectations were prepared as a land use map with the basic control matrix. For the most part, these changes in land use represented more intensive types of agricultural cultivation. In some cases, existing beef pastures were expected to be replaced with sugarcane, truck crops, and citrus production. The majority of the changes were an upgrading of existing beef cattle operations. Such upgrading was affected (sic) by planting the more pro- ductive types of pasture such as clover and grass combinations, and the application of additional fertilizers and supplemental water. These expectations were assumed to exist under favorable cultivation conditions. Because of the nature of soil conditions in the project drainage basin, sandy with poor nutrient and water retention ability, it is unlikely that land use in the 261 square mile drainage basin will change significantly. As predicted by Mr. Hillard, it is likely that all the project would do is allow more grazing time on land which is now periodically flooded. Since it is not the function of this proceeding to inquire into whether the purported cost- benefit ratio of the project is accurate, no findings will be made concerning that issue. Project Permitting History The Hendry County portion of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project for flood control west of levees 1, 2 and 3 was authorized by the Congress of the United States in the Flood Control Act of October 27, 1965. The Army Corps of Engineers is the actual builder of the project, but SFWMD is the local sponsor and is the Corps' agent in applying for the necessary permits from DER. The Department as the permitting agency is in a curious position here. Its Bureau of Water Resources (BWR) was responsible for the State Public Works Program through which Florida requested Congress to fund the Hendry County Project. Mr. Charles Littlejohn who was head of the Bureau in 1976 had the responsibility of lobbying in Washington for funding of the project. The DER through its Bureau of Permitting is now asked to pass on the validity of a project which the BWR has so vigorously promoted. The Department's uncomfortable posture was recognized by its permitting staff. In a memorandum dated March 9, 1979 to Mr. E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Mr. Forrest Fields at DER wrote: I told Mr. Brown, as I told you yesterday that I felt rather awkward in reviewing for permitting a project which the agency had endorsed for the public works list." Every year projects being sponsored for federal approval are reviewed by a process In the Division of State Planning called the A-95 Clearinghouse.12/ The Hendry County Project had a checkered history there. Serious objections concerning the environmental impact of the project were raised; nevertheless, DER through the BWR continued to seek and was successful in obtaining federal funding. On November 15, 1978, SFWMD filed an application with DER for the requisite permits to begin construction. During the course of DER's review of the project several issues arose between the parties. Among them were: Whether local approval pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes would be required? Would an exception from dissolved oxygen (DO) standards be necessary? Whether local water quality standards would apply if they were stricter than state standards? Local Approval As early as February 19, 1979, DER noted that plans submitted by the applicant proposed the placement of fill in waters of the state. In a letter to Mr. Lee M. Brown of SFWMD, Mr. Forrest Fields, the DER permit processor, observed: Second, on page 2/11 of your drawings, you indicated that approximately 5,800 cubic yards of fill material will be placed water- ward of ordinary mean high water. I pre- sume that this fill is associated with structures S-243 and S-239. Pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, approval of this filling by resolution of the local government is required. To do this I will, upon receipt of the Department of Environ- mental Regulation field report, summarize and send this to the Hendry County Commission. The Commission will have to consider this report, and, by vote, adopt a resolution approving the project. I will send you a sample resolution. The requirement of local approval was reiterated numerous times. In March, 1979, Mr. Fields sent a staff report of a biological survey of the project to the Hendry County Commission for consideration in their approval of the project. During a meeting on March 21, 1979 in the DER Secretary's office representatives of SFWMD were told that local approval would be required. On April 10, 1979 the County Commissioners of Hendry County gave their approval to the project. In correspondence to Mr. Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society, Secretary Jacob D. Varn noted that the permit applications were still incomplete because local approval for filling associated with the two water control structures had not yet been received by DER. During a public meeting held on May 22, 1979, the County Commissioners of Broward County, after three and one-half hours of testimony, voted 6-0 against approving the project as it related to fill in Broward County. Subsequent to that vote the Corps and SFWMD asserted that local approval by Broward County was not required. In response to this assertion Mr. Charles Littlejohn, on behalf of the Secretary, requested a legal opinion from DER's General Counsel. On October 30, 1979, General Counsel's Legal Opinion 79- 72 concluded that the Department could assert Chapter 253 jurisdiction over the project and therefore "local approval" is a statutory requirement for its permitting. On March 17, 1980 Mrs. Evelyn Jackman of Jackman and Sons, Inc., one of the major ranchers in the project drainage basin, wrote to Governor Graham to urge the rapid approval of the project. Her correspondence was forwarded to DER for an appropriate response. Ms. Victoria J. Tschinkel as Assistant Secretary noted in her reply on April 3, 1980 that: Pursuant to Section 253.124(3), Florida Statutes approval must be obtained from the County Commissioners before we can complete the processing of a permitting application for fill in navigable waters. Approval has not been received from Broward County and there Is fill proposed for the Broward County portion of the project. Ms. Tschinkel did, however, assure Mrs. Jackman that: The Department of Environmental Regulation is sympathetic to the problems outlined in your letter, and for that reason the Depart- ment has made this project part of its public works package given each year to Congress. We still support this as a public works pro- ject and for that reason we are attempting to work out the permitting problems as ex- peditiously as possible. Shortly after Ms. Tschinkel's letter was sent there was another meeting in the Secretary's office to discuss the project. Mr. Lotspeich's interoffice memorandum outlines the Department's new position as it related to local approval. In addition, the issue of what constituted fill pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, for local approval purposes was discussed. Helen Setchfield also partici- pated in this discussion. After Helen and I looked more closely at the project, it appeared that only a concrete structure (S-239) was to be placed waterward of OHW.13/ We both agreed that in past permitting practices we had not required local approval for the construction of structures waterward of OHW, but only when fill to extend existing lands or create new lands was involved. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the fill and structure relative to OHW and sheet 2 of 11 clearly indicates that fill will be placed "below MHW" Forrest must have assumed that local approval would be required if the canal was determined to be under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdic- tion. GCO-79-72 from Randie Denker indicated that the Department can assert Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdiction in the canals and therefore local approval would be required. It would appear that there was really no clear understanding as to what the "fill" consisted of in the case of structure 239. Conversation with Mr. Walker [counsel for SFWMD] and Messrs. Parsons [counsel for Alico and other landowners] and Davis [SFWMD] indicated that there was no intention to place fill in the canal waterward of OHW and that the concrete structure would span the entire canal width. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the structure and fill re- lative to existing OHW, Mr. Walker said he would provide new drawings which would show this. Helen and I discussed the situation and we scheduled an appointment to talk the problem over the (sic) Terry Cole. It was agreed at the meeting that simultaneous "intent" letters would be sent on May 5, 1980 from permitting and the exception review people. May 16, 1980 DER entered into a Stipulation with SFWMD which states in its entirety: The SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION for purposes of this proceeding hereby stipulate and agree that: The DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION has jurisdiction under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, to require permits autho- rizing construction and other activities described in the application which is the subject of this proceeding. None of the activities or construction, including the construction of the proposed Spillway S-239, as described in the appli- cation which is the subject of this pro- ceeding, constitute construction of islands or an addition to or extension of existing lands and islands so that approval of local governments as described in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, is not required. This Stipulation is executed by counsel for each party on the date shown. On May 20, 1980 coordinated letters of intent to grant permits for the construction of the project were issued. Pursuant to the Stipulation local approval was no longer being required by DER. Alternative Site Specific Criteria After receipt of SFWMD's permit application for the construction of C- 139 and associated structures, DIR noted that it did not have adequate data on dissolved oxygen. In correspondence dated March 9, 1979, Mr. Forrest Fields said: Fourth, the dissolved oxygen data are not adequate. The available data were col- lected during daylight, only, and these data include occasional concentrations of less than 4.0 mg/l. In an effort to re- solve these deficiencies so that reasonable assurances may be provided, you, Walt Dineen, and I will discuss the South Florida Water Management District data on Thursday, March 15. The results of the March 15, 1979 meeting were memorialized by Mr. Fields in a file memorandum dated March 19, 1979. The memorandum stated in pertinent part that: On March 15, 1979, Mr. Lee Brown, Mr. Walt Dineen, and Mr. Fred Davis, from SFWMD, called to discuss the staff's request for "reasonable assurance" re. the Department's water quality standards. Mr. Davis, the applicant's chief chemist, said that, throughout the Everglades, in both canals and conservation areas, the water quality standards for both conductivity and dis- solved oxygen are frequently violated. He asserted that this is typical of the area. He believes that these data represent natural background. The situation regarding affirmative, reasonable assurance appears to be this: widespread and frequent observations of DO data which are less than the minimum for Class III waters commonly occur within the existing L-1, L-2, L-3 canals. The increase in depth associated with C-139 is predicted to exacerbate existing stress- es on the DO regime.... However, the SFWMD's response does not constitute reasonable assurance re. other Class III standards. The District's DO and conductivity data may conceivably supply assurances that these standards will be violated in C-139. (Whether background DO and conductivity violate the standards may become important.) The District appears to have two alternatives: 1) attack the Class III standard; 2) apply for variances for, at least, DO and conductivity. A follow-up meeting was held on March 21, 1979. Again, in a file memorandum dated March 28, 1979 Mr. Fields wrote: Consideration of reasonable assurance began at the March 15, 1979, conversation among Messrs. Brown, Davis and Fields. According to the SFWMD, widespread and frequent violations of the Class III water quality standard for dissolved oxygen, as contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., occur throughout the Everglades, in the canals, agriculture areas, Lake Okeechobee, and the conservation areas. The existing borrow canals follow this pattern. The SFWMD alleges that this condition is natural back- ground. They agree that it is probable that any existing DO stresses exist in the borrow canal will be exacerbated in the proposed C-139. However, both the former and present editions of Chapter 17-3 F.A.C. allow for exceptions for natural background. The SFWMD will review these rules to determine which regulatory approach will be taken. In addition, the SFWMD will supply to DER data for the "benchmark" station in the L-28 canal and at Everglades National Park to demonstrate lower back- ground concentrations of DO. Furthermore, the SFWMD will apply, per Ch. 403.087, F.S., for a temporary operating permit for the completed structure. Conditions governing private connections and incor- porating BMPs may be included in the TOP. On April 5, 1979, SFWMD submitted in support of its original permit application a document called Evaluation of Natural Background Dissolved Oxygen in Conservation Area 3-A, South Florida. This evaluation received unfavorable reviews at. DER. Landon P. Ross, chief biologist, wrote in an April 9, 1979 memo that: I have reviewed the data provided by SFWMD regarding background DOs in the Everglades area and have the following comments: Indication that DOs are not harmful to local organisms are, in a legal sense, irrelevant to the question. The data provided give evidence of the occurrence of low DOs in the area. Since the measured low DOs seem to be from artificial drainage channels, they can hardly be supposed to be "natural". The measures that SFWMD provided, however, do not seem too different from the values that I would expect to find in a natural swamp habitat. The proposed "standard" cannot be logically derived from the DO measurements provided. This Evaluation was later submitted in support of first Petition for Exception noted infra. In his review of the data Mr. Fred Bartleson at DER wrote:14/ The data submitted by the South Florida Water Management District does not justify the requested exception for dissolved oxy- gen criteria for the Hendry County Project. The petition alleges that D.O. concentra- tions lower than 1.0 mg/l occur in the re- ceiving waters of Conservation Area 3A. However, the data submitted from that area indicate a minimum value of 2.3 mg/l. The value cited in the petition of less than 1.0 mg/l was recorded in the L-3 borrow canal adjacent to the conservation area. This canal drains an agricultural area. Similar data from the L-28 east canal which is less affected by cultural activity depicts minimum D.O. values between 3 - 2 mg/l. The low D.O. values found naturally in fresh- water wetlands during the warmer months ob- viously result in stress to the biota. The introduction of larger quantities of water from the proposed Hendry County Project, which is anticipated to have lower D.O. values as well as nutrients and pesticides from agricultural runoff, could adversely affect the ecosystem. The proposed exception allowing discharge of water with not less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours in any 24-hour period is arbitrary and not supported by data. It may well be that an exception could be granted for some lowering of the D.O. criteria with time constraints. However, more defini- tive and conclusive data are required to in- sure that this action would not cause adverse effects. The burden of supplying this infor- mation should rest with the petitioner. His views were supported by Messrs. Kevin Edwards, Vernon Myers, and G. J. Thabaraj. Mr. Edwards also noted the difference in DO readings between the WCA- 3A and the borrow canals. SFWMD filed a Petition for an Exception on July 23, 1979. The Petition alleged that the receiving waters of the proposed discharge are located in WCA-3A and that due to natural causes that portion of WCA-3A which will receive the discharge does not meet the state standards for DO as set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. The DO levels of the proposed discharge are alleged to be similar to those levels already present in the water conservation area. In response to the Petition DER requested more information by a letter from Stephen Fox dated August 29, 1979. The letter requested: Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of natural causes, that is, there is an absence of man-induced alteration; or Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated with technology or management practices. Data which supports the contention that the biota have not been adversely af- fected or will not be affected adversely. The data submitted with the application did not address the possibility that the low dis- solved oxygen levels may be caused by the practice of pumping water off the agriculture areas during the summer wet season. Compari- son with similar subtropical, undisturbed aquatic environment should be made. The dis- solved oxygen data should be compared with pumping schedules and with dissolved oxygen values of water pumped. Comprehensive water- shed and land use data is needed for a thorough review. Further, the data submitted did not support the contention in the petition of a corre- lation between C.A. 3A and canals L-3 and L-28. Also, the contention that in C.A. 3A dis- solved oxygen concentrations were below 1.0 mg/l were recorded was unsupported. The data array was not adequate in terms of distri- bution and frequency of sampling, to demon- strate that the dissolved oxygen regime ap- proaches the proposed alternative criteria. On October 2, 1979, E. D. Vergara summarized the status of the SFWMD application for the DER Secretary, Jacob D. Varn. His memorandum with respect to dissolved oxygen states: ... (permits) originally requested under old 17-3 rules, it was found quality assurances could not be made due to a naturally occurring condition of low DO. The Department requested information sup- portive of the low DO background, but due to differences in opinions among the biologists, the district elected to re- quest an exception under the provisions of the new 17-3 rule instead. Additional information has now been requested by the Department to support the request for an exception, and the District is cur- rently putting this together. It is the general feeling that with this additional data, granting the exception should be possible. SFWMD responded to Mr. Fox's letter above by submitting in the Spring of 1980, an Amended Petition for Exception from Criteria. In its Amended Petition the District abandoned the comparison, found in the original petition, of the proposed discharged waters' dissolved oxygen levels to the levels found in the water conservation district. Instead the District concentrated on a comparison of the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed discharge waters to the levels in the relatively clean canals in the South Florida area, specifically the L-28 canal system. The District proposed that as an alternative to Class III standards the following criterion be established: During any 24-hour cycle the dissolved oxygen concentration within the photic zone shall exceed 1.0 mg/l, except during the extreme low point when values shall not be less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours. (Emphasis added) Accompanying SFWMD's Amended Petition was a report (Supporting Report) dated February, 1980, which provided a voluminous compilation of data to justify the alternative standard proposed.15/ On April 8, 1980, Ms. Helen Setchfield sent a memorandum to DER staff requesting that they review the Amended Petition and report back to her within five days. Also on April 8, 1980, after a meeting attended by both SFWMD representatives and DER representatives, it was decided that DER would issue coordinated letters of intent on May 5, 1980 for both the exception and the dredge and fill applications. In spite of the decision to issue letters of intent, DER permitting staff were not satisfied with the concept that ban-made canals were "natural" background or that the proposed DO standard was reasonable. On April 16, 1980, Rick Lotspeich wrote to Suzanne Walker, Chief of the Bureau of Permitting, that: I have reviewed the referenced "request for exception" and it appears that the petition and supporting report are suf- ficiently complete to allow evaluation of the merits of the request. It would appear that the proposed dis- solved oxygen standard of 2.0 mg/l over 24 hours and 1.0 mg/l "during the extreme low point" for not more than two hours, is excessively low and not warranted by the data presented. A review of the data from figures 4 and 5 generally indicate that the following standard would be appropriate: Dissolved Oxygen: The concentration should not average less than 4.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and not less than 3.0 mg/l except during the months of June--September, when the concentra- tion shall not average less than 3.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and never less than 1.0 mg/l. Later, after having received comments from Rick Cantrell and Bob Siciler, Mr. Lotspeich wrote to Ms. Walker the following: My recollection from reading the request for exception was that SFWMD had indeed recognized the fact that the canals and their design had contributed to the de- pressed DO values of the water in them. Pursuant to Subsection 17-3.031(1), Florida Administrative Code, there may be a consideration for "man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated I am in full agreement with Cantrell and Siciler's discussion of the adverse impacts that canals in general, and the specific canal involved in this project, have on water quality and biological resources. However, I disagree with the conclusions that they reached. Clearly, there are extenuating circumstances involved in this case which set it apart from other dredge and fill cases. In light of these circum- stances, the fact that the depressed DO levels have resulted from man-induced causes which cannot be controlled, and Cantrell and Siciler's own statement that approval of this project has little probability of worsening the existing water quality of L-2, L-3 and WCA-3, I would recommend that the exception be granted. However, the alternate DO standard which I recommended in my previous memo is still applicable. (Emphases added. The "extenuating circum- stances" were never explained.) Subsequently, on May 20, 1980, the Department issued a coordinated letter of intent to grant an exception but for the standard proposed by Mr. Lotspeich, not that requested by the Water Management District. Dissolved Oxygen and Exception Section 17-3.121(14), Florida Administrative Code requires that discharges into fresh waters of the state must exhibit dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5.04 mg/l or more. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above that level must be maintained. Dissolved oxygen in certain concentrations is required for aquatic life. The amount of oxygen contained in water is subject to numerous variables, many of which are interrelated. They include: amount of sunlight entering the water, ability of the water to transmit light, photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants, water temperature, mechanical oxygenation, mixing with other water which may have either a higher or lower dissolved oxygen content, depth of water, rate of oxygen consumption by resident biota, and time of day. It is undisputed that during certain seasons and times of day the water in the existing borrow canal does not meet the state dissolved oxygen standard. Readings as low as 0.9 mg/l have been obtained there. These low readings usually occur in the months of heavy rainfall, primarily July through September. See the data on Figure 4 of SFWMD's Supporting Report. Similar, though not so low measurements have been obtained in neighboring man-made canals such as L-28. L-28 has been used by water quality experts as a "benchmark" for canal water quality since it does not receive large amounts of runoff from agricultural areas where pollutants such as fertilizers are used. There are numerous times during a given year that the dissolved oxygen levels in L-28 are below the 5.0 mg/l state standard. It is also possible to find at least two locations in WCA-3A wetlands where dissolved oxygen readings are below Class III standards. At Gauge 3-2 in the northwest corner of WCA-3A near where the project would discharge, dissolved oxygen levels have varied from 2.3 mg/l to 10.8 mg/l; however, the mean value for the measured levels has been 5.5 mg/l as reported on Table 2 of the Supporting Report.16/ Unfortunately, the data regarding dissolved oxygen concentrations in the proposed discharge area are scant. This paucity was recognized by the Supporting Report which states at page 6: "No systematic study of the dissolved oxygen conditions or requirements for fresh water wetlands in general, or WCA-3A in particular, have yet been conducted." Despite the limited data on WCA-3A, certain comparisons between DO readings in it and in the borrow canal which would discharge into the area can be made. Readings taken at Gauge 3-2 do not sink to levels as low as those found in L-3. Compare Figure 4 of the Report to Table 2. The minimum readings taken in L-3 were during those periods of greatest discharge. If the discharge from the existing borrow canal were presently sent into the area of Gauge 3-2 during months of peak discharge, the waters entering WCA-3A would have a lower dissolved oxygen concentration than would exist naturally in the area. It is not surprising that water in the borrow canal exhibits unusually low dissolved oxygen levels. The levee sides limit reaeration which could occur due to wind movement. The surface-to-volume ratio is also unfavorable. Much oxygenation occurs at the interface between the water and surrounding air, but because the canal is relatively deep compared to its surface area, the proportion of water coming into direct contact with the air is low.17/ The depth of the photic zone, i.e., the section of water penetrated by light, is limited due to the naturally high color of canal water. Construction of C-139 will add somewhat to a lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in the entire canal water column. To increase its conveyance capacity, the existing borrow canal will be deepened significantly, particularly in its southern reaches. This deepening will result in a lowering of the ratio between the area of water surface to the depth of the canal. No mathematical data were presented by which the lowered ratio can be computed; however, an examination of Plates A-24 and A- 25 of the General Design Memorandum indicates that completed C-139 will contain a higher ratio of water below the photic zone than is presently contained in the borrow canal.18/ This is true only during those times when the canal is relatively full of water. As the canal level drops during a drought the photic zone will approach the canal bottom in the shallower sections. Both SFWMD and DER have proposed site specific DO alternative standards. These have been set out in the foregoing discussion of the permitting history. There is a significant difference between the proposals. SFWMD's proposal includes only the waters contained in the photic zone. It fails to recognize that during times of discharge, the waters of C-139 which are deposited in WCA-3A will not be only those of the photic zone, but will come from the entire water column of the canal. While SFWMD's standard might be acceptable for C-139 when it is in a no discharge state, the standard is completely unacceptable when the canal is discharging. Neither the standard proposed by DER nor SFWMD recognizes the difference between the dissolved oxygen regime which can be predicted for C-139 and that presently existing in WCA-3A. The data submitted would justify an exception from the present 5.0 mg/l Class III standard. There are certainly times when both the water existing in relatively unpolluted canals and in the water conservation area contain less than the present minimal content of dissolved oxygen. When C-139 is not discharging an exception, which would have a range now exhibited by the existing borrow canal, would be justified for the new canal. Sufficient data was not presented here to suggest the precise figures for such an exception. The information given for L-3 for instance, is compiled from samples taken only once during a given day. The water depth of the sample is not given. Accurate data would account for the diel variation and the effect of water depth on each sample. Without data which gives a daily average, it is impossible to determine if the water either standing in, or discharging from C- 139 will meet any proposed alternative criterion. For the same reason the data obtained for the present DO concentrations in WCA-3A is incomplete for establishing appropriate levels for discharge waters entering that area. The establishment of site specific alternative criteria must await the submission of more complete dissolved oxygen readings from the applicant. One of the elements in considering whether to grant an exception to established standards is whether the existing biota have adapted to the background DO levels. The proof here shows that the fish and other biota now living in the borrow canal either tolerate or have adapted to the present low DO regime there. It has also been proven that the biota in WCA-3A are tolerant of the naturally occurring low DO levels in that area. It was not shown how they would respond to a massive influx of low DO water when C-139 would be discharging. Hydroperiod in WCA-3A The northwest corner of WCA-3A, where C-139 and C-139(S) will discharge, has a higher ground elevation than that of the southern portion of the water conservation area. The highest elevation in the extreme northwest corner is approximately 17 feet above mean sea level (MSL). It tapers down to approximately ten feet MSL at the southern boundary of WCA-3A. The project is designed to facilitate the sheet flow of discharge water from the northwest area towards the southeast with an ultimate destination being flow into the Miami canal. The construction of the Miami canal, C-123, which runs on a northwest- southeast diagonal across the area, causes overdrainage of the northwest section. The borrow canal along Alligator Alley also contributes to excess runoff. This overdrainage has shortened the hydroperiod in the northwest corner from approximately 9 to 10 months to approximately 5 to 7 months. "Hydroperiod" is the span of time during which land is inundated by ponded water. The shorten hydroperiod has a profoundly destructive impact on the natural environment. The muck soil when not submerged oxidizes at an accelerated rate. At the present time the rate of oxidation in the northwest corner is more rapid than the replacement rate. Since the natural hydroperiod has been altered muck fires have been more severe and frequent. These fires destroy existing tree islands which dot the Prior to 1974 WCA-3A received discharges from the waters of the L-1, 2 and 3 borrow canal. The outlet of the canal at L-4 was determined to be inadequate for flood control purposes in the L-1 angle. To increase the discharge rate of the borrow canal culverts G-88 and G-89 were installed at the L-3/L-4 intersection in October of 1974. G-89 directs part of the flow from the L-3 canal into canal L-28 west, and then into pumping station 5-140 and into C- 60 (parallel to Alligator Alley). G-88 directs another part of the flow from the L-3 canal into the L-4 borrow canal and then into S-8 where it is pumped into the Miami canal. Rather than being allowed to flow in a shallow sheet across the water conservation area, the direct water flow is now sent southeast in canals for ultimate discharge outside the area. This waste would be eliminated by the proposal to have C-139 discharge into WCA-3A via C-139(S). There is no dispute that more water is needed annually in the northwest corner of the water conservation area. What is at issue here is the timing of placing additional water there. Generally when there is flooding in the L-1 angle and C-139 would be discharging at its maximum rate there is already flooding in WCA-3A. Rainstorm events are somewhat regional and cover both areas. The applicant estimates that if the volume of water discharged by C-139 in a two-week period were to be instantaneously spread over the northwest corner of WCA-3A 20/ it would raise the water stage by 0.4 feet. This would occur during a one in ten year storm. At that time the wildlife in the water conservation area would already be stressed by high water levels. A 0.4 foot increase in stage could kill deer and other terrestrial animals and destroy alligator nests, but it also could benefit the more aquatic animals. The result of this increase cannot be accurately predicted on the data supplied by the applicant.21/ While expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant were willing to express an opinion that the influx of drainage water from C-139 would be beneficial, the opinions were simplistically based on the unsupported assumption that because WCA-3A currently suffers from overdrainage, any additional water at any time would be beneficial. It is possible that those opinions were based on studies conducted which prove that a discharge of water such as will come from C-139 may create a beneficial increase in the marsh hydroperiod. Unfortunately, no evidence of the existence of such studies is in this record. The applicant's expert witnesses' opinions are therefore given little weight. In the present situation WCA-3A receives some water from the borrow canal during the dry season when additional water is most beneficial. At the expense of overdraining the land west of the borrow canal, ground water seepage now enters the canal and travels south through L-1, 2 and 3. After the construction of S-239, designed to prevent overdrainage, any possible flow into WCA-3A during dry periods will be cut off. No evidence was presented on what quantity of water WCA-3A will lose during a dry season due to S-239. Also the record does not reflect what effect that reduction will have on biota in the water conservation area. S-239 and Fill When the level of water in the borrow canal drops below the nearby water table, there is groundwater seepage laterally into the canal. If C-139 were to be constructed without any water control devices, it would exacerbate the overdrainage because it will be a far more efficient conveyance than is the borrow canal. S-239 has been designed to prevent this overdrainage. The structure will be located in Broward County. On May 22, 1979 the County declined to give its approval of the use of any fill, as the term is used in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, for the construction of this project in Broward County. The Department of Environmental Regulation has not maintained a consistent unwritten policy on what is "fill" in navigable waters of the state.22/ Testimony from past and present Department employees indicated that at times a "use" concept was employed to determine what was fill. If additional dry land were created which would be used for commercial purposes, then the newly created land was called fill which required local approval. At other times use was unimportant. The test was whether or not the result of the additional material would be moving the point, at which the high water mark intersected the land, in a waterward direction. It is found that what constituted fill in past permit cases depended upon the personal interpretation of each Department employee. S-239 as proposed is a massive structure which will cost 1.32 million dollars 23/ to build. It will contain 11,000 cubic yards of fill and backfill; 530 cubic yards of 1' by 1' pieces of stone rip-rap; 1,230 cubic yards of concrete and 647,000 pounds of cement. 153,800 pounds of reinforcing steel will be required. The structure will be over 50 feet high and will span C-139 where it is 60 feet wide. Each of the two vertical lift gates which control the water flow will be 27 feet wide. See Illustration II.* In between them will be a concrete pier three feet wide and approximately 38 feet long. The cement bottom of the structure will rise from an elevation of 8.0 feet MSL to a crest of 3.3 feet MSL for a total height of 11.3 feet. In order to allow service vehicles to pass across the canal a bridge 13 feet wide will span from one bank to the other. This bridge will support large trucks. The stone protection provided for in the plans consists of 1 foot square pieces of rip-rap to be placed 40 feet immediately upstream from the control gates and 30 feet immediately downstream of the gates. The purpose of this protection is to prevent erosion of the canal bottom and sides where the water flows by at a relatively high velocity. The majority of rip-rap will be placed below the ordinary high water mark. Local Water Quality Standards The issue of local water quality standards arose late in the permitting process. DER had already issued two letters of intent to SFWMD before the Department gave consideration to standards promulgated by Broward County. It appears from the record that the Broward County standards were formally brought to DER's attention through the County's Petition for Formal Hearing filed on June 3, 1980. On June 26, 1980, DER issued an amended letter of intent which said: This letter is an amendment of the letter of intent to issue signed by the Department on May 20, 1980. In that letter, the Depart- ment stated: "This intent to issue is contin- gent upon the applicant being granted an exception from the criteria for dis- solved oxygen, for Class III waters, pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code." The preceding paragraph is hereby amended to include a provision that the applicant must obtain relief from the dissolved oxygen stan- dards that appear in Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, through a variance or other legal mechanism, in addition to the exception from state standards for dissolved oxygen. Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, states that DO is to have a "daily average not less than 5 mg/l; single reading never less than 4 mg/l. The May 20, 1980, letter also contained a paragraph that read: "However, should the Department grant an exception from the dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue the permit." This paragraph is hereby stricken and the following paragraph substituted: "If the Department grants an exception from the State dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue a conditional permit which will only become valid upon the granting of relief by Broward County from its existing local standards for dissolved oxygen." The Department is taking this position upon consideration of Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes, which requires the Department to en- force all stricter or more stringent rules, regulations or orders in the jurisdiction where they apply. It is the Department's position that it is without discretion to grant relief from Broward County's local standard for dis- solved oxygen. By its Petition the County alleged that it has an approved local pollution control program and that the proposed project will violate its local standards for dissolved oxygen and nutrients found in Sections 27-117(b)(9) and 27-117(11) of the Broward County Code.24/ Neither SFWMD nor the Corps has applied to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board for either a license under Chapter 27 of the County Code or for a variance from the standards established therein. On April 20, 1972, the Florida Department of Pollution Control (the predecessor of the Department of Environmental Regulation) gave temporary and conditional approval for six months to the Broward County Pollution Control Program. This approval provided that the County has full authority to enforce its own laws, rules and regulations, provided that they must be as strict or stricter than those of the State. The County was also required to modify its rules if the State subsequently adopted the regulations in conflict with those of the County. On November 7, 1972, the Department of Pollution Control gave Broward County full and final approval pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, in 1974 and 1976 the State and Broward County entered into new agreements. These agreements were the result of DER's desire to make uniform all its agreements with all qualified local programs. The Broward County pollution control program including the portion administered by the Environmental Quality Control Board, continues to be an approved local program as defined at Section 403.182, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter an Order denying South Florida Water Management District's application for a water quality permit and for a dredge and fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982. * NOTE: Illustration I, noted in paragraph 8 and Illustration II, noted in paragraph 49 are not a part of this ACCESS document. Illustrationn II is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
