The Issue The issue in this case is whether the portion of Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) Application Number 97106 seeking an allocation of 499,000 gallons per day (gpd) of groundwater for commercial/industrial uses (supply bulk water to bottling plants) meets the conditions for issuance as established in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-2.301, and the Applicant’s Handbook, Consumptive Uses of Water.1 The County does not oppose or contest the portion of the CUP application authorizing use of 6.0 million gpd of surface water for limerock mining operations.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County operates a water supply utility that supplies water for a variety of uses, including providing untreated water, in bulk, for bottling purposes. The County is currently engaged in a long-range planning effort designed to assess water supply demands and sources to supply those demands in the County over the next 50 years. The County also has completed a study of the two major springs in the County (Rainbow Springs and Silver Springs), and the County’s Board of County Commissioners is in the process of enacting certain recommendations contained in the study. The well for the proposed CUP allocation is located on approximately 160 acres in northern Marion County. Hastings and Greene's father owned the property from 1978 until the latter's death. In 1993, the latter's interest was transferred to Greene and two brothers, who now hold title to the property along with Hastings. The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and is charged with the duty to prevent harm to water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The District has implemented Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in part, through the adoption of Rule Chapters 40C-2 and 40C-20, and the Applicant’s Handbook, Consumptive Uses of Water. Historic Uses of Water on the Mine Site Since the 1980s, the property where the proposed withdrawals will occur has been used for mining of limerock and has been known as the “Black Sink Mine." A ten-inch diameter well has been located on the Black Sink Mine property for 35 years. The well was originally used to provide water to augment water levels in canals in and around the Black Sink Mine property. Later the well was used to irrigate watermelons grown on the property before the mining operation began. The limerock mining operation at Black Sink Mine uses approximately 6 million gpd of surface water. The mine pit at the site is divided by an earthen berm that separates a larger, previously mined area from a smaller area where active mining is occurring. Surface water is pumped from the actively mined portion of the pit to the larger, previously mined portion of the pit, to enable mining of the limerock material to be conducted at levels below the water table. Dewatering is necessary in order to remove the limerock. A majority of the property is mined to a depth of 55 feet below land surface. The limerock material extracted from the site is transported by trucks from the site, approximately 100 trucks per day, to various sites across North Florida. The Need for the Proposed Use of Groundwater If mining of limerock continues at the current pace, the limerock material at the Black Sink Mine will be exhausted within a year. Recognizing that the productive use of the property for limerock mining was nearing an end, Greene and Hastings began exploring other potential uses for the property, including use of the existing well on the property for production of bottled water. To explore the feasibility of producing water for bottling from the existing well, in 2004 Greene and Hastings engaged an engineering firm with expertise in water resources to conduct a hydrogeologic study of the mine property and well. The results of the study, showing water of sufficient quality and quantity for production of bottled water, motivated Greene and Hastings to submit the CUP application which was the subject of the hearing. The study also determined that water withdrawn from the well could be marketed as spring water. Greene and Hastings also determined through market research that the demand for bottled water has increased at the rate of ten percent per year for the last 4-5 years and that Florida bottlers were interested in purchasing water from the well on the mine site in bulk for bottling. In order to provide reasonable assurance that the water use proposed by Greene and Hastings is in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, Greene and Hastings must show that the amount to be used is consistent with what would typically be required for the activity being supplied; that the water will be used efficiently with loss or waste minimized; and that there is a demonstrated need for the water proposed for allocation. To demonstrate a need for the 499,000 gpd of groundwater requested in the application for an allocation of 499,000 gpd of groundwater, Greene and Hastings provided letters from two businesses engaged in bottling of water stating an intent to purchase specific quantities of water produced from the Greene and Hastings well should the CUP be granted. One of the letters of intent came from a bottler in Jacksonville, Florida, stating its intention to initially purchase 100,000 gpd of Greene and Hastings’s water. The other was from a bottler in Stuart, Florida, dated January 9, 2006, stating its intention to purchase 125,000 gpd of water from Greene and Hastings within “the next 12-24 months.” Based on these letters Greene and Hastings initially requested an allocation of 200,000 gpd of groundwater for the first year of the permit. Prior to completion of the CUP application, Greene and Hastings learned that because the Stuart bottler’s facility was located outside the geographic boundaries of the District, to transport water from the Black Sink Mine to the Stuart facility would require additional data and information related to inter- district transfers of groundwater. Greene and Hastings elected to reduce the requested allocation for the first year of the permit to 100,000 gpd, relying on the letter from the Jacksonville bottler. Based on the current market demand for bottled water, and based on the fact that there are other bottlers of water within the boundaries of the District purchasing water for bottling, it is reasonable to conclude that Greene and Hastings can sell 499,000 gpd of water from the well on the Black Sink Mine property by the end of the fifth year of the proposed CUP. These facts support the conclusion that there is a need for the amount of water requested by Greene and Hastings. In addition, the permit is conditioned to require a compliance review at five-year intervals during the term of the permit. Should Greene and Hastings not be successful in selling the full 499,000 gpd allocated by the fifth year of the permit, the District has the ability as part of the five-year compliance review to modify the permit to reduce the allocation based on the amount of water actually used for bottled water. Efficiency of the Proposed Use of Water The production of water in bulk for shipment to a bottler is a highly efficient use of water. There is very little if any water lost in the withdrawal and loading of the water; almost all the water goes to the end product. The evidence establishes that the use proposed by Greene and Hastings is an efficient use of water. Potential Impacts from the Proposed Groundwater Allocation The source of the groundwater proposed for use by Greene and Hastings is the Floridan aquifer. Because there is no confining layer in the vicinity of the Black Sink Mine that would retard movement of water between the Upper Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer, both the Upper Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer essentially behave as one unit. Thus, any drawdown in the surficial aquifer associated with groundwater withdrawals at this location will be the same as the related drawdown in the Upper Floridan aquifer as a result of groundwater withdrawals. The Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the amount of groundwater requested by Greene and Hastings in the application. To assess the level of drawdown expected to occur in both the Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer as a consequence of the proposed groundwater withdrawals, Greene and Hastings engaged a consultant, Andreyev Engineering, Inc., to run a groundwater model to simulate the proposed withdrawal and predict the anticipated drawdown. The groundwater model selected for use for this application was the North Central Florida Regional Groundwater Flow Model, a model developed for the District by the University of Florida for use in Marion County and surrounding areas. This model is an accepted and reliable tool for predicting aquifer drawdown associated with groundwater withdrawals at the location of the withdrawals proposed in this application and is used extensively by the District in its CUP program. To simulate the drawdown associated with the withdrawal of 499,000 gpd from the Florida aquifer, Greene and Hastings’s consultant inserted a pumping well in the model grid where the Black Sink Mine is located. The model then simulated pumping from the well at 499,000 gpd. The model results are graphically depicted on maps showing drawdown contours overlain on the Black Sink Mine Site, illustrating the level of drawdown in the aquifer and the distance the level of drawdown extends out from the well site. The model predicts a drawdown of 0.03 feet in the Floridan and surficial aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the well on the Black Sink Mine property, and a drawdown of 0.02 feet in the Floridan and surficial aquifers extending out to a distance of approximately 5,000 feet from the well, less than 1/3 of an inch of drawdown. The model results represent a reasonable estimation of the drawdown that will occur as a consequence of withdrawal of 499,000 gpd of groundwater at the Black Sink Mine as proposed in the application. The impact of the 0.02-0.03 foot drawdown predicted by the model was variously characterized by the experts who testified at the final hearing as “not practically measurable,” an “insignificant impact,” “very small,” or “de minimus.” The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause significant saline water intrusion, nor will it further aggravate any existing saline water intrusion problems. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not induce significant saline water intrusion to such an extent as to be inconsistent with the public interest. Because the predicted drawdown is so small, it will not interfere with any existing legal uses of water. Neither will the predicted drawdown cause serious harm to the quality of the source of the water proposed for use by Greene and Hastings. With regard to the issue of interference with existing legal users, the County argued that the District should have considered whether there is sufficient groundwater available to meet all projected needs for water in the County during the 20- year term of the permit, as well as the additional cost County citizens will need to bear to secure alternative water supplies as a result of any future shortfalls in available groundwater. The County projects, based on planning estimates, that use of groundwater to supply all anticipated uses of water in the County will be limited within 20-30 years from the present. Such “limits” would not become an issue until after the Greene and Hastings permit expires. Thereafter, water users in the County will have to rely on alternative water sources, conservation, reuse of reclaimed water, and surface water. The anticipated growth in demand in the County’s planning estimates includes anticipated growth in the commercial/industrial category of uses. The County’s estimated limits on groundwater use will occur whether or not the CUP requested by Greene and Hastings is approved. The District does not base its permitting decisions on a pending CUP application on the possibility that the source of water may become limited at some future time for water uses not presently permitted, provided the application meets all permitting criteria. The District allocates water for recognized beneficial uses of water, such as commercial/industrial uses, as long as the water is available and the application meets District criteria. The District allocates water as long as an allocation does not cause harm to the resource. Based on these facts, the proposed use of water by Greene and Hastings will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. No Evidence of Economic or Environmental Harm Because the predicted drawdown associated with the proposed use of water is so small, and because no impacts are anticipated on any surrounding properties or water uses, Greene and Hastings have provided reasonable assurance that any economic harm caused by the proposed use has been reduced to an acceptable amount. For purposes of determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that any environmental harm caused by a proposed use of water is reduced to an acceptable amount, the District examines modeling results showing the level of drawdown predicted for the use and also examines the resources in and around the site of a withdrawal to determine the likely impact of the drawdown predicted for the withdrawal on those resources. The District’s environmental scientists examined the Black Sink Mine site and the surrounding landscape and determined that, based on the characteristics of the landscape in and around the site of the proposed withdrawal and based on the negligible drawdown impact predicted for the proposed water use in both the Floridan and surficial aquifers, there will be no environmental harm resulting from the allocation of groundwater contained in the CUP. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause damage to crops, wetlands, or other types of vegetation. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause the water table to be lowered so that stages or vegetation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by Greene and Hastings. The CUP will not use water that the District has reserved pursuant to Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40C-2.301(4). No Impact on Established Minimum Flows or Levels No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established by the District pursuant to Rule Chapter 40C-8 for any of the water bodies in Marion County that may be affected by the proposed water use. The closest water body for which the District has established a minimum flow is the St. Johns River at the State Road 44 bridge located more than 50 miles from the Black Sink Mine property. The closest water body for which the District has established a minimum level is Star Lake in Northwest Putnam County, more than nine miles from the mine site. Because of the distance of these water bodies from the withdrawal site and because of the negligible drawdown expected to be caused by the proposed use of water, the use will not cause an established minimum flow or level to be exceeded during the term of the permit. Other Reasonable-Beneficial Use Considerations All available conservation measures that are economically, environmentally, and technically feasible are proposed for implementation in the application by Greene and Hastings for the uses proposed by them. Greene and Hastings submitted to the District, as part of the application, a conservation plan that complies with the requirements of A.H. Section 10.3(e). Reclaimed water, as defined in the District’s rules, is not currently available to be used in place of the water proposed for use by Greene and Hastings in the application. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings in the application will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards in receiving waters of the state. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings in the application will not cause or contribute to flood damage. The Use is Consistent With the Public Interest With regard to the determination of whether reasonable assurance was provided that the proposed use is consistent with the public interest, the County contends that: 1) Greene and Hastings must show that any necessary approvals required by the County’s Comprehensive Plan and/or its LDRs for use of the site for producing bottled water have been obtained; 2) that the District did not properly consider the effect of existence of lawn watering restrictions affecting citizens in the County in evaluating the application; and 3) that the District should have considered the amount of money the applicant may stand to gain from the use of the water requested in the application. In examining whether an application is consistent with the public interest, the District considers whether a particular use of water is going to be beneficial or detrimental to the people of the area and to water resources within the state. In this inquiry, the District considers whether the use of water is efficient, whether there is a need for the water requested, and whether the use is for a legitimate purpose; and the inquiry focuses on the impact of the use on water resources and existing legal users. Sale of water for bottling for human consumption is recognized by the District as a legitimate, beneficial economic enterprise. Use of water for human consumption is among the highest and best uses permitted by the District. For reasons outlined above in the Recommended Order, there are no detrimental impacts that will result from this use of water. The District does not consider whether local government approvals have been obtained prior to issuance of a CUP for purposes of determining whether the application is consistent with the public interest. Neither does the District consider impacts related to local roads from trucks transporting the water or other impacts not related to water resources. No such requirements are included in the District’s adopted permitting criteria. There are no water shortage orders in effect in the District at present. In evaluating a CUP application, the District considers whether its permitting criteria will be met during periods of normal weather as well as during periods of drought. Withdrawals authorized in CUPs can be restricted by order of the District during periods of water shortage, such as droughts. Thus, the possibility of a water shortage order being entered in the County in the future, or the fact that such orders may have been in effect there in the past, does not mean the application is not consistent with the public interest. The District critically examines the efficiency of all water uses for purposes of enacting its regulatory requirements regarding CUPs and in evaluating CUP applications. The District has adopted restrictions on landscape irrigation (which apply to all such users throughout the District’s jurisdiction, not just in Marion County) limiting landscape irrigation to no more than two days per week. The limitations on landscape irrigation exist because this type of use has been determined to be a highly inefficient, wasteful use of water without such restrictions. By contrast, the use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings is a highly efficient use of water, resulting in little or no loss or waste of water. The District does not consider the level of financial gain or benefit an applicant will derive from a permitted use of water for purposes of determining whether the proposed use is consistent with the public interest. Most, if not all permitted users of water derive some level of economic benefit from the water they use, and the District’s rule criteria do not provide standards for evaluating such gain or that otherwise limit the amount of such gain. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the use of water proposed in the application is consistent with the public interest. Groundwater is the Lowest Quality Source for this Use The County contends that groundwater is not the lowest quality source of water available for the use proposed by Greene and Hastings, in that surface water from the mine pit on the site could be treated and used for bottling in place of groundwater. From the testimony, it is clear that Greene and Hastings’s ability to market water for bottling from the Black Sink Mine is dependent on such water being capable of being labeled as spring water, and on such water being delivered without having gone through any treatment processes. The testimony also establishes that because of the connection between the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan aquifer at the site, using surface water instead of groundwater to supply the proposed use would result in little if any reduction in impacts to the Floridan aquifer. More importantly, because the application proposes use of water for direct human consumption, the District’s rules do not require use of a lower quality source of water. For the foregoing reasons, groundwater is the lowest quality source of water suitable for use for bottled water for human consumption. The District’s Noticing Was Adequate and Appropriate The District provided notice of its receipt of the Greene and Hastings CUP application by publishing notice in the Ocala Star-Banner, a newspaper of general circulation in Marion County, on January 25, 2005, with an amended notice being published on February 16, 2005, and also by letters to the County dated January 20, 2005, and February 10, 2005. In each notice, the location of the proposed use was identified by section, township, and range. The County responded to the notices by sending a letter of objection to the application dated February 14, 2005. Thus, the County received sufficient information regarding the location of the proposed use to enable it to prepare and file a letter of objection to the application, and suffered no prejudice as a consequence of the notice. The District provided personal notice of its intent to issue a CUP to Greene and Hastings by letter dated April 5, 2006. In this notice, the location of the proposed use was identified by section, township, and range. The County responded by filing petitions that have resulted in this proceeding. Thus, the County received sufficient notice of the location of the use addressed in the District’s intent to issue to enable it to initiate administrative proceedings regarding the permit, and suffered no prejudice as a consequence of the notice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter an order granting CUP No. 97106 to Greene and Hastings with the conditions recommended in the District’s Technical Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th of January, 2007.
Findings Of Fact By application dated August 28, 1984, Petitioner sought a permit from Respondent to deepen an existing ditch on his property from a current depth of one and a half feet to a proposed depth of three feet. The ditch is eight feet wide and eight hundred and fifty feet long and extends through a wetlands area to Lake Tohopekaliga which has been classified as a Class III waterbody. Petitioner intends to dredge approximately 377 cubic yards of material waterward of the ordinary high water elevation in order to make the existing storm drainage ditch navigable. This application was received by Respondent on September 11, 1984, and was accepted as complete on November 6, 1984. On January 9, 1985, an on-site inspection was concluded by Barbara Bess supervisor of dredge and fill permitting in Respondent's Orlando district office, who thereafter prepared an appraisal report dated January 23, 1985. As expressed in her report, Bess' primary concern with this application was the potential loss of fish and wildlife habitat which would result from the loss of grasses and macro-invertebrates resulting from the proposed project. Lake Tohopekaliga is a very popular and productive sportfishing lake, and the cumulative effect of such dredging activity, if it occurred around the lake would have a severely negative impact on the lake's food chain. This would in turn have adverse consequences for sportfishing and the water quality of the lake. Since similar drainage ditches do exist around the entire lake, there is a reasonable likelihood of similar projects occurring if this one is approved. Petitioner proposes that his dredging take place during a draw-down of Lake Tohopekaliga which has already been planned, and contends that the negative impact of the proposed deepening will be minimized since the ditch will be substantially dry during the draw-down. Petitioner's contention, however, is not supported by the evidence. Testimony from Barbara Bess, who was accepted as an expert on water quality standards and the biological impact of construction projects on water quality, and testimony from Ed Moyer, fisheries biologist with the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, established that Petitioner's ditch may not be completely dry during the draw-down, and that the proposed deepening will increase boat traffic due to the ditch's navigability, thereby reducing vegetation and harming the food chain in the immediate area of the ditch. The cumulative effect of similar projects occurring, even during the draw-down, will be negative for sportfishing and the water quality of the lake. Respondent issued its Intent to Deny on January 25,1985, in response to which Petitioner timely sought a hearing. The parties were allowed to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's permit application. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross Gwin 1731 Juniper Circle St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Ron Cray 1731 Juniper Circle St. Cloud, Florida 32769 B. J. Owens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing in this cause, the following pertinent facts are found: 1/ By application number 25793, the applicant seeks a permit to construct and operate a proposed surface water management system to serve a 2,541 acre project within the St. Johns River Basin in Indian River County. The proposed system will consist of a perimeter dike, a central canal with interior laterals and four discharge pumps. The applicant will be discharging into the St. Johns Marsh and seeks a discharge capacity of 139,000 GPM. Three of the discharge pumps are to be located at the southeast corner of the property and a two-way 25,000 GPM pump is to be located at the intersection of the central canal and the western boundary of the property. By application number 25794, the applicant seeks a permit for the use of surface and artesian water for the irrigation of the same 2,541 acres of pasture and truck crops. The applicant requests to withdraw surface water from the St. Johns Marsh by means of a two-way 25,000 GPM pump located at the intersection of the central canal and the western property boundary and to withdraw water from the Floridan aquifer by means of eight eight-inch artesian wells. The amount requested is 5,294 acre-feet per year with a maximum monthly pumpage of 1.47 billion gallons. A staff report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) concluded that the major problem with the permit applications is the impact on water quality of the receiving bodies of water and that nutrients and other pollutants will be introduced into runoff waters discharged into the St. Johns Marsh, which is the source of the public water supply for South Brevard County. The staff therefore recommended that the applicant institute a water quality and quantity monitoring program to monitor discharges to the Marsh. The staff further recommended that the applicant not be allowed to discharge from the western property boundary nor irrigate from the ditch on the western property boundary. It was recommended that the two-way 25,000 GPM pump be installed adjacent to the other pumps located at the southeast corner of the property. More specifically, the staff found that if a permit were to be issued pursuant to application number 25793, it should be subject to the conditions that: the allowable discharge capacity to be 104,000 GPM, with discharges to be east to the St. Johns Marsh by means of one 44,000 GPM pump, one 35,000 GPM pump and one 25,000 PM two-way pump to be located at the southeast corner of the property; the applicant notify the FCD prior to any excavation of materials from land lying east of the east property boundary and, if such excavation is done, a discontinuous borrow ditch be created by either leaving 25 foot portions of undisturbed marsh or by placing 25 foot earthen plugs at approximately 500 foot intervals (this was later modified at the hearing to 1,000 foot intervals); and the applicant submit monthly reports of total daily discharges and water quality, the samples to be taken at the southeast corner of the property. With regard to application number 25794, the staff recommended that if such permit were to be issued, it be subject to the following conditions: for the use of surface water, an annual allocation of 2329.3 acre- feet per year and for the use of artesian water, an annual allocation of 2518.5 acre-feet per year, with a maximum monthly pumpage from all sources of 355.3 million gallons; no withdrawal of surface water from the St. Johns Marsh when the water level in Blue Cypress Lake drops to 22.0' msl.; surface water to be withdrawn by means of a 25,000 GPM two-way pump located at the property's southeast corner; artesian waters to be withdrawn by eight eight-inch wells with effective and operative controls placed thereon and analyses of water samples from the water discharge of each the submission of monthly reports of total monthly pumpages and total monthly flows; and permit for the withdrawal of surface and artesian water to expire on January 15, 1979. At the hearing, the applicant agreed to the recommended conditions placed upon the permits by the staff report with the exception of: the amount of the allowable discharge (staff recommending 104,000 GPM as opposed to a desired 139,000 GPM); the location of the 25,000 GPM two-way pump (staff recommending southeast corner as opposed to a proposed site on the western boundary of the property); the expiration date of January 15, 1979. The Environmental Protection Bureau of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission requested the FCD to delay issuance of permits for all projects in the Upper St. Johns River basin until a comprehensive water management plan for the area is formulated. Read into the record was a resolution adopted by the Commission on May 16, 1975, recommending that "the further destruction of the marsh be curtailed and a plan be formulated for the return of the diverted waters as a management tool for restoration of fish and wildlife resources." On behalf of the Florida Audubon Society, Mr. Charles Lee contended that, because of this resolution and request of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and that agency's constitutional status, the FCD is precluded from issuing the subject permits. Intervenors and members of the general public who were opposed to the issuance of the instant permits expressed the following concerns: the low water quality and quantity of the St. Johns River and its marshes; the decline in hunting and fishing because of agricultural activities in the St. Johns River valley; the loss of marsh land due to agricultural activity; the lack of a basic water management program for the area; the lack of remedial measures should degradation of the water occur; and the lack of an expiration date for the surface water management system permit.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is the recommendation of the hearing officer that application numbers 25793 and 25794 be granted, subject to those special conditions set forth in the Staff Report as modified by the following: In paragraph number 3 on page 14 of the Staff Report, substitute the words "1,000 foot intervals" for "500 foot intervals;" Add as paragraphs 6 on page 15, paragraph 6 on page 16 and paragraph 7 on page 18 the following: "Should the data in the monthly reports submitted by the applicant indicate the occurrence of a degradation of the waters utilized, the applicant will be required to remedy the situation causing the de- gradation." Add as paragraph 7 on page 15 the following: "7. This permit shall expire on January 15, 1979." Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue This case presents two questions for consideration. The first question concerns the Petitioners' contention that the grant of the permit at issue must be considered contemporaneously with the matters of file in the application made by the Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, File No. 64-24208, pending before the Department. From the point of view of the Petitioners, should this contemporaneous review process be afforded, then the current permit would not be granted due to the alleged deficiencies associated with the application, File No. 64-24208. The second question to be answered in this case concerns the dispute between the Respondents on the issue of water quality monitoring as a condition to granting the permit sought herein. The Respondent Department would have the applicant monitor in six lakes in the area of the project and the applicant would restrict its monitoring activity to three lakes in the project area. The Petitioners support the Department in its position on the monitoring question. 1/
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, has made application with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, to effect drainage system improvements to a land locked conveyance network which consists of the enlargement and regrading 990 lineal feet of existing channel cross- section and the installation of additional culverts and control structures at road crossings. The project also involves repairs and replacement of a damaged culvert. The work would be accomplished by land based equipment transported to the work site by existing overland routes. The excavated sand fill would be placed on upland property owned by The Deltona Corporation. The details of the project and data related to the geographical area may be found in the Joint Exhibit I admitted into evidence. The date of the application for permit is December 12, 1979. On January 25, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation sent out a notice of the pending review by the Department of the permit application. After receipt of that notice, attorney for the Petitioners, on February 12, 1980, wrote to the Department expressing the objection to the project made by property owners in the area of the project site, together with a list of those owners found in an attached Petition of owners' names and addresses. A copy of this letter and attached Petition may be found as Joint Exhibit No. VII admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the receipt of the statement of objections, the Department issued a construction permit dated April 30, 1980, subject to conditions. A copy of this permit may be found as Joint Exhibit No. VIII admitted into evidence. The Petitioners, through their counsel, then filed a formal petition dated May 6, 1980, which was the vehicle utilized in establishing the details of this dispute and was the basis for the Department Secretary forwarding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration by a hearing officer in keeping with the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The hearing was conducted on October 16, 1980, and the Petitioners' position was more specifically defined in the course of that hearing and the claim as described in the issue statement of this order constitutes the substance of the Petitioners' position. 2/ Joint Exhibit No. I; petitioners' Exhibit No. 1 and Respondent Deltona's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 constitute sketches and aerial photographs of the general project area. Joint Exhibit No. 1 identifies the work area with more particularity. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 indicates the desired flow pattern of the water through the various lake systems and indicates whether the flow is by gravity flow or pump flow. This drawing depicts the proposed channels and structural improvements that would be involved. The Department has indicated that all the regulatory concerns which it has about the project associated with Permit No. 64-26478-4E, the permit in question, have been adequately addressed, subject to the conditions set forth in the permit document. Joint Exhibit Nos. V and VI; Respondent Deltona's Exhibit Nos. 5, 6 and 7; and the Petitioners Exhibit No. 2 are exhibits pertaining to water quality concerns, to include sample results. The testing and other information provided indicates that the project as contemplaced, would meat the regulatory parameters set forth in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The Department in expressing its concern that continued water quality monitoring be conducted has indicated that it feels that future periodic monitoring should be done in Jenkins Pond, Lake Big, Lake Diana, McGarity Lake, Sidney Lake and Lake Mitnik. The Respondent Deltona would only conduct this monitoring in the first three lakes named. By looking at the Respondent Deltona's Exhibit No. 2, it could be seen that all of the aforementioned lakes would be in the same basic flow pattern. Of the system of lakes, the area around McGarity Lake is the most highly developed and and has the greatest potential for causing unacceptable pollution. That pollution could be carried through the other lakes within the system as described in view of the potential of the system, if the project is built, to convey a greater volume of water at a higher rate of flow. A more expansive water quality monitoring system within six lakes as opposed to three lakes would increase the opportunity to discover potential hazards from pollutant at an earlier data. This is particularly so by using lakes such as McGarity Lake where there is a higher level of developmental build-out.
The Issue Whether Rules 40E-400.315(f) and 40E-4.301(f), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d), Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Application, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P. (Royal Palm), owns three lots in Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, located in northwest Palm Beach County, Florida. Intervenor 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not-for- profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. By letter dated March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to No Notice General Permits for Activities in Uplands (NNGP) for three of the lots which it owns in Unit 11, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Royal Palm intends to build one single-family home on each of the lots. The proposed development of the lots would include individual septic tanks and stormwater retention ponds. By letter dated April 9, 1998, SFWMD informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots do not qualify for no-notice general permits for single family home construction. As part of the basis for denial of the NNGPs, the April 9, 1998, letter stated: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Beach Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. As an additional basis for denial, the April 9 letter stated: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm filed a Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of the above-cited rules, Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f) and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Also being challenged are those portions of SFWMD's "Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Applications" (BOR), which discuss secondary impacts, Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d). SFWMD's Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program has four different types of permits: NNGPs, noticed general permits, standard general permits, and individual permits. The permits are grouped according to degree of potential impact and, correspondingly, according to degree of regulatory review. NNGPs are for very minor activities that have no potential to cause adverse impacts or harm to water resources provided that the criteria in the rule are met. A NNGP typically receives no review by SFWMD staff. An applicant reviews the criteria, and if the proposed project meets the criteria the project may be undertaken without notification to or approval by SFWMD. The degree of regulatory review for water management systems that do not qualify for NNGPs will vary. A system that qualifies for a noticed general permit pursuant to Rule 40E-400, Subpart C, Florida Administrative Code, will be reviewed within 30 days of receipt of notice, and if the criteria listed in the general permit rule are met it is presumed that the project meets all SFWMD's standards and is permittable. If the system does not fit within a noticed general permit and if the proposed system is less than 100 acres total size or has less than one acre of wetland impact, the project will be reviewed as a standard general permit pursuant to Rule 40E-40, Florida Administrative Code. Standard general permits are reviewed and issued by SFWMD staff, and unlike the noticed general permits, there are no presumptions that if certain limited criteria are met that all the SFWMD standards are met. The proposed project is reviewed to determine if reasonable assurances have been provided that all standards have been met. Finally, if a proposed water management system is greater than 100 acres or entails more than one acre of filled wetlands, an individual environmental resource permit is required. As with standard general permits, these applications are reviewed to determine if the applicant has provided reasonable assurance that all SFWMD standards are met. Individual environmental resource permits require permit authorization from SFWMD's governing board. Unlike the noticed general, the standard general, and the individual environmental resource permits, the NNGP does not require any regulatory review. An individual minor system fitting within the specific criteria for a NNGP can proceed with the activity without noticing SFWMD. Such a permit is very similar to an exemption from the permitting requirements. The use of a NNGP was not intended for approval of water management systems that contain shared or common water management facilities, such as a common drainage system for a housing development. Such systems require regulatory review to ensure that the system does not cause adverse water quality, water quantity, or environmental impacts. To allow a series of individual projects to have authorization to proceed under a NNGP, when together they are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, cumulatively would have a significant adverse impact to flood protection and environmental protection. Such master systems are to have regulatory review under one of the other three SFWMD permits. Thus, the requirement that a project permitted pursuant to a NNGP not be part of a larger common development or sale was placed in Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Without such a requirement, it would be possible to development a larger system without regulatory review by permitting individual systems within the larger system using a NNGP. The term "not part of a larger common plan of development or sale" contained in Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, originated in Section 403.813(2)(q), Florida Statutes, which contains exemptions from permitting under Chapter 373, Florida Statues. In developing Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), SFWMD did not further define the term because the plain meaning of the term was deemed adequate, as it was by the Florida Legislature when it did not define the same term in Section 403.813(2)(q). The plain meaning of the term is consistent with SFWMD's regulatory scheme for permitting water management systems. The most minimal permit authorization, the NNGP, should not authorize projects that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale because the larger projects are more likely to have larger water resource impacts. Interpretations of the term "part of a larger common plan of development" by staff from SFWMD are consistent. The interpretations indicate that the individual project and the larger master plan have shared or common water management systems. The focus is on whether common infrastructure would be needed to carry out the individual project. In its permitting program, SFWMD looks at all adverse impacts to water resources, whether direct, secondary, or cumulative. When evaluating secondary impacts, SFWMD looks for the same adverse impacts on water resources that it would for direct impacts, such as adverse impacts on the functions of wetlands or surface waters or adverse impacts on water quality. SFWMD interprets a secondary impact as some impact, other than a direct impact in the footprint of the proposed project, which is closely linked and causally tied to proposed activity to be permitted. Section 4.2.7, BOR sets guidelines for how SFWMD considers secondary impacts from water management systems. In developing Section 4.2.7, SFWMD applied existing case law concerning secondary impacts. Section 4.2.7(a), BOR, regulates construction, alteration, and reasonably expected uses of a proposed system so that the functions of wetlands to fish and wildlife and listed species are protected from adverse impacts caused by activities in adjacent uplands. Such secondary impacts may result, for example, from disturbance during adjacent upland construction or disturbance due to the close proximity of human habitation to a wetland where none previously existed. Section 4.2.7(a), BOR, gives examples of secondary impacts, and provides a mechanism in the form of a buffer that creates a presumption that provides reasonable assurance that secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands will not be adverse, assuming a wetland is not being used by a listed species for nesting, denning, or significant feeding habitat. Section 4.2.7(b), BOR, protects existing upland nesting or denning sites of listed aquatic or wetland dependent species and the adjacent uplands which are necessary to enable these nests or dens to be used successfully by such species. Section 4.2.7(c), BOR, looks at potential adverse secondary impacts to significant historical and archeological resources. The intent of the section is to allow consideration of secondary impacts of a project that may have a very minor impact from construction, but more serious implications once in operation. For example, a water control structure that may have a footprint of only a tenth of an acre may result in greater water velocities that would harm submerged archeological resources. Section 4.2.7(d), BOR, considers specific water resource impacts from future project phases and activities that will be very closely linked and causally related to the proposed system. This section seeks to prevent future impacts that may be necessitated by a proposed project design. As part of the analysis, SFWMD will consider the impacts of the intended or reasonably expected uses of future activities on water quality and wetland and other surface water functions.
The Issue The issues presented in this matter concern the request by the Petitioner to be granted a management and storage of surface waters permit by Respondent. Respondent proposes to deny the permit based upon the perception that the activities contemplated by Petitioner: (1) are not consistent with the public interest as envisioned by Section 373.016, Florida Statutes, and 40C- 4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, (2) are not a reasonable and beneficial activity, per Section 40C-4.301(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, alter the peak discharge rate of runoff from the proposed activity or the downstream peak stage or duration for the 1 in 10 year design storm, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, (4) cause an increase in velocity or flood stage on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant for the design storm, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code, (5) cause an increase in flow or stage such that it would adversely affect lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. 1/
Findings Of Fact A predecessor applicant had requested permission to construct and operate the water management system which is the subject of this controversy. The approximate acreage involved was 197 acres in Lake County, Florida. This acreage and requested activity was subject to the regulatory requirements of St. Johns River Water Management District. Clay Island Farms, Inc., hereinafter referred to as CIF, was substituted for the initial applicant and this matter has been litigated before the Division of Administrative Hearings on the continuing application of the Petitioner. The permit application number is 4- 8089. This application was considered with application number 4-8088, pertaining to property owned by A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Subsequently, the latter application shall be referred to as the Duda request for permit. Certain additional information was sought by Respondent from the applicants, CIF and Duda, in the permit review, by correspondence dated October 2, 1981. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16 admitted into evidence. In particular, CIF was requested to prepare pre and post-development runoff rates in the 1 in 10, 1 in 25,and 1 in 100-year storms, to include stage-storage and stage-discharge rates for any and all retention facilities within the project design. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the engineering report by CIF which are CIF's responses to the request for information. The date of the engineering report is July 12, 1982. The CIF application, as originally envisioned, called for the construction of exterior and interior ditches to be placed around a dike of 71 feet MSL elevation. The dike would enclose a proposed farm operation of approximately 197 acres, should the permit be granted. Within that 197 acre plot, would be found numerous drainage ditches to include major ditches and minor arterial ditches. The purpose of those ditches found in the 197 acres would be to serve as a conveyance for rainfall runoff. The system of conveyance would be connected to an existing conveyance system already in place and related to farm operations of A. Duda and Sons. The runoff would be eventually placed in a retention pond and at times discharged from that retention pond or basin into Lake Apopka by means of gravity flow. The particulars of the development of the 197 acre plot and its service dike, canals, and ditches are more completely described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which is the engineering report for the surface water management permit application. The CIF application was reviewed by the staff of the Respondent. Recommendation was made to deny the permit. Details of that denial may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. In the face of the denial, CIF requested an administrative hearing. This request was made on August 27, 1982, by petition for formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing to determine Petitioner's entitlement to the requested permit. St. Johns River Water Management District, in the person of its governing board, determined to refer this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the formal proceeding and the request for the assignment of a hearing officer was received by the Division on September 13, 1982, leading to the final hearing in this cause. During the course of the final hearing, the CIF permit application was modified in a fashion which reduced the amount of acreage sought for cultivation. Now, approximately 122 acres would be farmed per the amended proposal. A general depiction of the design of the project in its amended form may be found in the engineer's sheet, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20 admitted into evidence. When contrasted with the engineering drawings set out in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, the new design is essentially the same as contemplated in the original permit application, on a lesser scale. Other than dimensions, the basic concepts of the CIF operation would remain the same under the amended proposal. At present, Petitioner proposes to remove the vegetation which covers the subject 122 acre plot and to conduct a muck farming operation. That vegetation is mostly mixed hardwood with the primary species being red maple. The soil in this area is constituted of monteverde muck, which is conducive to the production of corn and carrots, the crops which Petitioner would plant, to prepare the land for the operation, the system of ditches dikes and canals described would be installed following the cleaning, draining, and leveling of the 122 acres. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence depicts land which has been cultivated and the subject 122 acres in its undisturbed state. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence shows the overall CIF area is outlined in red, except for its southerly extent, which carries a red and yellow line on the exhibit. This exhibit depicts Wolfshead Lake which is a small interior lake in the southeastern corner of the overall CIF property. The yellow line in the middle of the CIF property represents, the location of a former north-south canal. The westernmost north-south reach, which is shown with a red line, depicts a canal which runs north from Wolfshead Lake into the existing Duda system of canals and ditches. The Duda operation has attempted to plug that north-south canal on the western fringe to stop the flow from the area of Wolfshead Lake, but has been unsuccessful and the water still enters the Duda farm ditches and canals. In the 1940's and early 1950's, the CIF property had been partially developed for a cattle operation and truck farming. Those canals, as described before, were installed, together with the diagonal yellow line on Petitioner's Exhibit 4, which represents a canal that was built with an axis running northeast and southwest. In addition, there was a centrally placed east-west canal and a slough running from Wolfshead Lake in a southeasterly direction. The slough is still there, although water that might be diverted from the Wolfshead Lake area into the slough is flowing north in the westerly north-south canal at present. If the project were allowed, most of the water flowing in and around the Wolfshead Lake would be introduced into the slough and from there exit to Lake Apopka. The center north-south canal and the interior east-west canal, together with the diagonal canal, are not in operation at present. The center north-south-canal would become the approximate eastern boundary of the 122 acres with the western north-south canal representing the approximate western boundary of the 122 acre plot. The northern boundary of the CIF property is constituted of an east-west canal which is part of the present Duda system. This is the only one of the canals associated with the former farming operation on the CIF property which is part of any maintained system of conveyances presently in existence. Approximately 1,000 acres are being farmed by Duda and Sons in property north of the proposed project. The Duda permit application, 4-8088 as granted, is described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13 which is a copy of the permit. This acreage is generally found to the northwest of the CIF plot, and would allow an additional 300 acres to be farmed in that muck area, on land which has been cleared for the most part and/or which has an elevation predominantly above 68.5 feet MSL. Eighty acres of the proposed Duda permit application was denied based upon the fact that it had not been cleared prior to the Duda permit application and in consideration of the amount of the 80 acre segment which lies below 68.5 feet MSL. The elevation 68.5 feet MSL represents the flood plain for the 1 in 10 year rainfall event for Lake Apopka. The area of the Duda permit is depicted on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 and outlined on that exhibit with lines of green and yellow at the southern end, green and yellow and red and yellow on its western flanks, red at the north end and by red on the east side, together with a Duda drainage ditch, which runs north from the terminus of the north-south drainage ditch coming from Wolfshead Lake and the east-west drainage ditch at the northern extent of the CIF property. Exhibit No. 4 was made prior to clearing operations depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 and that letter exhibit is a more correct indication of the appearance of the new Duda permit property today. A green diagonal line running northwest and southeast intersecting with a line running east-west and a line running north-south depicts the approximate part of the 80 acres, which lies below 68.5 feet MSL, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Farm operations, in keeping with the authority of Permit No. 4-8088, have not commenced. If the CIF permit application is successful, the original 1,000 acres, approximately 300 acre area of the Duda permit and the 122 acres of CIF, would be tied in by a system of conveyance ditches or canals allowing the interchange and transport of water through and around the three farm areas. The existing retention pond would be expanded to accommodate the additional farm acreage. The Petitioner is willing to increase the present retention pond to a design capacity which would equal one acre of basin for each ten acres of farm land, at the place in time when all three elements of the muck farm operation were under way. This again pertains to the existing 1,000 acres, the approximately 300 acre recent Duda permit, and the 122 acres related to the CIF application. With the addition of the CIF acreage, when water in the ditches reached 67.1 feet MSL, this would cause the engagement of a 40,000 GPM pump allowing the ditch water influent into the retention pond. The pump automatically would shut off at any time the water level in the access ditches to the pond dropped below 61 feet MSL. The primary purpose of the retention pond is to make water available for irrigation of crops, in its present state, and as contemplated with the addition of the CIF project. The pond does and would detain farm water for a period of about a day allowing the settling out of certain nutrients which are in particulate form. The existing pond and in its expanded form does not and would not filter nutrients which have been dissolved and have become a part of the water column. At times of high incidence of rainfall, when the crops are inundated with water for a 48-hour period of time, the retention pond is now designed and as contemplated by the addition of the CIF farm land, would allow for the discharge of effluent into Lake Apopka through two discharge culverts. The discharge is by means of gravity through an adjustable riser system. The retention pond as presently designed and as contemplated in its expansion has established the height at which water would be released from the retention pond into Lake Apopka through the riser at 68 feet MSL. The occasion of high incidence of rainfall occurs during the normal rainy season in a given year. Discharge could also be expected in the 1 in 10 year, 24hour storm event. During that storm event or design, Lake Apopka would rise to a level of 68.54 feet MSL, a level which would correspond to the 10year flood plain. Whether in the pre or post-development phase of the 122 acres, waters from that acreage would be discharged during the course of the storm through culverts leading from the retention pond into Lake Apopka. This process would continue until the gravity flow stopped at the moment where the water level in the pond and the water level in Lake Apopka adjacent to the discharge culverts achieved equilibrium of elevation. At that point in time, the gravity flow or discharge from the retention basin would cease, there no longer being a positive gradient from the detention pond to Lake Apopka. There will be some amount of discharge in the 24-hour storm event through the culverts at the retention pond either in the pre or post-development phases of the project, because, at present, the western most north-south ditch, which is found at the western boundary of the CIF property, allows water to flow north into the present Duda ditch system, water which has fallen on the 122 acres in question. From the ditch system, that water finds its way into the retention pond and thus into the lake. The contemplated system to be installed with the 122 acres at build-out would also allow water from the 122 acres to go through a system of conveyances and to the retention pond and from there into Lake Apopka. Although considerable testimony was presented by both parties on the subject of comparing pre-development and post-development peak discharge rates of runoff from the proposed activity, in the 1 in 10 year, 24-hour storm design or event, neither party has satisfactorily proven the dimensions of the pre-development and post-development peak discharge rates of runoff from the proposed activity. This determination is made having reviewed the testimony and the exhibits in support of that testimony. Notwithstanding a lack of proof of this differential with exactitude, it has been shown by the testimony and exhibits that the post- development peak discharge rate of runoff in the 1 in 10 year, 24-hour design storm or event can be expected to exceed that of the pre-development rate. On the associated topic of the ability of the post-development design to accommodate the differential in peak discharge rate of runoff between pre- development and post-development, Petitioner has failed to establish this proof. The modeling that was done by the Petitioner, in an effort to depict the differential as 10 acre feet with an available capacity of attenuation approximating 26 acre feet within the system of ditches, is not convincing. Nor has petitioner shown that there is sufficient storage in the retention pond, in the course of the storm event. The data offered in support of Petitioner's position does not sufficiently address accommodation of the drainage from areas surrounding the 122 acres in question, which are not part of the Duda system; the amounts of water already found in the system of ditches and canals at the onset of the storm event; the amount of water located on the crops at the onset of the storm event, which would have to be removed; and the amount of water already found in the retention pond at the time of the storm event. During the 1 in 10 year 24-hour storm, the CIF 122 acres will be protected by the 71-foot MSL dike, in that the expected elevation of Lake Apopka would not exceed 68.54 feet MSL. The dike would also protect the 122 acres in the 25, 50, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events whose elevations are anticipated to be 68.98, 69.28, and 69.56 feet MSL, respectively. As a consequence, an increase in flood stage would occur on lands other than those controlled by CIF. The amount of increase in flood stage would be approximately .046 inches during the 1 in 10 year storm, and an increasingly greater amount for the larger storms. It was not established where the amount of water which could not be staged on the 122 acres would be brought to bear through the surface flow on the 31,000 acres of water which constitute Lake Apopka. Nonetheless, that water could be expected to increase the flood stage on lands other than those of the Applicant. Possibly the dikes protecting the muck farms on the northern side of Lake Apopka could be influenced by the .046 inches in elevation due to the forces associated with the 1 in 10 year storm event, such as winds and movement of the water in the lake. This is true, notwithstanding the fact that the design goal of the dikes in the area is 71 feet MSL. The dikes are constituted of muck and are susceptible to overtopping, erosion, or blowout. By history, there have bean dike failures in the northern end of Lake Apopka, and associated increases in stage or flood stage. This incremental increase in water level in the 1 in 10 year storm event, due to the CIF development, when considered in the context with the other influences of that storm event, could possibly be the determining incident leading to dike failure in the northern perimeter of Lake Apopka. However, given the history of dike failures, prior to this potential loss of the storage area on the applicant's property, it has not been shown that the proximate cause of dike failure in the 1 in 10 year storm could be expected to be the contribution of an additional .046 inches of water on the lake surface. Those failures existed prior to the potential for the addition of water and were the result of inadequate maintenance of a structure which demanded a better quality of attention. Nonetheless, the additional amount of water could be expected to exacerbate the extent of a dike breach in any 1 in 10 year storm event that occurred subsequent to the development of the CIF 122 acres. In summary, the likelihood that the increase in elevation of water caused by the loss of storage on the subject property will be the critical event that causes a dike failure is not accepted. A dike could breach because of the influence of the storm even itself, without regard for the incremental increases in water elevation due to loss of water storage on the CIF property. The poor condition of some dikes due to less than adequate design or maintenance, would promote that dike failure and be exacerbated to the extent of more water being introduced on that property through the incremental amount of increase due to loss of storage on the CIF property. The dike failure circumstance in and of itself would not be sufficient to deny the permit application; however, the applicant had the burden of addressing the possible problem of increases in stage or flood stage on other properties, not its own, which are not protected by dikes. This showing was not made by the applicant, notwithstanding the fact that an increase in stage or flood stage could be expected to occur on property fronting Lake Apopka, which property is not protected by any form of artificial barrier. The installation of the protective dike aground the 122 areas of the CIF property in the 1 in 10 year design storm and potentially at times of lesser rainfall events, could be expected to increase the stage or flood stage on lands unprotected by dikes and thereby adversely affect lands other than those controlled by the applicant. Most of the 122 acres and the property to the east of that development and a portion of the undeveloped 80 acres in the recent Duda permit would be inundated in the 1 in 10 year storm event, prior to development. This is true because the elevation of much of that property is approximately 67.5 foot MSL. During the 1 in 10 year storm event, it would store approximately one foot of water, as presently constituted. It could also be expected to be inundated on an average of approximately once in two years. Lake Apopka is a part of a controlled system of lakes known as the Oklawaha River chain of lakes. Respondent regulates the water level in that chain of lakes by operation of a lock on the Apopka-Beauclair canal. The maximum desirable elevation of 67.5 feet MSL for Lake Apopka is a part of the regulation schedule found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. In the 1 in 10 year or better storm event, the Apopka-Beauclair system could not draw down the surface water at a rate faster than 27 days per foot, even assuming the lock was fully open to flow. Consequently, those properties that were suffering an, increase in flood stage on their surface could not expect to gain prompt relief through the regulation of waters in the Oklawaha River chain of lakes. Lake Apopka is an hyper-eutrophic lake. Although it is classified as Class III water body (ambient water quality) within the meaning of Section 17- 3.161, Florida Administrative Code, it fails to match that classification in terms of its actual water quality. This is as a consequence of its highly eutrophic state, brought about by the age of the lake and the contributions of man. Some of the contributors to the eutrophication have been removed from the lake area and water quality has improved. Those facilities removed were sewage treatment and citrus processing plants around the Lake Apopka rim. The muck farms remain and the quality of the water in the retention basins or ponds when compared to the receiving waters of Lake Apopka is similar in nature. Consequently, the receiving waters are not enhanced in their water quality when the retention ponds discharge water into Lake Apopka. As stated before, the retention ponds do not have as their primary purpose the treatment of water. Any water quality improvement is a secondary function of the retention pond. The retention ponds do improve the water somewhat, as described, and are adequately sized to fulfill that partial cleansing. Whether the water quality in Lake Apopka would ever improve sufficiently to allow Lake Apopka to become a more diversified habitat for fish and wildlife is not certain, even if all contributing discharges of pollutants were curtailed, to include the discharge of water from the muck farms with its high nutrient loads. Nonetheless, Lake Apopka cannot accomplish the recovery if the effluent from the muck farms continues to be introduced into the lake with the present constituents found in the water. Out of concern for the water quality in Lake Apopka, officials of the University of Florida have conducted experiments on nutrient removal which they hoped would approximate the quality of removal accomplished by transitional vegetation and swamp. (The 122 acres at issue and the western and eastern adjoining property are constituted of these water treatment zones.) This experiment of nutrient removal through use of retention ponds calls for the retention of the muck farm water for a period of six days allowing settlement of particulates and for the vegetation within those experimental retention basins to uptake dissolved nutrients. Several types of vegetation are used to gain a better quality of nutrient uptake add the vegetation is harvested every six to eight weeks to improve that performance. The experiment has shown that the quality of water discharged from the ponds utilized by the University of Florida was comparable in its quality to the natural wetlands system water discharge. The natural wetlands discharge is of a better quality than the receiving waters. Unlike the university experiment, the pond contemplated by CIF primarily emphasizes detention for a shorter period of time than was used in the experiment and allows highly eutrophic water to be mixed with that quality of water already found in Lake Apopka. The only exception to that comment is that water flowing from Wolfshead Lake, which is south of the proposed 122 acres, is a high quality of water, and through the project as contemplated, this water would be directly introduced into Lake Apopka through a flow over a natural wetlands system. This is in opposition to the present situation where the water from Wolfshead Lake flows primarily to the north through an existing canal and is mixed with water from the muck farm and is, therefore, of the eutrophic character as opposed to the high quality character. The Duda permit, which was issued, would allow the introduction of water which is similar in character to the water of Lake Apopka, through the system of ditch conveyances, placement in the retention pond, and at times, flow to the lake. In its effect, the nutrient loading which occurs by introduction of waters from that new farm, would be similar to that proposed in the CIF project. The fact of this similarity does not prohibit the district from evaluating water quality matters on the occasion of the CIF permit decision. Should the 122 acres be converted from natural vegetation to a muck farm, wildlife and fish habitat would be adversely impacted. The habitat provided by the plot is in scarce supply and is essential to the maintenance of a diversified fish population. The hardwood swamp, which is part of and adjacent to the 122 acres of the CIF application, supports benthic invertebrates, which are a food source for game fish. The type of vegetation found in the lake, due to its eutrophic state, is plankton and one of the by- products of the reproduction of that plant through the process and respiration is the destruction of the fish population. This occurs in the summer months. The plankton has replaced the emergent and submergent vegetation which once covered as much as two-thirds of Lake Apopka and now represents .05 percent of the lake. As a consequence, game fish have diminished over a period of years with plankton feeding fish predominating. Consequently, the fish population is less diverse and the removal of the vegetation becomes a significant contributor to the imbalance in fish population.
Findings Of Fact On June 15, 1977, Respondent Department of Transportation (DOT) filed application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to relocate 5,188 linear feet of an existing canal commonly referred to as Cypress Strand Canal in Manatee County, Florida. The application and accompanying drawings show that the scope of the project is not merely limited to relocation of the canal, but other dredge and fill activities in the surrounding area incident to the construction of a highway interchange over State Road 64 approximately four and one-half miles east of Bradenton, Florida. On March 15, 1978, DER issued a Notice of Intent to issue a permit for the application pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-500. In its notice, the extent of the project was described as follows: PROJECT: To construct an interchange where I-75 will intersect SR-64 by: filling 5,188 linear feet of a channelized cypress stand by placing 27,100 cubic yards of fill in the existing ditch; excavation of 38,250 cubic yards of material to create a new ditch 4,455 feet long; placement of 195,176 cubic yards of fill in an existing borrow pit to construct a road causeway with 241 linear feet of 72 inch RCP and 288 linear feet of 54 inch RCP placed under the causeway to provide water exchange; placement of 161 linear feet of double 8 ft. by 7 ft. box culvert in the new ditch for the crossing of SR-64; placement of 292 linear feet of 8 ft. by 7 ft. box culvert in the new ditch for the crossing of I-75; placement of two 24 inch and one 42 inch pipe to drain runoff from the interchange into the new ditch. The notice also stated that the proposed permit would be subject to certain conditions, including the placement of silt screens downstream from any construction, completion of ditch (canal) relocation and box culvert construction prior to placing fill in the existing canal, sodding of side slopes of causeway fill, and submission of weekly monitoring reports of turbidity before and during construction at certain locations. The letter provided that if monitoring revealed apparent violations of state water quality standards for turbidity, construction activities must cease immediately and not resume until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels. The letter also required that state water quality standards prescribed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, must be met by the DOT. (Exhibits 21 -22) The general area surrounding the project site consists of partially wooded pasture land and some residential development in the southwest portion. A cypress "head" consisting of almost eight acres lies east of the existing Cypress Strand Canal on the south side of SR-64 in the area where the relocated canal is proposed. The proposed roadway also will go through part of this cypress area. The bald cypress trees there are quite old and most reach a diameter of eight to ten feet. It is considered to be one of the few cypress stands to be found in Manatee County. In order to avoid the construction of bridges for the proposed highway in this area, DOT plans to fill approximately five and one-half acres with consequent removal of most of the existing trees in the filled area. Although there is standing water in the cypress hammock area, only an insignificant amount of surface water flows from there to the canal due to the higher elevation of the canal. It was for this reason that the DER supervisor of the dredge and fill section determined that the cypress head was not contiguous to waters regulated by the department. This decision, which was adopted by the Director of the DER Division of Environmental Permitting, in effect, overruled a recommendation by a DER field representative who had conducted an appraisal of the application and determined that the cypress head acts as a preliminary filtering are before the waters empty into the cypress creek salt marsh which then flows into the Manatee River. Expert testimony establishes that the DER position is correct in this respect and that only an insignificant amount of water leaves the cypress pond area into the canal. (Testimony of Allen, McWilliams, Wanielista, Exhibits 6-13, 17, 18, supplemented by Exhibits 15-16, 20.) On the north side of SR 64, the proposed relocated canal and roadway would be constructed through a "borrow pit" which covers approximately 39 acres. It is proposed to fill approximately 12 acres of this area. The remainder will contain water which acts as a "kidney" to filtrate water flowing from the canal and this area will be more than sufficient to adequately perform such a function. (Testimony of Allen, Wanielista, Exhibits 17-18.) The proposed roadway and ramps at the interchange over SR 64 are designated to retard or slow down the surface water movement to minimize degradation of water quality. To this end, the amount of exposed earth fill will be limited to the extent possible, and after the fill is placed in position, various types of erosion control will be accomplished, such as sodding slopes and building earth berms along the top of the roadway. Hay bales will be placed at the "toe" of the slopes during construction to further retard water movement and the introduction of sediment into waterways. Silt barriers termed "Florida diapers" which consist of a floating barrier of vinyl material will be placed strategically to prevent movement of silt past the barrier. This type of screening has proved to be effective in the past in situations involving relatively still water. Although various nutrients, metals, and chemicals will accumulate on the roadway and slopes during operations, the foregoing methods of retarding flow will serve as filters to reduce degradation of water quality. Additionally, depressions will be made in median areas to permit percolation into the roadway fill material. The "infield" or areas inside the circular ramps, consisting of approximately 20 acres, will be vegetated by the planting of some 150 cypress trees. The 80-foot-wide median area will also be vegetated. The concrete box culverts for the crossing of the proposed roadway will replace some 550 feet of the existing canal and will cause a somewhat accelerated flow of water. Overall, however, in the opinion of Respondents' expert witness, runoff from the interchange area will not measurably increase pollution in the Cypress Strand Canal or the Manatee River. It is his view that much of the water will percolate into the interchange ground area and that any remaining flow will result in 90 percent removal of pollutants by the various proposed methods of erosion control. In fact, the expert is of the view that the project is "overdesigned" at the present time and that the interchange infield design plus the filtering action that will take place in the borrow pit is more than sufficient to insure minimum degradation of water quality. (Testimony of Allen, Wanielista, Exhibit 13, 23.) All contracts for DOT roadway construction involve a special clause termed "Erosion Control and Pollution Abatement" that requires the building contractor to perform the various erosion control measures connected with the project. At a preconstruction conference, the contractor is required to tell DOT the specific manner in which such measures will be accomplished. During the construction phase, representatives of DER monitor the progress and recommend any necessary changes to meet State water quality requirements. Similar monitoring is required after construction and during operation of the roadway for the life of the permit. Although no precise data on the extent of any water degradation can be obtained until after construction commences, past experiences of the DER with the standard DOT construction contracts have proved the measures taken thereunder effectively maintain water quality standards. On this basis, the DER determined that DOT had provided reasonable assurances that construction of the interchange would not result in exceeding State water quality standards. (Testimony of Allen, McWilliams.) Various objections against granting the requested permit have been expressed by members of the public and environmental groups. Although most of these witnesses acknowledge the need for the I-75 extension, they were of the opinion that the roadway should be relocated to the east away from the cypress wetlands area. Additionally, written communications received in evidence from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Florida Division of Forestry, Manatee Health Department, and the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service raised objections to the proposed project based upon the elimination of the Cypress Stand area and recommended either relocation of the interchange or preservation of the existing wetlands. (Testimony of Duisburg, Belmont, Miller, Flisik, Matey, Quy, Exhibits 4, 14-16, 19.) Other public witnesses representing the City Council of Palmetto, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, Florida, Manatee County Chamber of Commerce, City Commission of Bradenton, Florida, and private interests recommended approval of the application. The testimony of these witnesses and various resolutions from governmental bodies primarily focused on the urgent need for construction of the I-75 interchange to promote the economic and general welfare of the area residents and promote safety on the highways. (Testimony of Gallon, Holland, Prather, Neal, Price, Reasoner, Coates, Wiseman, T. Harllee, Jr., T. Harllee, Pinardi, Harden, Exhibits 1-3, 5, 24.)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jay Landers, Jr. Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James W. Anderson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Judith Smith Kavanaugh, Esquire 543 Tenth Street, West Bradenton, Florida 33505
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing; the following facts relevant to the issue presented for determination are found: The prime complaint heard from petitioner's customers who testified at the hearing was the objectionable odor of the water received in their homes. The water was described as smelling like chlorine or like sewer, swamp or sulphur water. Such an objectionable odor affects the water's taste, and several customers testified that they were compelled to use filters to make the water bearable to drink. Another witness testified that the water tasted like quinine. Other complaints regarding the quality of water provided by petitioner to its customers included the presence of debris, such as sand, silt or dirt, in the water, the staining of white sinks by the water and inadequate water pressure. Complaints with regard to the service provided by petitioner to its customers were also voiced. These complaints included interruptions in water service without prior notice, the presence of air in the water lines and the necessity of making long-distance telephone calls to Orlando when inquiring about their bills. One customer testified that even though he had paid for a temporary disconnection of his water when he was away from his residence, he was still billed a minimum charge for service. Several customers testified that petitioner's office personnel failed to timely or adequately respond to their complaints or inquiries regarding their bills. Charles Sweat, the vice president of operations for petitioner's fifty- one systems in eight counties, visits each of the systems at least once a month. At the time that petitioner took over the operation of the Intercession City water system in 1977, the system was under citation by the Department of Environmental Regulation for inadequate chlorination of the water. The Department of Environmental Regulation does have a minimum requirement as to the amount of chlorine which must be added to the water. Petitioner corrected this deficiency and the citation was removed. Neither of the two water systems involved in this proceeding - Intercession City and Tropical Park - are presently under citation by any state or local regulatory agency. Analyses of monthly laboratory samples of water from the Intercession City and the Tropical Park systems indicate that the water quality will meet the Department of Environmental Regulation's secondary drinking water standards which went into effect on January 13, 1981. Petitioner now provides a toll-free telephone number which Osceola County customers may use to call Orlando. Notice of this toll-free number was included in the water bills sent to customers in September or October of 1980. A log is maintained by petitioner of all interruptions of water service. On one occasion occurring on March 3, 1980, there was a water outage. The outage was caused by low temperatures freezing the pressure switch at a time when it was at a high pressure level. When there was no pressure, the switch, being frozen, was incapable of sending an on-signal to the pump. It was necessary for petitioner to use torches to thaw out the pipes to make the system work properly. Cold weather sufficient to cause such an effect rarely occurs in Florida. On January 16, 1981, there was an interruption in service caused by the county cutting a water line. Another interruption of service occurred on January 18, 1981. This was caused by the malfunction of an air release valve which releases excess air from the pressure tank. Air was eventually caused to go into the distribution system and consequently into the homes of the customers. Petitioner's personnel have been instructed to watch this type of situation more carefully and more often. Petitioner's vice president of operations was not aware of recent complaints from customers concerning air problems, but testified that he would immediately and personally follow up on the problem.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the quality of water service provided by petitioner to its customers in Osceola County be found to be satisfactory and that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner in its application for a rate increase as a result of the quality of its service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4 - Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case include: whether the Respondents constructed berms and ponds and dug ditches and filled wetlands on their Property in Highlands County without required permits, as alleged by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in its Administrative Complaint; and, if so, whether the Respondents are entitled to an agricultural exemption or an agricultural closed system exemption under Section 373.406(2)- (3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondents' Activities on the Property In August 2003, the Respondents, José Fernando and Liliana Urrea Aristizabal, bought approximately 30 acres of land in Highlands County, near Lake Placid, south of Miller Road, to use for a palm tree nursery. This land (the Property) is in Section 30, Township 36 South, Range 29 East. There was a large marsh approximately in the center of the Property with additional wetlands surrounding the large marsh. On December 31, 2003, and again in February 2004, representatives of SWFWMD informed Mr. Aristizabal that, due to the presence of relatively high-quality wetlands on the Property, the plant nursery he intended to establish there would require an application for an environmental resource permit (ERP). After receiving this information from SWFWMD, Mr. Aristizabal retained a consultant to advise him. The consultant advised Mr. Aristizabal on how to construct an irrigation system that would be effective and permittable; however, the consultant cautioned him that construction would have to avoid impacting the wetlands on the Property. The consultant also advised Mr. Aristizabal as to the location of the wetlands on the Property, as well as the location of "potential wetlands." In response to the consultant's advice, Mr. Aristizabal dug a circular ditch around the large marsh in the center of the Property, with additional linear ditches radiating from the central, circular ditch and intersecting with a second, larger ditch around most of the perimeter of the irrigation system, extending along the east, north, and west sides of the Property. The ditches are approximately 5-7 feet wide and 5-7 feet deep. The soil from the ditches was spread between the linear ditches to raise the ground level and create planting beds. Mr. Aristizabal also deposited fill to the north and east of the perimeter ditch to create a berm approximately 4-6 feet wide and 2-4 feet high. Effects on Surface Waters of the State The evidence proved that there were approximately 11.64 acres of wetlands on the Property, including the large central marsh. Most of the ditches dug by Mr. Aristizabal and most of the fill deposited by him between the ditches were in wetlands. In all, approximately 0.86 acres of the wetlands on the Property were dredged, and approximately 4.97 acres of the wetlands on the Property were filled. The ditches intercept, divert, and impound surface water. The berms--particularly, the berm on the north side of the Property--also obstruct the flow of surface water. Agricultural Exemption Defense The Respondents did not apply for an agricultural exemption under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, from the requirement to obtain an ERP. Instead, they raised the exemption as a defense to SWFWMD's enforcement action. Regarding the agricultural exemption defense, Mr. Aristizabal's berms and his ditching and filling of wetlands impounded, impeded, and diverted the flow of surface waters. These effects more than incidentally trapped or diverted some surface waters, e.g., as occurs when a pasture is plowed. For that reason, the activities were not consistent with the practice of agriculture. Even if those activities might be considered to be consistent with the practice of agriculture, they had the predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. The berms and the ditching and filling of wetlands obstructed surface waters in that they had the effect of more-than- incidentally diverting surface water from its natural flow patterns. The ditches also impounded surface waters. SWFWMD reasonably determined that the predominant purpose of the berms and the ditching and filling of wetlands was to impound, impede, divert, and obstruct the flow of surface waters. Agricultural Closed System Exemption Defense The Respondents did not apply for an agricultural closed system exemption under Section 373.406(3), Florida Statutes. Instead, they raised the exemption as a defense to SWFWMD's enforcement action. The Respondents did not prove that their construction resulted in an "agricultural closed system." Rather, the evidence was that surface waters of the state are discharged from, and onto, the Property during most years. Requested Corrective Action SWFWMD seeks alternative corrective action by the Respondents: expeditiously apply for and obtain an after-the- fact permit; or expeditiously submit and perform an acceptable plan to restore the land to its natural grade and to remediate as necessary to restore any loss of wetland functions. The specifics of the requested alternative corrective action are set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Administrative Complaint. The requested alternative corrective actions are reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Governing Board enter a Final Order requiring the Respondents to apply for the necessary after- the-fact permit and/or restore wetland impacts, as described in Finding 12, supra. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Moore, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 José Fernando Aristizabal Liliana Urrea Aristizabal 6650 Southwest 189th Way Southwest Ranches, Florida 33332 Joseph J. Ward, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604
