Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts contained in the Prehearing Stipulation, the following relevant facts are found: The Gardinier Applications. l. The East Tampa Chemical Plant (plant) operated by Gardinier is located on approximately 3,500 acres of land owned by it at the mouth of the Alafia River and the Hillsborough Bay. The facilities have been there since 1924, and the withdrawal of water utilized to operate the plane predates the consumptive use permitting process. The plant manufactures various fertilizer products, including sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, diammonium phosphate, granular triple superphosphate, run of pile triple superphosphate, byproducts of phosphoric acid, as well as fluosilic acid and sodium silicofluoride. The phosphoric acid products are used by farmers to grow corn, soy beans, and wheat, and fluosilic acid and sodium silicofluoride are used by municipalities to fluorinate drinking water. When the plant is fully operating, Gardinier employs 950 people with a payroll of $22 million a year. The company pays annual property and other taxes of $1.5 million a year and annually purchases approximately $25 million in materials and equipment in Hillsborough County. Garciinier was recently purchased by Cargill, Inc. after a bankruptcy proceeding. In order to manufacture its products and operate the plant, Gardinier uses both salt water and fresh water. The salt water comes from salt water wells located on the plant's property, and has been used since 1924 for cooling purposes. It is used for once-through, non-contact cooling of sulphuric acid and is then discharged into the Alafia River at the Hillsborough Bay. Due to the naturally occurring radium in this discharged salt water, Gardinier intends to discontinue using its salt water wells and utilize fresh water for all its cooling requirements. This will require the construction of a fresh water cooling tower, for which a permit is currently being sought and which will take about two years to complete. Gardinier's existing CUP No. 7601530 for its salt water wells permits an average annual withdrawal of 56,260,000 gallons of water per day (gpd) and a maximum daily withdrawal of 64,890,000 gpd. Despite expansions in its plant over the years, the amounts of salt water and fresh water required has decreased. Gardinier's present renewal application for its salt water withdrawals proposes a reduction to an average annual rate and maximum daily rate of 31,968,000 gpd . Fresh water is used at Gardinier's plant as boiler feed water, for manufacturing of product or process water, cooling and potable needs. This water is obtained from Buckhorn Springs and Lithia Sprlngs, both wholly owned by Gardinier. Gardinier purchased 148 acres at Buckhorn Springs in 1947, and 160 acres at Lithia Springs in 1967, including the spring pools, and has been withdrawing water from those springs since those times. Lithia Springs is leased to Hillsborough County for recreational purposes. Gardinier's withdrawals from the springs have been gradually reduced since 1977. The original CUP No. 7601532 issued in 1977 for Buckhorn Springs authorized an annual average withdrawal of 2,176,000 gpd with a maximum daily withdrawal not to exceed 2,370,800 gpd. Gardinier requested a reduced withdrawal s renewal application, with an annual average and a maximum daily rate of 1,440,000 gpd. Gardinier's original CUP No. 7601533 for Lithia Springs issued in 1977 was for 5,840,700 gpd average annual withdrawal and 5,894.000 gpd as a maximum daily withdrawal. Gardinier's renewal is for a reduced average withdrawal rate of 5,822,000 gpd and a maximum daily withdrawal of 5,904,000 gpd. The increased maximum quantity is for the well used for the concession stand at the park. Withdrawals from Gardinier's salt water wells consists of comingled waters from the intermediate aquifer, the Floridan aquifer and Hillsborough Bay. The water is salty, high in chloride and its constituents are very similar to bay water. The evidence is inconclusive as to whether Gardinier's operation of its salt water wells for a period of over 60 years has caused or contributed to salt water intrusion in thc area of the plant. There is some evidence that the pumping may have been beneficial in reducing salt water encroachment along the coast due to the release of pressure on the deeper Floridan aquifer which allows fresh water to move into the system. In any event, if there has been an adverse effect from more than 60 years of pumping, the effect would be reduced by the reduction in withdrawals which Gardinier now seeks in its permit renewals. While Gardinier is the largest use of water in the plant area, there are domestic wells in the vicinity of the plant. Computer modeling demonstrates that present withdrawals from the salt water wells will affect the potentiometric surface at the plant's boundary by less than five feet and create less than a one-foot drawdown in the water table. The greater portion of the water pumped is recharge water from the bay. Any reduction in the amount of pumping would have a positive impact on the potentiometric surface, will decrease any impact on nearby domestic wells and will allow the quality of the water in domestic wells to either remain stable or improve. Since the potentiometric surface in the plant's vicinity is already at sea level, it is SWFWMD's policy not to take into account the regulatory criterion relating to the lowering of the potentiometric surface below sea level. SWFWMD has not established regulatory levels for the rate of flow of streams or watercourses, the potentiometric surface or surface waters in the vicinity of the plant. Salt water marshes, estuarine systems and uplands exist to the north, south and east of the plant. Any adverse ecological impact suffered by these systems are more attributable to cultural impacts than to a less than one foot lowering of the water table. Since Gardinier's withdrawals have been occurring for over 60 years, it is likely that biological communities in the area have adapted, and the proposed reduction in pumping have no additional adverse effect. In order to satisfy its requirements for fresh water of reliable quantity and quality, Gardinier has been withdrawing water from Buckhorn Springs for almost 40 years and Lithia Springs for almost 20 years. The boilers and cooling towers at the plant are designed to utilize water of that quality and temperature. But for Gardinier's withdrawals, these spring waters would flow into the Alafia River and eventually into the bay. The spring water from Lithia is pumped through a pipeline to Buckhorn Springs, comingles with the Buckhorn spring water and is pumped some 1< miles through a pipeline to the chemical plant for use as boiler feed water, process water, cooling water and sanitary and drinking water. During full production periods, Gardinier uses all the water withdrawn from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs. Because of cutbacks in production in 1983, Gardinier installed a pressure relief valve to alleviate pressure problems in the plant during times of reduced production. This allowed water to be discharged into the Alafia River from the Lithia pipeline without passing through the plant. Over the past two years, approximately .5 to 1.2 million gallons of water per day has passed through the pressure relief valve and discharged in the Alafia River at a point downstream from where it would have entered the river naturally. Gardinier is presently in the process of developing an alternative pressure control system which would permit it to take from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs only the amounts actually required at the plant. Lithia Springs and Buckhorn Springs are typical karst artisian sink springs. The geology and hydrogeology of the area of both springs demonstrates a series of fault features, where solid rock has fractured and the fractures extend into the Floridan aquifer. Solutioning occurs and a sinkhole system is created. The springs are discharge points of the Floridan aquifer. These aquifer waters discharge into the springs from artisian pressure. An examination of various well logs and literature on Florida geology leads to the conclusion that the water in Lithia Springs and Buckhorn Springs withdrawn by Gardinier are supplied primarily by the Floridan aquifer with very minimal contribution from the intermediate or surficial aquifers. The withdrawals at both springs constitute ground water, as opposed to surface water, withdrawals. As noted above, Gardinier owns 148 acres at Buckhorn Springs and 160 acres at Lithia Springs. There are 350 feet from the edge of Buckhorn Springs to the nearest property line and 400 feet from the edge of Lithia Springs to the nearest property line. Pump tests designed to determine the lateral and vertical extent of the impact from the stress of pumping in amounts far greater than usual demonstrate that the impacts from withdrawals do not extend beyond 300 feet from the edge of either spring. After stabilizing the springs and pumping at a greater rate than normal, the pump tests revealed only a 1.25 foot decline in the spring boil, a 1.06 foot decline in the spring pool and no appreciable change in the water table or surface water at Buckhorn Springs. The impacts from pumping at Lithia Springs were even more minimal -- a two inch decline in the water level of the spring boil and a decline in the pool level of less than one inch. These results lead to the conclusion that the artisian systems are not adversely affected by Cardinier's pumping at Buckhorn or Lithia Springs. Chemical analyses reveals that the quality of the waters at Buckhorn and Lithia Springs has not been adversely affected by Cardinler's pumping or withdrawals. The proposed withdrawals will have no adverse effect upon vegetation in the areas of Lithla or Buckhorn Springs. There will be no inducement of salt water encroachment as a result of Gardinier's withdrawals from Lithia or Buckhorn Springs. SWFWMD has set no regulatory levels pertaining to the rate of flow of streams or watercourses, the level of the potentiometric surface or the level of surface waters in the areas of Buckhorn or Lithia Springs. It is the policy of the SWFWMD not to require extensive testing or monitoring when an applicant is applying for a renewal of a presently existing legal use, particularly when the renewal is for a permit with reduced quantities. In order to determine the future adequacy of the water supply available from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs, as well as to determine the effect of a diminuition of the outflow by outside sources, it would be beneficial to place continuous recording gases on spring flow, spring height and pumpage at those spring sites. Many industries are capable of and do now utilize reclaimed, recovered or recycled water in their plant operations. Dependent upon the plant's equipment and ;he quantity and quality of the reuse or recycled water, such water can be utilized in chemical plant operations for such nonpotable uses as cooling water, boiler feed and process water. A source of reuse water is treated effluent from advanced wastewater treatment facilities. Several new County wastewater treatment plants are presently in the planning stage, but none are currently on line nor are there pipelines in existence which could supply reuse water to Gardinier's East Tampa Chemical Plant. Use of the existing pipeline for reclaimed or reuse water would contaminate Gardinier's existing fresh water supply from the springs. Considering the quantity and quality of its present source of fresh water, reuse water has no technical or economic advantage to Gardinier. Its plant equipment would have to be retrofitted, a new distribution system both within and outside the plant would be required and experience by other industrial users has demonstrated problems with scaling, increased temperature and the consistency of water quality. When weighing the potential for reuse water in plant operations, a large factor to be considered is the economic feasibility, including the cost of treatment, maintenance costs, the cost of the current supply, availability, etc. While the reuse of water should be encouraged as a conservation measure, the economic feasibility of such use must be considered. Gardinier has studied and has agreed to continue to study the feasibility, both technical and economical, of reuse water for some of the plant operations. The Authority's and County's Application. The Authority is a five member governmental entity consisting of Pasco County, Pinellas County, Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa, and the City of St. Petersburg. Its obligations are to provide an adequate and dependable source of supply for all citizens within the tri-county area and to do so without concentrating withdrawals to the point where they would have an adverse environmental or hydrological impact. The Authority first began operating public supply wellfields in 1978. Currently, the Authority operates the Cypress Creek Wellfield, the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield, the Starkey Wellfield, the Section 21 Wellfield, the Cosme-Odessa Wellfield, and the Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield. The permitted average annual withdrawal rate and maximum daily withdrawal of these wellfields are 30 million gallons per day (mgd)/30 mod for Cypress Creek, 30 mgdt45 mgd for Cross Bar, 8 mgd/15 mgd for Starkey, 13 mgd/22 mgd for Section 21 and Cosme-Odessa and 8.8 mgd/18.q mgd for the Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield. In addition, the Authority has a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from the Tampa Bypass Canal at a rate of 20 mgd average annual withdrawal and 40 mgd maximum daily withdrawal. The south central Hillsborough County region and service area has been described in this proceeding as an area bounded by Interstate ~ on the north, by Valrico on the east, by the Little Manatee River on the south and by Tampa Bay on the west. The area is largely a rural area, but has several population centers, including Brandon, Ruskin, Apollo Beach, Sun City and Riverview. The County's current public water supply facilities in the south central region comprise some 75 dispersed wells permitted under 8 different CUPs. The evidence is conflicting and inconclusive as to the actual number of existing wells and the quantities presently permitted. Some of the presently permitted wells have been converted to monitoring wells and others have been plugged. The Authority and the County have concluded that it is no longer possible to continue to use the County's existing public water supply facilities in the south central area. Consequently, they have applied for a CUP which would renew and consolidate their existing 8 CUPs and add 17 new wells to be located at a regional wellfield. It is the intent of the Authority and the County to continue using the existing wells during construction of the planned wellfield and then to discontinue their use and serve the entire area from a centralized wellfield. The amended application requests total average annual combined permit withdrawals of 24,100,000 gpd and total maximum daily withdrawals of 44,600,000 gpd. The current, existing Brandon water supply system is comprised of some 30 dispersed wells capable of producing from 7 to 10 mgd of good quality water. However, there are problems in this system, as well as the smaller systems serving Sun City, Apollo Beach, Ruskin and Riverview. The Brandon wells have individual chlorinators and, on occasion, suffer pressure problems. Because of their dispersed locations, the County's operators can only visit each well site once a day. If a problem occurs after the operator's visit, it will not be discovered until the following day and recipients of the water may use water that has not been disinfected. It is difficult to monitor and sample the well waters due to their dispersed locations. The existing system relies totally on local wells for local distribution as there is a complete lack of transmission facilities. The systems are hydraulically isolated and there is no transmission capacity within the Brandon system at all. While there is one intertie with the City of Tampa's water system, this is not used primarily because the City has its own supply problems and also because the City's water treatment is different than and incompatible with the County's water treatment. Some of the existing wells located south of the Alafia Rlver are old, in poor repair and violate Florida's drinking water standards for total dissolved solids, sulfates, fecal coliform and occasionally odor. Many of the existing well sites are not secured and their locations are such as to constrain access to the larger repair equipment. The existing system has inadequate storage capacity. On the basis of present demand for water within the system, there should be at least 10 million gallons of available storage. The current storage capacity is slightly more than 4 million gallons and not all of this storage is available. A storage tank is generally kept at least half full to provide for local fire demand and, therefore, the effective storage capacity of the existing system is about 2 to 3 million gallons. The existing water supply system lacks the capacity for both adequate fire protection and adequate emergency pumping. Retrofitting or refurbishing the existing system with newer or more dispersed wells would simply perpetuate the existing inadequacies in the system. For these reasons, the Authority and the County have determined that the only feasible alternative to solve the inadequacies and to meet the current and future demand is to provide a centralized system of transmission lines, centralized master pumping facilities and a centralized source of water supply. As the wellfield production wells, pump station and transmission lines are constructed and become operational, the existing wells will be either taken out of service or will be utilized as monitor wells. It is estimated that the construction of the proposed wellfield will take from 18 to 24 months. In reaching a determination as to the location and design of the proposed south central wellfield, the Authority and the County analyzed various alternatives. Studies and testing were done regarding the placement of a regional wellfield in the Brandon area. However, testing demonstrated that the potential yield would be very low in that area and could cause the upconing of highly mineralized water. Tests conducted further to the east, in the Medard area, demonstrated a productive aquifer with good water quality. However, because large amounts of water are withdrawn from that area by strawberry farmers, particularly during freezing weather, that site was found unsuitable for a regional wellfield. The Authority also investigated the feasibility of creating a surface water supply and constructing reverse osmosis plants. These alternatives were rejected due to concerns regarding economics, adverse environmental impacts and the production of sufficient yield. Testing performed at the Lithia site resulted in findings that the aquifer was productive and had a good quality of water. To confirm these findings, further testing was done to the east of the Lithia site at Alderman's Ford Park. This testing resulted in a finding of a high yield of water that met drinking water standards. While traces of a volatile organic compound were revealed, these were determined to have resulted from the laboratory cleaning process. Thus, the Alafia River corridor was determined to be the appropriate location for a regional wellfield because it would not compete with the agricultural irrigation to the north, would avoid the poorer water quality to the south and would produce an adequate yield. The Authority and the County have completed the preliminary design of the proposed wellfield. It is to consist of 17 production wells and a pump station. Wells 1 and 2 are to be used as standby wells and pumpage is to be rotated among wells 3 through 17 so that withdrawals are evenly distributed among those wells. The standby wells are only to be used if there is a failure at another well within the wellfield. Well 1 is already constructed and is located about 1 1/2 miles from Lithia Springs on 80 acres of land purchased by the County for the master pump station. Well 1 is located about 100 feet from the nearest property boundary to the south. The remaining wells would be placed on one-acre well sites to be purchased by the applicant and located somewhere within the 40 acre quarter-quarter sections which the authority submitted to the SWFWMD as proposed well locations. The total additional land area to be acquired for the well sites is 14 acres. Two of the wells will be located on land already owned by the County. Some of the wells are concentrated, with three in one section. The Authority has attempted to locate the wells adjacent to road right-of-ways which could be used for transmission pipelines. The Authority has not yet developed a management plan or a monitoring plan for the proposed wellfield. Each of the wells within the regional wellfield is designed to pump at an average annual withdrawal rate of 3 mgd and a maximum withdrawal rate of 4 mgd. If only one well were turned on in the system and no other wells were running, the well would produce 4 mgd. However, with all of the other wells running, a single well would only produce 3 mgd due to friction loss and the energy required to pump a large mass of water through the pipe under greater pressure. Thus, while the wellfield would be able mechanically to pump 60 mgd, the optimum production capacity will be 45 mgd. On an average day, pumping will be rotated among a small number of wells to produce a total of 24.1 mgd. On a peak day, all 15 wells would be producing approximately 3 mgd each for a total combined withdrawal rate of 44.6 mgd. Based upon a per capita consumption of 189 gpd, it is estimated that the total water supply requirements for the south central service area in the year 1990 to meet average day and maximum day demands is approximately 24 mgd and 44 mgd, respectively. The proposed wellfield is located along the north and south prongs of the Alafia River. That area is characterized by rural and light agricultural land uses, residential areas and recreational sites. Land uses in the area have been dependent upon private, individual water wells, many of which are shallow and draw water from an intermediate aquifer. One proposed well site has 31 property owners within 1/2 mile of the well. One hundred property owners live within 1/2 mile of proposed well 17. These domestic well users will not be served by the proposed system. The Authority has issued revenue bonds to finance the construction of the regional wellfield and transmission lines. The regional wellfield will cost approximately $14,000,000 and the transmission lines will cost approximately S19.000,000. An additional S2,000,000 will be needed to complete construct on and these funds will be raised through the rate structure. In order to determine the proposed wellfield's impacts upon the potentiometric surface, water table and lake stages, the parties in this proceeding utilized information gathered from literature, pump tests, computer modeling and hand-calculated modeling to predict the drawdowns expected during periods of average and maximum pumping. While the actual numerical drawdown 1evels anticipated vary greatly among the expert witnesses presented, it is clear that the wellfield withdrawals, after pumping for 30 days at 24 mgd, will lower the potentiometric surface by more than 5 feet at the boundary of a one-acre well site and that the 5-foot drawdown contour will extend at least 2 1/2 miles radially around the center of the wellfield . The water table level will not be lowered more than three feet at the boundaries of the one-acre tracts, surface waters of lakes and impoundments will not be lowered more than one foot, and the potentiometric surface will not be lowered below sea level. Withdrawals from the wellfield will not induce salt water encroachment. When utilizing computer modeling to predict the impacts from withdrawals, it is essential to understand the site-specific geology and aquifer characteristics of the area. After studying the literature on the area of the wellfield, examining well logs and geophysical logs and conducting a well inventory in a 5-mile area across the wellfield, Gardinier's hydrogeologlsts found the area to be nonisotroptc and calibrated their modeling to account for the changes in geology throughout the area. The area of 'he proposed wellfield was fond to contain a thick clay confining layer which allows less water to permeate it. Inasmuch as less water moves through the layers to recharge the aquifer, the cone depression created by withdrawals from the wellfield extends over a larger and deeper area. Utilizing a value for leakance (defined as the vertical permeability through which water flows from the upper aquifer through a confining layer into the lower aquifer) of 1 x 104. Gardinier's experts predict that the potentiometric surface drawdown at Lithla Springs when the wellfield is pumping 24 mgd for 30 days will be about one foot under normal conditions. During a drought, the drawdown in the Floridan aquifer at Lithia Springs could be as much as 18.9 feet. The effects would, of course, be greater during pumpage rates of 45 mgd. During drought conditions, and possibly also when the wellfield is operating at maximum withdrawal rates, Gardinier may well have difficulty pumping water from Lithia Springs in the amounts for which it is seeking a permit. Various methodologies demonstrate that the potentiometric surface drawdown in the center of the proposed wellfield will be from 20 to 6G feet, depending upon the pumpage amounts and seasonal conditions. Such drawdown levels can interfere with existing wells in the area. Also, a lowering of the potentiometric surface could potentially lead to catastrophic collapse or subsidence in the area of the wellfield. The area is karstic in nature, with solution features such as sin);holes and springs present. Rapid ground collapses can occur in such areas due to a loss in the bearing strength of the unconsolidated material that fills the solution features. Such collapses have been associated with large withdrawals of water from pumping, thus creating extensive drawdowns, followed by a heavy rain. because of the particular geologic and aquifer characteristics of the wellfield area and the potential for interference with existing users, there should be a controlled maximum amount of water development in this area, along with observation wells and extensive monitoring of the various aquifer systems. In order to justify an exception to the District's rule that withdrawals not lower the level of the potentiometric surface more than five feet, the Authority proposes a mitigation program which it utilizes in other wellfields operated by it. This after-the-fact mitigation program consists of receiving complaints, sending a field representative to conduct an on-site investigation to determine the nature and cause of the problem, and sending a letter to the complainant and to SWFWMD documenting the results of the investigation. If the .authority determines that its wellfield operation caused the problem, if it takes mitigative action, such as reimbursing the complainant, hiring a contractor to solve the problem, or refurbishing or replacing the complainant's well or pumping equipment. The Authority also proposes various alternative mitigative actions if the wellfield affects Gardinier's ability to withdraw a sufficient quantity of water from Lithia Springs. These include the construction of new wells at Lithia Springs or along Gardinier's transmission pipeline, lowering the intake system at the springs and supplying Gardinier with water from the wellfield on an emergency basis. These suggested alternatives have not been fully investigated with regard to the effect upon the springs and fail to take into account the economic repercussions to Gardinier should it be unable to supply fresh water for the plant's operation while the Authority is investigating the problem and/or implementing the solution. The SWFWMD has proposed a before-the-fact mitigation plan for landowners living within one-half mile of each well site. This preventative mitigation plan would require the Authority to conduct a detailed water well inventory of all property owners located within one-half mile of the withdrawal point of each production well when the sites are finally selected. The Authority is to review each well's depth, casing size and depth, pump type and depth and the static water level, and then determine whether each well will be adversely affected with regard to its intended use. If so, the Authority is to commence its mitigative actions prior to or during construction of its production well. If an adverse effect is determined during testing of any production well, the Authority is to commence mitigative action prior to withdrawing water for public supply. The mitigative actions for impacted wells are to include well deepening, lowering or replacement of pumping facilities or whatever action is required to maintain an adequate water supply. The five-foot potentiometric surface drawdown contour extends beyond one-half mile during certain scenarios of pumping or seasonal conditions. The .Authority has been operating Well 1 as a test well under a temporary CUP, and has received six complaints from private well owners in the vicinity regarding water levels. No corrective action has been taken with regard to these complaints. With the exception of some phosphate mining cuts and small farm ponds, there are no significant lakes or other impoundments in the area of the proposed wellfield. It is anticipated that such water bodies will be affected by less than one foot by withdrawals from the wellfield. The greatest water table drawdown predicted is 2.8 feet at the center of the wellfield, where there are no open bodies of water. The area is culturally impacted now and is not ecologically sensitive. Vegetative species in the area are able to adapt to a wide range of soil moisture situations, and a less than one-foot reduction in the water table should not adversely or significantly affect vegetation in the area. Operation of the proposed wellfield at the requested rates of withdrawal will have no effect upon Buckhorn Springs or the East Tampa Chemical Plant. Intervenor Hebbard's private well is located between Well l in the proposed wellfield and Lithia Springs. He is concerned that the proposed wellfield will adversely affect land values in the area and the quantity and quality of his water withdrawals. He is also concerned with the potential for terrorist activity in a centralized water supply source and feels that the location of the proposed wellfield will not benefit existing Florida residents. The Lithia-Pinecrest Civic Association is not incorporated and has no membership list or bylaws. Its 47 years, uses the Alafia River for fishing and boating and is that the proposed wellfield will adversely affect his well and pumping facilities without adequate or timely mitigation and that the wellfield will remove the very resource for which the area is zoned: to wit: agicultural. Intervenor A. H. Varnum resides in the area of the proposed wellfield and also operates his business, Central Maintenance and Welding, Inc, in that area. He is concerned that the wellfield will adversely affect his water supply without sufficient mitigation. He is further concerned about the social impact of permitting a wellfield in this area when the water withdrawn will not benefit the persons who reside there. Intervenor I. A. Albritton was in attendance throughout the hearing. He was born in the area and now resides near Wel1 He has noticed odors, ground vibrations and decreasing water levels when Well 1 is pumping. He is concerned with dropping water table levels and the general condition of the land in the area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: CUP Number 7C01530 be ISSUED to Cardinier for its salt water wells at the East Tampa Chemical Plant for a period of two years an average annual and maximum daily withdrawal rates of 31,968,000 gallons per day: CUP Number 7601532 be ISSUED to Gardinier for spring withdrawals from Buckhorn Springs for a period of six years at average annual and maximum daily withdrawal rates of 1,.40,000 gallons per day, with the condition that total discharge from the spring pool be recorded on a daily basis and reported to the SWFWMD on a monthly basis, and that continuous recording gages be placed to monitor spring flow, spring height and pumpage. CUP Number 7601533 be ISSUED to Gardinier for spring and groundwater withdrawals from Lithia Springs for a period of six years at an average annual withdrawal rate of 5,822,000 gallons per day and a maximum combined withdrawal rate not to exceed 5,904,000 gallons during a single day, with the following conditions: that Gardinier cease utilizing its existing pressure relief system and develop an alternate system for withdrawing sprirlg water only in the amounts actually required, and that total discharge from the spring pool be recorded on a daily basis and reported to the SWFWMD on a monthly basis, and that continuous recording gages be placed to monitor spring flow, spring height and pumpage; and CUP Number 204352 be ISSUED to the West Coast Regional water Supply Authority and Hillsborough County for a period of six years, such permit to consolidate prior permits for approximately 75 existing wells used for public water supply and to construct and operate a regional wellfield containing 17 production wells, with total combined average withdrawal rates of 24 ,100, 000 gallons per day and a total maximum combined withdrawal rate not to exceed 44,600,000 gallons during a single day, with the following conditions, as amplified in the above conclusions of law: that pre-development hydrologic conditions at the wellfield, particularly at each well site, continue to be monitored by the Authority; that a report be submitted to the SWFWMD summarizing the planned schedule for retiring each of the existing wells and the schedule for the phased production of water from each wellfield well; that a written mitigation policy be submitted to the SWFWMD and incorporated as a condition of the permit, said policy to contain adequate measures to eliminate interference without interruption of presently existing legal uses, as suggested by the SWFWMD and including those users who will be affected by a potentiometric surface level drawdown exceeding five feet and Galdinier's withdrawals from Lithia Springs; and that, once production at the wellfield reaches a level of 15,000,000 gallons per day, the Authority will notify the SWFWMD staff and engage in a joint review of the hydrologic monitoring results of pumpage at that .ate and a joint determination of the future pumping scenario. The conditions recommended herein are intended to be inclusive only, and not exclusive of other customary permit terms and conditions nor of those conditions suggested by the SWFWMD in its proposed CUPs Numbers 201530, 201532, 201533 and 204352. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of July, 1986, 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 11th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Edward M. Chew, Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert & Gramovot, P.A. 705 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 3360- Roger W. Sims, Esquire Julia Sullivan Waters, Esquire Holland & Knight P. O. Drawer BW Lakeland, Florida 33802 and 600 N. Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 J. Edward Curren, Esqulre Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712 L. M. Blain, Esquire Charles G. Stephen Esquire Anita C. Brannon, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 George M. Hebbard, Jr. Route 3, Box 430 Lithla, Florida 33547 Gary W. Kuhl, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) should issue a consumptive use permit (CUP) in response to Application Number 99052 filed by the City of Titusville and, if so, what CUP terms are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Area II and III Wellfields On February 10, 1998, the District issued CUP 10647 to the City of Titusville, authorizing the withdrawal of an annual average of 6.5 mgd from the City's Area II and Area III Wellfields, 5.4 from Area II and 1.1 from Area III. These wellfields are owned and operated by the City and are located within its municipal boundaries. They produce water from the SAS. The Area II Wellfield is located near I-95 in the northeastern portion of the City and consists of shallow wells primarily constructed between 1955 and 2002. It consists of 53 production wells, of which 31 are considered to be of primary use. The City replaced 16 Area II production wells in 1995 and 4 production wells in 2000 and is currently considering the replacement of 4 additional wells. The Area III Wellfield is located in the south-central portion of the City’s service area. It consists of 35 production wells, of which 18 are considered to be of primary use. Petitioners contend that both the "safe yield" (the quantity of water the City can withdraw without degrading the water resource) and the "reliable yield" (the quantity of water the City can dependably withdraw) of the Area II and III Wellfields are the permitted limits of 5.4 and 1.1 mgd, respectively. The City and the District contend that saline intrusion into the SAS has reduced the safe and reliable yields to significantly less than the permitted amounts at this time. Historically, the Area II Wellfield was the most productive wellfield. Prior to 1988, the City relied entirely on the Area II Wellfield and pumped almost 5 mgd from it at times. Since then, several Area II wells have shown signs of water quality degradation that has resulted in a reduction in pumping to better stabilize water quality levels. For the past five years, the City has only pumped approximately 3 mgd on an annual average basis from the Area II Wellfield. Chloride concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l have been recorded in 16 Area II production wells. Chloride concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l have been recorded in 22 Area III production wells. About 10 wells in the Area II and III Wellfields have been abandoned because of water quality degradation. At the Area II Wellfields there are 10 wells whose use is impaired because of water quality issues. At the Area III Wellfields there are 15 wells whose use is impaired because of water quality issues. Area III has had serious chloride problems, with concentrations at or near 200 mg/l for much of the mid-90's. In the Area III Wellfield, the Anastasia wells have the best water quality. However, these wells have also seen increasing concentrations of chlorides, with one well over 200 mg/l. According to information introduced into evidence by the City, it appears that Area III began to have chloride problems primarily due to over-pumping.5 The City pumped far in excess of permit limits from Area III during the early 1990's, including almost twice the permit limit in 1990 and 1.5 times the limit in 1991. While chlorides were between 77 and 92 mg/l in 1990-92, they began to rise in 1993 and were between 192 and 202 mg/l for the rest of the decade. Area III production declined in 1997 to approximately 0.66 mgd and declined further to a low of approximately 0.5 mgd in 1999. In 2000, chlorides fell to approximately 138 mg/l and then rose to approximately 150 mg/l in 2002-04, while production gradually rose to close to the permit limit in 2002 and 2003, before dipping to 0.75 mgd in 2004. In 2005, production was back up to 1 mgd, and chlorides were approximately 87 mg/l. During the five years from 2001 through 2005, the City has pumped an annual average rate of approximately 1 mgd from Area III. In contrast, Area II has not been over-pumped during the same time period. Area II production generally declined from a high of 4.146 mgd in 1992 to a low of 2.525 mgd in 2000, except for an increase of approximately 0.25 mgd between 1997 and 1998. During this time, chlorides generally declined from a high of 124 mg/l in 1993 to approximately 68 mg/l in 2000, with the exception of a rise to approximately 111 mg/l in 1999. Area II production then generally increased through 2003 to approximately 3.000 mgd, where it remained in 2004 before declining to approximately 2.770 mgd in 2005. Area II chlorides were approximately 113 mg/l in 2001, 109 in 2002, 86 in 2003, 76 in 2004, and 83 in 2005. During the five years from 2001 through 2005, the City has pumped only an annual average rate of 2.86 mgd. In 1995, the City entered into a contract with the City of Cocoa requiring the City to pay for at least 1 mgd each year, whether the City actually takes the water or not (the "take-or-pay" clause). Using the Cocoa water allowed the City to reduce production from Area III without a corresponding increase in production from Area II. Water conservation measures implemented since 1998, including conservation rates, have since reduced per capita water use. In 2002, the contractual take-or-pay requirement was reduced to 0.5 mgd. After 2002, purchases of Cocoa water have amounted to 0.576, 0.712, and 0.372 mgd on an annual average basis. As a result, since at least 1990 Area II has not been required to produce at its permitted limit. It is not clear exactly what the City believes to be safe and reliable yields at this time from Areas II and III. In its PRO, the City took the position that the total reliable yield is 3.5 to 4 mgd, of which 2.25 to 2.5 mgd is attributable to the Area II Wellfield and 0.75 mgd is attributable to the Area III Wellfield. However, its consultant, Mr. Patrick Barnes, testified that the City's current reliable yields are 3 mgd from Area II and 1 or 1.1 mgd from Area III. He testified that the safe yield from Area II would be approximately 3.5 mgd. The District has not formulated an opinion as to the exact of amount of water that can be produced from the Area II and III Wellfields on a sustainable basis. However, the District believes that recent production levels, which have resulted in a stabilization of chloride concentrations, may be the most production that can be sustained from these facilities without adverse water resource impacts. That would mean approximately 4.5 mgd on an annual average basis from Areas II and III combined. It might be possible for the City to expand the reliable yield of the Area II Wellfield by constructing additional wells or through some other measures. But Brevard County’s North Brevard Wellfield, located immediately north of the City’s Area II Wellfield, utilizes the same SAS used by the Area II Wellfield, and Brevard County recently received an increased permitted allocation from the District for this facility. This would limit the City’s ability to expand the current production of water from the Area II Wellfield. Other limitations on expansion of production from Areas II and III include: the relatively high risk of contamination of the SAS from pollution sources such as underground petroleum storage tanks; the limited space available in an increasingly urbanized area for the construction of new wells; the chronic bio-fouling and encrustation of wells due to the high iron content of the SAS; and the low specific capacity of each production well. For these reasons, it is not clear at this point in time whether it is possible to sustain more water production from Areas II and III than the City has pumped in recent years. B. Area IV Application and TSR On March 6, 2001, the City of Titusville submitted its application to modify CUP 10647. Included in this application was a proposal to add a new Area IV Wellfield in northwest Brevard County to pump up to 2.75 mgd from the UFAS. The District issued a series of seven Requests for Additional Information in between April 5, 2001, and March 23, 2004. On December 15, 2004, the District issued its initial TSR for the CUP modification application. That TSR proposed to authorize the use of 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the proposed Area IV Wellfield and 3.3 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the existing Area II and Area III Wellfields to serve a projected population of 56,565 in 2008. There was no request to extend or renew the permit, which expires February 10, 2008. Miami Corporation filed a petition challenging this TSR. On May 13, 2005, the City submitted a revised application for a separate Individual CUP for the Area IV Wellfield, rather than modifying its existing CUP 10647 to include the new wellfield, with a permit expiration of December 31, 2010. On May 25, 2005, the staff issued a revised TSR. That TSR proposed a new permit to authorize up to 2.75 mgd of groundwater from the UFAS and 0.178 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the proposed Area IV Wellfield to serve a projected population of 59,660 in 2010. The revised TSR noted that the proposed permit expiration date for the Area II and Area III Wellfields would remain February 10, 2008. Vergie Clark filed a petition challenging the revised TSR, as did Miami Corporation. After various notices on the TSR and the revised TSR to interested persons in Brevard County, in August 2005 the District issued additional notice to interested persons in Orange, Seminole and Volusia Counties. As a result, all required public notices have been issued. On March 14, 2006, the City again revised its application, and on May 1, 2006, the District issued its second revised, and final, TSR--which is the TSR now at issue. The TSR at issue recommended that a CUP be issued to Titusville for 2.75 mgd of groundwater from the UFAS and .18 mgd of groundwater from the SAS for wetland hydration and aquifer recharge from the Area IV Wellfield on an annual average basis to serve a projected population of 63,036 in 2010. This TSR provided that the proposed permit would expire December 31, 2010. TSR at Issue Water Use Allocation The CUP recommended by the TSR would only grant the City a water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield for 2009 and 2010. The recommended CUP would allow the City to withdraw water from the Area IV Wellfield at an annual average rate of 2.75 mgd during those years for public supply. (Other Condition 4) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 3.85 mgd during the four consecutive months of the dry season, which can occur during any time of the year. If 3.85 mgd is withdrawn during this four-month period, the withdrawal rate for the remaining 8 months cannot exceed 2.21 mgd. (Other Condition 8) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 4.41 mgd during any single month. (Other Condition 7) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 6.5 mgd during any single day during a severe drought, when the existing sources (meaning Areas II and III) cannot be used without inducing water quality degradation or exceeding permitted quantities. (Other Condition 9) The CUP recommended by the TSR would allow the City to withdraw water from the SAS extraction wells at an annual average rate of up to 0.178 mgd in 2009 and 2010 for wetland hydration and surficial aquifer recharge. (Other Condition 6) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the withdrawal of water from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields to a combined annual average rate of 5.79 mgd in 2009 and a combined annual average rate of 6.01 mgd in 2010. The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the withdrawal of water from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields to a combined maximum daily rate of 8.88 mgd in 2009 and 9.0 mgd in 2010. (Other Conditions 5, 9) The CUP recommended by the TSR would reduce Titusville's combined annual average and maximum daily allocations from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields in 2009 and 2010 by an amount equivalent to the quantity of water purchased from the City of Cocoa during each year. (Other Conditions 5, 9) Other Condition 10 in the recommended by the TSR notifies the City that nonuse of the water supply allocated by the CUP for two years or more is grounds for revocation by the District's Governing Board, permanently and in whole, unless the City can prove that its nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the City's control. Permit Duration The CUP recommended by the TSR would not allow the City to withdraw water from the Area IV Wellfield earlier than January 1, 2009; as indicated, it would expire on December 31, 2010. (Other Conditions 2, 4). Saline Water Intrusion The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to implement the proposed saline water monitoring plan by sampling and analyzing Saline Water Monitor Wells SWMW 1-6 and UFAS production wells 401, 403, 405, 407, 409, 411, 413 and 415 quarterly for water levels, chloride and total dissolved solids. (Other Condition 11) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to modify the allocation granted to the City in whole or in part or to otherwise curtail or abate the impact in the event of saline water intrusion. (Other Condition 14) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to cease withdrawal from any UFAS production well, if any quarterly water sample from that well shows a chloride concentration exceeding 250 mg/l. That same condition would limit the operation of any UFAS production well with a quarterly sample exceeding 250 mg/l to six hours per day with a minimum 24 hours recovery between pumping cycles if subsequent samples contain chloride concentrations between 200 mg/l and 249 mg/l. (Other Condition 25) Environmental Impacts and Avoidance and Minimization The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to implement the proposed environmental monitoring plan for hydrologic and photo- monitoring at 16 wetland sites within one year of permit issuance and to establish a baseline prior to the initiation of groundwater withdrawals. That same condition requires the City to collect water level data at each wetland site either on a daily or weekly basis and report to the District every six months in District-approved, computer-accessible format. (Other Condition 12) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to revoke the permit in whole or in part or to curtail or abate impacts should unanticipated adverse impacts occur to wetlands, lakes and spring flow. (Other Condition 23) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to require the City to implement the proposed avoidance and minimization plan should unanticipated impacts occur to Wetland A4-2 (a shallow marsh near the middle of the wellfield) within 90 days of notice by the District. That same permit condition authorizes the District to require the City to submit a wetland rehydration plan for any other adversely affected wetland within 30 days of notice by the District and to implement the plan without 90 days of approval by the District. The District would require the City to implement avoidance measures before the wetlands are actually allowed to suffer adverse impacts. (Other Condition 24) Impacts to Other Existing Legal Users of Water The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to require mitigation of any unanticipated interference to existing legal users of water due to withdrawals from the Area IV Wellfield. Mitigation may include installation of a new pump or motor, installation of additional drop pipe, new electrical wiring, connection with an existing water supply system, or other appropriate measures. (Other Condition 15) Water Conservation Measures and Reuse The City is implementing extensive water conservation measures. The City’s water conservation plan includes public education measures (e.g., televised public service announcements, helping to create water conservation videos and distributing them to the public, commissioning an award winning native plant mural, providing exhibits and speakers for public events), toilet and showerhead retrofits, and a water conservation based rate structure. A water conservation rate structure provides the potable water customer with an economic incentive to use less water. The most common conservation rate structure is a tiered-rate whereby the cost per gallon of water increases as the customer uses more water. While the District reviews the rate structure to evaluate whether it will achieve conservation, it does not mandate the cost per gallon of water. An audit of the City’s potable water distribution system was conducted and recent water use records were evaluated to determine if all necessary water conservation measures were in place. The audit indicated that the potable water system has small unaccounted-for water losses, approximately 6.5 percent, and relatively low residential per capita water use. The City has implemented a water conservation plan that implements rule requirements; as a result, the City has provided reasonable assurance that it is implementing all available water conservation measures that are economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible. The City cannot use reclaimed water to meet its potable water demands associated with direct human consumption and food preparation. However, reclaimed water can be used to replace that part of the City’s allocation that is associated with irrigation-type uses. The City has operated a reclaimed water reuse system since 1996. It is projected that 67 percent of the available wastewater flows will be utilized by 2010 for irrigation, with the remainder going to a wetland system during wet weather periods when irrigation demands are low. The City is using reclaimed water to the extent it is economically, environmentally and technologically feasible. In the case of public supply, the District looks to the amount of water requested for each person in a projected population in determining whether the water will be used efficiently. The metric that the District normally considers when conducting this part of the evaluation is the per capita usage. Population Projections and Per Capita Water Use As indicated, the proposed CUP would expire on December 31, 2010. Although the City and District would anticipate an application for renewal to be filed, demand for water projected beyond December 31, 2010, is not relevant to the need for the proposed CUP. In the case of public supply, projected demand for water usually is calculated by multiplying the projected population times per capita water use. Gross per capita (“GPC”) use in gallons per day (gpd) is the type of metric normally used to project demand for public supply of water. It is based on residential use and all other water uses supplied by the utility, including commercial, industrial, hotel/motel, and other type uses. That includes supply necessary to meet peak demands and emergencies. DEP requires that every public water supply system have an adequate water supply to meet peak demands for fire protection and health and safety reasons. If peak demands are not met, a major fire or other similar catastrophe could depressurize a public water system and possibly cause water quality problems. Projections of need for water in the future must take into account peak demands and emergency needs. Water used for those purposes is included in the historical average daily flows (ADF) from which historical GPC is derived. Unless there is good information to the contrary, in projecting GPC one assumes that those uses will increase roughly in proportion to the residential use. City's Projection Contending that the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) does not estimate or project population for municipalities, and that BEBR projections are based on historical trends that would under-project population in the City, the City used a different source and method to project population in the City's water service area on December 31, 2010. For its method, the City had Courtney Harris, its Planning Director, project the number of dwelling units that would be developed and occupied in 2011, calculating the additional people associated with each unit (based on the 2000 Census, which identified 2.32 as the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the City), and adding the resulting number to the City’s existing service area population as of 2005. The City's method yielded various results depending on when proposed developments in the City were reviewed. Ultimately, the City projected a population of 60,990 at the end of 2010. The City's method depends on the ability of its Planning Director to accurately predict the timing of new residential construction and sales, which is not easy to do (as indicated by the different results obtained by the City over time), since there are many factors affecting residential development and the real estate market. The ultimate predictions of the City's Planning Director assume that residential development will continue at an extraordinarily high pace although there already was evidence of downturn. The City's method also assumed that all new units will be sold (which, again, is contingent on market conditions) and fully occupied (although a 90 percent occupancy rate would be a more realistic.) The method also does not account for decreases in population in a number of areas in the Titusville service area (while overall population increased, mostly as a result of growth that has been occurring in a single census tract.) The City's witnesses then calculated a per capita water use rate by averaging the actual rates for the 11 years from 1995 through 2005, which resulted in projected per capita water use rate of 100.35, and a projected demand of 6.12 mgd at the end of 2010. The justification for averaging over 11 years, instead of the last five years, was that the last five years have been unusually wet, which would depress demand to some extent. However, using 11 years also increased the average water use by taking into account the higher use rates common before conservations measures, including conservation rates, went into effect (in particular, 123.75 gpd for 1995, 122.36 gpd for 1996, and 109.94 gpd for 1998.) Since 1998, and implementation of the conservation rates and other measures, water use rates have been significantly lower. While the average over the last 11 years was 100.35 gpd, the average over the last five years (from 2001- 2005) was just 92.15 gpd. Averaged since 1998, the City's water use rate has been 93.34 gpd. While wetter-than-normal conditions would be expected to depress water use to some extent due primarily to decreased lawn irrigation, many of the City's water customers have private irrigation wells for this purpose. Besides, Mr. Peterson, the City's Water Resources Manager, testified that not many of the City's water customers use potable water for lawn irrigation due to the new conservation rates. Petitioners' Projection Miami Corporation's population expert, Dr. Stanley Smith, is the Director of BEBR. Dr. Smith projected the population for the City's service area by first developing an estimate of the population of the water service area in 1990 and 2000 using block and block group data, and then using those estimates to create estimates from 2001-2005. Dr. Smith then projected population in the City's water service area using a methodology similar to what BEBR uses for county projections. Dr. Smith's methodology used three extrapolation techniques. He did not use a fourth technique, often used at BEBR, called shift-share, because he believed that, given Titusville's pattern of growth, using shift-share might produce projections that were too low. In developing his final projections, Dr. Smith also excluded the data from 1990 to 2000 because growth during that period was so slow that he felt that its inclusion might result in projections that were too low. Dr. Smith's approach varied slightly from the typical BEBR methodology in order to account for the fact that the City's growth has been faster since 2000. Dr. Smith applied an adjustment factor based on an assumption also used by the City's expert that 97.3 percent of the projected population within the City's water service area in 2010 would be served by the City. Using his method, Dr. Smith projected the population of the Titusville water service area to be 53,209 on December 31, 2010. Based on recent population estimates, Dr. Smith believes that, if anything, his projections are too high. It was Dr. Smith's opinion from the data that the annual increases for Titusville and the Titusville water service area peaked in 2003 and that they had been declining since that time. That was especially true of 2006, when the increase was the smallest that it had been for many years. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Drake, calculated a per capita water use rate by averaging the actual rates for the most recent five years (2002-2006), which resulted in a per capita water use rate of 89.08 gpd, and a projected demand of 4.74 mgd at the end of 2010. He also calculated a per capita water use rate for 2006, which came to 88.65 gpd, which would give a slightly lower projected demand of 4.72 mgd. Ultimate Finding of Projected Water Demand Based on all the evidence, it is found that Dr. Smith's projection of the population that will use City water on December 31, 2010, is more reasonable than the City's projections. The City and District contend that, regardless of the calculated per capita water use rate, it is appropriate to base the City's allocation on a rate of 100.35 gpd because 90 to 100 gpd is very conservative per capita water use rate for a public water supply utility. However, the allocation should be based on the best estimate of actual demand, not a general rate commonly assumed for water utilities, even if conservative. The City and District also contend that it is appropriate to base the City's allocation on a higher use rate because the climatic conditions experienced in the City over what they considered to be the most recent five years (2001- 2005) have been average-to-wet. More rainfall generally means less water use, and vice-versa, but the greater weight of the evidence proved that the City's demand for water has not varied much due to climatic conditions in recent years (after implementation of conservation measures, including conservation rates.) (City Exhibit 19, which purported to demonstrate the contrary, was proven to be inaccurate in that it showed significantly more water use during certain drier years than actually occurred.) However, in 2000--which was after the implementation of conservation rates and also the City's driest year on record (in approximately 75 years)--the water use rate was approximately 97.5 gallons per person per day. An average of the last eight years (1999-2006), which would include all years clearly responsive to the conservation rates as well as the driest year on record, would result in a per capita water use rate of approximately 92.8 gpd, and a projected demand of approximately 4.94 mgd by December 31, 2010. The District argues in its PRO that, because a CUP water allocation is a legal maximum, it would be inappropriate to base the City's water allocation on demand during a wet or even an average year (which, it says, would set the permittee up to violate its permit requirements 50 percent of the time). If, instead, the City's water allocation were based on demand during 2000, the driest year on record, projected demand would be approximately 5.2 mgd on December 31, 2010. Those calculated water allocations--i.e., either the 4.94 mgd or the 5.2 mgd--would then be compared to the probable safe and reliable yield of 4.5 mgd from Areas II and III to determine the deficit on an annual average basis. Allowing a reasonable margin of error for the uncertainties of the predictions involved, a reasonable maximum annual average allocation for the proposed Area IV Wellfield would be 0.75 mgd. Mr. Jenkins suggested in rebuttal that, if the need for water is less than that set out in the proposed CUP in the TSR at issue, a CUP should nonetheless be issued but with lower water allocations. While the evidence supports a reduction of the annual average limit from 2.75 mgd to 0.75 mgd, there was insufficient evidence to show how the other water allocation limits in the proposed CUP should be changed. For the past 12 years, the City of Titusville has been able to purchase water under a contract with the City of Cocoa to meet all of its demands, including any peak or emergency water demands. Under the take-or-pay provision in the contract currently in effect, the City must pay for 0.5 mgd and presumably would take and use at least that amount so long as the contract remains in effect. This would reduce the City's projected water supply deficit through the end of 2010, and the City could rely on the Cocoa contract to cover any additional demand through the end of 2010 without Area IV. However, under the contract, the City can give notice on or before April 1 of the year in which it intends to terminate the contract effective October 1 of the same year. If a CUP for Area IV is issued, the City could terminate the current contract effective as early as October 1, 2008. It also is possible that the contract could be negotiated so that its termination would coincide with the time when the Area IV Wellfield becomes operational if not near October 1 of the year. As indicated, even if the contract remains in place, to the extent that the City receives water from the City of Cocoa for potable use during either 2009 or 2010, the allocations under the proposed TSR will be reduced an amount equivalent to the quantity provided to the City by Cocoa in that year. Finally, as indicated, the existing CUP for Areas II and III is set to expire in February 2008. Although it is anticipated that the City will apply to renew the existing CUP for Areas II and III, and that the District will approve a renewal at some level, it is not clear how much production will be approved for Areas II and III for the years 2009 and 2010. Meanwhile, the CUP proposed for Area IV provides that the combined annual groundwater withdrawals for public supply for the Areas II, III, and IV may not exceed 5.79 mgd for 2009 and 6.01 mgd in 2010. Based on the findings in this case, those figures should be reduced to no more than 5.2 mgd, and it must be anticipated that a similar condition would be placed on any renewal of the existing CUP for Areas II and III as well. Site Investigation At the time the City decided to apply for a CUP for Area IV, it was known that the UFAS in much of Brevard County was not suitable as a source of potable water supply, but there was believed to be a tongue of the UFAS in the northwest corner of the County and extending towards the southeast, and narrowing in that direction, that might be suitable for that purpose, particularly in the upper part of the aquifer. Because there was insufficient information to adequately evaluate the whether proposed Area IV, which was located along the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Right-of-Way (ROW), could be used for that purpose, the City’s consultant, Barnes, Ferland and Associates (BFA), designed a drilling and testing program to collect site-specific information in order to characterize the groundwater quality, identify the thickness of the freshwater zone in the UFAS, and determine hydraulic parameters for the groundwater system. In addition, DRMP conducted an environmental assessment of the Area IV Wellfield and surrounding property. The drilling and testing program designed by BFA for the Area IV Wellfield was similar to other hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the region with respect to wellfields operated by the City of Edgewater, the City of New Smyrna Beach, the City of Ormond Beach, the Orlando Utilities Commission and Orange County. The drilling and testing program for the Area IV Wellfield included Time-Domain Electromagnetic Mapping ("TDEM") performed by SDII Global, a consultant retained by the District. TDEM is not typically used for the hydrogeologic investigation of a new wellfield. The TDEM technique involves estimating the depth to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentration in the groundwater system using electrical resistivity probes. The technique was applied at four locations along the FEC Right-of- Way. In addition to the TDEM study, BFA installed three test production wells along the FEC ROW, collected lithologic samples with depth, performed borehole aquifer performance and step drawdown tests at two test sites and recorded water quality with depth through grab and packer samples. The northernmost test production well was Test Site 1, which corresponds to Area IV production well 401. The middle test production well was Test Site 3, which corresponds to either Area IV Well 412 or Area IV Well 413. The southernmost test production well was Test Site 2, which is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the southernmost Area IV production well. Test Sites 1 and 2 were constructed first and Test Site 3 was drilled later because of unfavorable water quality conditions encountered at Test Site 2. Test Site 1 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 430 feet southeast of the Volusia-Brevard County line. At Test Site 1, BFA installed a test-production well (UF-1D), a UFAS monitor well (UF-1S), and a SAS monitor well (SA-1) in 2001. In 2005 BFA installed two additional SAS monitor wells (MW-1 and RW-1) near Test Site 1. The test production well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet below land surface and then back-plugged to a depth of 250 feet below land surface and cased to a depth of 105-110 feet below land surface. Test Site 2 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Volusia-Brevard County line. At Test Site 2, BFA installed a single UFAS Monitor Well (UF-2S). The monitor well was drilled to a total depth of 210-220 feet below land surface. Test Site 3 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the Brevard-Volusia County line. At Test Site 3, BFA installed a test production well (UF-3D), a UFAS monitor well (UF-3S), and a SAS monitor well (SA-3). The test production well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet below land surface and then back-plugged to a depth of 210 below land surface.. Since Test Site 3 is either Area IV Well 412 or 413, and assuming production well 415 will be located 1,200 feet southeast of Test Site 3, this means that Test Site 2 is located at least one mile southeast of the southernmost Area IV production well. Test Sites 4 and 6 are located approximately three miles southeast of Brevard-Volusia County line. SAS test production wells were constructed at both sites to a total depth of about 20-30 feet below land surface. The site-specific hydrogeologic data collected by BFA as part of the drilling and testing program verified the groundwater basin and flow direction shown in Figure 15 of City Exhibit 523. DRMP’s environmental assessment of the Area IV Wellfield spanned the period from 2002 through 2006. In Spring 2002, DRMP evaluated areas within the predicted 0.2 foot drawdown contour by assessing wetland vegetation, photographing wetlands, noting wetland hydrologic conditions, investigating soil condition and wildlife utilization and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Fall 2002, DRMP evaluated potential monitoring sites both on and off Miami Corporation's property by assessing wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, investigating soil conditions and wildlife utilization, evaluating surrounding land use and natural communities and locating suitable control sites. In Fall 2003, DRMP evaluated potential wetland monitoring sites near the southernmost Area IV production wells by assessing wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, investigating soil conditions and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Spring 2005, DRMP assessed wetlands surrounding the Area IV Wellfield by evaluating wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, photographing wetlands, investigating soil conditions, evaluating surrounding land use and natural communities and collecting GPS points. In Fall 2005, DRMP investigated the Clark property by evaluating wetland vegetation and hydrologic conditions, photographing wetlands, investigating soil conditions and wildlife utilization and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Spring 2006, DRMP developed a revised environmental monitoring plan and avoidance and minimization plan based on the new SDI MODFLOW Model by locating the final wetlands monitoring sites, developing the hydrologic and vegetative monitoring protocol, establishing the scope of the baseline study, reviewing the preliminary pipeline routing, construction and discharge inlet structures and preparing and submitting plan documents to the District. DRMP evaluated the occurrence of listed animal and plant species in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield as part of its environmental assessment. DRMP reviewed the Natural Areas Inventory for the Area IV Wellfield site, which identifies occurrences of listed species within a designated area. Additionally, DRMP made note of animal and plant species during the site visits in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. DRMP evaluated the Farmton Mitigation Bank as part of its environmental assessment. DRMP reviewed the permit files for the Farmton Mitigation Banks, including the annual environmental monitoring reports prepared by Miami’s consultants. In 2005, DRMP conducted a field assessment of the Clark property including a thorough investigation of the fish pond, which Petitioners claim was adversely impacted during one or more of the APTs conducted by the City at the Area IV Wellfield. It was not necessary for the City’s environmental consultants to visit each and every wetland in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield. Typically, only representative wetland sites are visited during the environmental assessment process. The scope of the City's hydrologic and environmental investigation of the Area IV Wellfield was adequate and consistent with industry standards and the District protocol for testing aquifers and characterizing aquifer performance and groundwater quality at the site. Nonetheless, Petitioners contend that there were serious deficiencies in the investigation's implementation and that additional investigation should have been performed. Hydrostratigraphy The SAS at the Area IV Wellfield is 40-to-50 feet deep and is composed primarily of unconsolidated sand, shell and silt. The intermediate confining unit (ICU) at the Area IV Wellfield consists of the Hawthorne Group and ranges in thickness from 40 to 60 feet. The top of the ICU is located 40- 50 feet below land surface and the bottom of the ICU is located 100 feet below land surface. This unit is composed of varying amounts of sand, shell, silt, indurated sandstone, clay, and some limestone. It tends to restrict the movement of water from the SAS to the UFAS. The UFAS at the Area IV Wellfield is a fairly homogenous limestone unit, which starts approximately 100 feet below land surface and extends to about 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level. It consists of the Ocala Group and grades into the upper portion of the Avon Park Formation. The middle confining unit (MCU) at the Area IV Wellfield starts at approximately 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level and ends approximately 1,000 feet below land surface. It comprises a denser, fine-grained dolomitic limestone within the Avon Park Formation. The MCU restricts the movement of water between the UFAS and LFAS. The location of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield was determined by examining cuttings and video logs collected during drilling performed at Test Sites 1 and 3 and by measuring various properties of the aquifer with down-hole geophysical techniques. The MCU can be distinguished from the UFAS by the presence of both dolomite and limestone. The lithologic log for Test Site 1 indicates the presence of gray/tan limestone between 450 and 460 feet below land surface and light/gray limestone and dolomitic limestone between 460 and 470 feet below land surface. The lithologic log for Test Site 3 indicates the presence of tan dolomitic limestone between 450 and 460 feet below land surface and tan limestone and dolomitic limestone between 460 and 470 feet below land surface. After examining the video log for Test Site 1, Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Thomas Missimer, noted a “lithologic change” at 477 feet below land surface. Other characteristics of the MCU are a lower resistivity and a sharp decrease in flow. The data collected at Test Site 1 shows a reduction in resistivity at approximately 470 feet below land surface. The flow meter log for Test Site 1 exhibits a decrease in flow at approximately 450 feet below land surface. Petitioners’ experts, Thomas Missimer, Alge Merry, and Bruce Lafrenz contend that the top of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield is located deeper than 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level. This contention is based on regional reports, the geophysical logs reported by BFA, and one of the packer tests conducted at the bottom of the test wells that showed a pumping rate of 85 gpm. The greater weight of evidence indicates the top of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield starts at the elevation identified by BFA. The regional reports are not based on data collected from the immediate vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield. Additionally, the BFA's professional geologists who determined the top of the MCU included Joel Kimrey, who was the former head of the local USGS office, and had more experience with the hydrogeology of the MCU in Brevard and Volusia than any of the Petitioners’ geologic experts. Also, the BFA geologists had access to the drill cuttings, which were unavailable to the Petitioners’ experts when they made their determination. Finally, the pumping rate recorded during the packer test could be explained by an area of higher permeability within the MCU. More likely, the packer may have been partially open to the bottom of the UFAS. The Lower Floridan Aquifer System (LFAS) starts at about 1,000 feet below land surface and ends approximately 2,300 feet below land surface. Head Difference Data Head refers to the pressure within an aquifer. In an unconfined aquifer, it is the water table. In a confined or semi-confined aquifer, it is the level to which water would rise in a well penetrating into the aquifer. Head difference refers to the numerical difference between two water levels either in different aquifer at the same location or different locations in the same aquifer. In the context of the Area IV Wellfield, static head difference is the difference between the elevation of the water table in the SAS and the elevation of the potentiometric surface of the UFAS under non-pumping conditions at the same location. The static head difference reflects the degree of confinement in the ICU. If the static head difference between the SAS and UFAS is a large number, this indicates a high degree of confinement between the two systems. BFA took static head measurements at SAS and UFAS monitor wells located at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 in January 2004, April 2004, and July 2006 and calculated the head difference based on those measurements. District expert, Richard Burklew, was present when the measurements were taken in April 2004 and July 2006 and verified the readings made by the City’s consultants. During all three sampling events a downward head gradient was noted at each site, which means the water table had a higher elevation than the potentiometric surface of the UFAS. In January 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 6.2 feet, 5.5 feet and 5.9 feet, respectively. In April 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1 and 3 were 8.1 feet and 8.1 feet, respectively. Finally, in July 2006, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 8.6 feet, 6.6 feet and 9.3 feet, respectively. The average of those observed head differences was 7.46 feet. At the time the head difference measurements were taken in July 2006, the region had experienced a rainfall deficit of 17 inches over the prior 12 months. Petitioners contend that the rainfall deficit may have skewed that head difference observation. However, according to the District’s expert, Richard Burklew, this would not necessarily have affected the head difference measurements because the hydrologic system would seek equilibrium, and the head difference would be the same. BFA collected static head difference measurements from Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 during both wet and dry seasons. The measurements do not show significant differences between seasons. Head difference data collected from hundreds of other Florida locations also do not show significant differences between seasons. This suggests that static head difference remains fairly constant at the Area IV Wellfield year round. Water level measurements taken by the City’s consultants from the wells on Clark’s property and reported in City Exhibit 52 do not determine static head difference between the SAS and UFAS because the exact construction of the wells was unknown, the completion depth of certain wells was unknown, the operational history of the wells was unknown, and the putative SAS well was located several hundred feet away from the UFAS well. For example, the depth of one of the wells is reported as 57 feet, which could easily be located in the ICU. If that is the case, then the head difference measured by comparing to the water level in this well would only be the head differential between the ICU and the UFAS. Finally, the Clark property is located in a more elevated region than Test Sites 1, 2, and 3, which means the water table will be lower and the head difference will be less than at the Area IV Wellfield. Water level measurements reported in the driller’s completion log for Wells 4175, 4176, 4177, and 5230 on Miami Corporation’s property do not determine static head difference between the SAS and UFAS because critical information concerning the construction of these wells is unknown. Additionally, the wells are much shallower than test production wells at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. The water level measurements reported in the driller’s completion log for Wells 4175, 4176, 4177, and 5230 are not necessarily inconsistent with head difference measurements collected by BFA at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. The head differences at these four well sites could be 6, 4, 7, and 6 feet, respectively, depending how the water measurements were made. Also, the measurements made by a driller could not be expected to be as accurate as measurements made by trained hydrologists. Further, if the soils in the vicinity of Well 4177 indicated a depth to water table of 5 feet below land surface, that would not necessarily be inconsistent with the head difference measurements collected by BFA at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. Depth to Water Table The depth to water table is defined as the difference between the land surface elevation and the head value in the SAS. The water table in the Area IV Wellfield area is consistently close to land surface and often above land surface. The construction of numerous above-grade forest roads and roadside ditches on the property surrounding the Area IV Wellfield has had the effect of impounding surface water and raising the water table near land surface. The Area IV Wellfield and vicinity have a variety of soil types. The predominant wetland soil type is Samsula Muck, which is classified as a very poorly drained soil with a water table either at or above land surface. The predominant upland soil type is Myakka Fine Sand, which is characterized by a water table within a foot of land surface during four months of the year and within 40 inches of land surface during remainder of the year. The average depth to water table at the Area IV Wellfield is approximately 1 foot based on soil types. SAS levels at the three Farmton Mitigation Banks were measured at piezometers installed by Miami Corporation’s consultants from 2001 through 2005. This data confirms the water table at the Area IV Wellfield is consistently close to land surface and frequently above land surface. It indicates the depth to water table is typically less than 3 feet and in many cases within a foot or two. Also, it does not matter whether any of the piezometers were located near wetlands because they show seasonal variation in water levels, where the water table changes from slightly above land surface to below land surface over the course of a year. A water table depth of 6-14 feet below land surface is not realistic at the Area IV Wellfield based on soil conditions and vegetation communities. Such a depth to water would be indicative of a landscape composed primarily of xeric scrub communities with few, if any wetlands. These types of communities do not exist near the Area IV Wellfield. Aquifer Performance Tests The flow of water through an aquifer is determined by three primary hydraulic coefficients or parameters: transmissivity; storage; and leakance. An aquifer performance test (APT) is a pumping test where water is removed from the well at a set rate for a set period of time and drawdown is measured in the well and in neighboring monitor wells to calculate the hydraulic properties of the hydrologic formation. The main hydraulic properties determined through an APT are transmissivity, leakance, and storativity. These properties are used to characterize the water production capabilities of the hydrologic formations. These properties are also used in groundwater modeling to project impacts for longer periods of time and larger distances. Aquifer parameters can be determined from an aquifer performance test using analytical "curve-matching" techniques or a groundwater flow model such as MODFLOW. Curve-matching techniques involve the creation of a curve through measurement of drawdown and the matching of that curve to standard curves derived using analytical equations. Hydraulic conductivity or “K” is the term used to describe the ability of a hydrogeologic unit to conduct fluid flow. It is usually expressed in terms of horizontal hydraulic conductivity or “Kx” and “Ky” and vertical hydraulic conductivity or “Kz.” Transmissivity is the term used to describe the rate of movement of water for a given thickness of a hydrogeologic unit. It is the hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer times its thickness. Storativity is the term used to describe the amount of water that is released from any aquifer for a given unit change in head, or the compressability of the aquifer system. This value can normally be determined during a 4-5 day aquifer performance test. Specific yield is the term used to describe the long- term capacity of an aquifer to store water. This value cannot normally be determined during a 4-5 day aquifer performance test. Leakance is the term used to describe the vertical movement of water from above or below a given unit in response to changes in head or pumpage. APTs are standard practice for evaluating the suitability of a new area for development as a wellfield. Three APTs were conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3. No aquifer performance tests were conducted at Test Site 2. Petitioners question whether the APTs for the Area IV Wellfield were conducted by BFA in accordance with the applicable standard of care in the hydrogeologic profession. The District’s expert, Richard Burklew, believes the three APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3 were adequate for purposes of determining appropriate aquifer parameters. Two APTs were conducted by BFA at Test Site 1. The first test was conducted on January 30-31, 2001, when Well UF-1D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 44-48 hours, and Wells UF-1S and SA-1 were used as monitor wells. The second test was conducted on April 8-12, 2003, when Well UF-1D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 96 hours, and Wells UF-1S and SA-1 were used as monitor wells. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,300 ft2/day and a storativity of about 0.00036 on the basis of the 2001 APT at Test Site 1. They were unable to calculate a leakance value because the drawdown data did not reasonably fit the curve- matching techniques. For that reason, BFA performed another APT at Test Site 1 in 2003. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,300 ft2/day, a storativity of 0.00045, and a leakance of 0.00029 day-1 on the basis of the 2003 APT at Test Site 1. One APT was conducted by BFA at Test Site 3 on April 10-13, 2001. Well UF-3D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 70 hours, and Wells UF-3S and SA-3 were used as monitor wells. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,450 ft2/day, a storativity of 0.0002, and a leakance of 0.00026 on the basis of the 2001 APT at Test Site 3. However, because of problems with the test, leakance was not considered a good match for the analytical techniques. Leakance values determined by BFA from the APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3 were based on the application of analytical curve-matching techniques. The leakance values determined through the conventional type curve-matching techniques employed by BFA are typically higher than the actual leakance values. They are also inherently limited because they assume the calculated leakance is due entirely to the ICU rather than a combination of the ICU and MCU as is the case at the Area IV Wellfield. The analytical techniques employed by BFA were unable to calculate separate leakance values for the ICU and the MCU. The best way to determine leakance values for each of these confining units was to use a MODFLOW model and observed head difference data. This was done by the City’s consultant, SDI, and is described in greater detail, infra. In January 2004, several APTs were conducted using two SAS wells referred to as Test Sites 4 and 6. These test sites are located more than 3 miles from the Clark property. Constant rate and variable rate APTs were conducted at both sites. During the constant rate tests, 230 gpm or about 0.33 mgd was pumped from the SAS well. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 2,500 ft2/day for the surficial aquifer at those locations. Water Quality Data Consistent with the general understanding of the freshwater groundwater tongue extending from Volusia into Brevard County, the TDEM performed by SDII Global indicated that the depths to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations decrease as one proceeds south along the FEC ROW. For example, the depths to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations were 442 feet and 542 feet, respectively, at the northernmost test site, which is somewhat north of the City’s Test Site 1. The depth to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations were 406 feet and 506 feet, respectively, at the southernmost test site, which is somewhat south of the City’s Test Site 2. Sixteen water quality grab samples were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 1 was drilled, beginning at 120 feet below land surface and ending at 500 feet below land surface. This type of sampling is referred to as drill-stem testing. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 480 feet below land surface were 59 mg/l and 879 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples did not exceed 250 mg/l until a depth of 460 feet below land surface was reached. Six water quality grab samples (drill-stem tests) were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 2 was drilled, beginning 120 feet below land surface and ending 210 feet below land surface. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 210 feet below land surface were 124 mg/l and 845 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples did not exceed 250 mg/l until a depth of 180 feet below land surface. Fourteen water quality grab samples (drill-stem tests), were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 3 was drilled, beginning at 120 feet below land surface and ending at 500 feet below land surface. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 500 feet below land surface were 45 mg/l and 90 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples never exceeded 90 mg/l. A packer test is a procedure used to isolate a particular well interval for testing. It is performed using an inflatable packer on the drill stem, which is placed at the interval to be blocked. The packer is inflated with water or air to isolate the interval to be sampled. A packer test can be used to collect water samples for analysis. Several water quality grab samples were collected in packer tests at specific depth intervals at Test Site 1. At the interval of 331-355 feet below land surface one sample was taken with a chloride concentration of 672 mg/l. At the interval of 331-400 feet below land surface, one sample was taken with a chloride concentration of 882 mg/l. Finally, at the interval of 442-500 feet below land surface two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 2,366 mg/l and 2,2712 mg/l. Several water quality grab samples were collected in packer tests at specific depth intervals at Test Site 3At the interval of 270-295 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 74 mg/l and 450 mg/l. At the interval of 340-400 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 64 mg/l and 134 mg/l. Finally, at the interval of 445-500 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 1,458 mg/l and 2,010 mg/l. No packer test samples were collected at Test Site 2, where it was clear that water quality was too poor to be used as a fresh groundwater source. The packer test samples collected at Test Sites 1 and 3 were collected using a higher pumping rate than typically recommended by the DEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Consequently, the chloride concentrations in these samples are probably higher than the chloride concentrations found in the undisturbed groundwater at those depths. Since the packer sits on top of the borehole and restricts flow from above, it generally is reasonable to assume that a packer test draws more water from below than from above the packer. However, if transmissivity is significantly greater just above the packer, it is possible that more water could enter the packer from above. Seven water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2001 APT at Test Site 1. The chloride concentrations in the first and last grab sample were 59 mg/l and 58 mg/l, respectively. Seven water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2001 APT at Test Site 3. The chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 19 mg/l and 52 mg/l, respectively. Nine water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2003 aquifer performance test at Test Site The field-measured chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 56 mg/l and 55 mg/l, respectively. The laboratory measured chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 66 mg/l and 74 mg/l, respectively. The average chloride concentration for the water samples collected during the three APTs at Test Sites 1 and 2 was about 50 mg/l. Water is composed of positively charged analytes (cations) and negatively charged analytes (anions). When cations predominate over anions, the water is said to have a positive charge balance; when anions predominate over cations, the water is said to have a negative charge balance. Theoretically, a sample of water taken from the groundwater system should have a charge balance of zero. However, in real life this does not occur because every sample contains some small trace elements that affect its charge balance. Therefore, in the field of hydrogeology, a positive or negative charge balance of 10 percent or less is accepted as a reasonable charge balance error, and this standard has been incorporated in the permit conditions recommended by the District for the City’s permit. With one exception, all the water quality samples collected by BFA from Test Sites 1-3 had an acceptable charge balance. The one exception was a sample collected from the packer interval of 270-295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 with a chloride concentration of 74 mg/l. This sample has a positive charge balance of 32.30 percent. The sample collected from the packer interval of 270- 295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 has an overabundance of cations probably caused by grouting and cementing of the packer prior to taking the sample. Since chloride is an anion and not a cation, any error associated with this sample would not effect the validity of the 74 mg/l chloride concentration measured in this sample. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that two samples were collected from the same well at a packer interval of 340-400 feet below land surface with acceptable charge balances and they contained chloride concentrations of 64 mg/l and 134 mg/l. The District’s experts, Richard Burklew and David Toth, believe the 450 mg/l chloride concentration measured in a sample taken from the packer interval of 270-295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 is a faulty measurement and should be discarded as an outlier. Dr. Toth testified that the sodium to chloride ratio indicates there was a problem with this measurement, which would call into question the reported chloride value. In 2004 and 2005, the City collected SAS water quality samples from Test Sites 4 and 6 and Monitor Wells MW-1 and RW-1 near Test Site 1. The samples were analyzed for all applicable water quality standards, which might preclude use of water from the SAS extraction wells to directly augment wetlands. The analyses found that the SAS water quality near the proposed extraction wells was very similar to the SAS water quality near the Area IV production wells and that water could be applied to the wetlands without any adverse water quality consequences. Area IV UFAS Flow Patterns and Basin Boundaries Although the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) potentiometric surface maps do not show any data points in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield, and they are not sufficient by themselves to formulate opinions regarding the future operation or impacts of the proposed wellfield, Petitioners contend that these potentiometric surface maps demonstrate that the freshwater found in the UFAS at the Area IV Wellfield is due to local freshwater recharge only and not freshwater flow from the northwest. They point to a regional report indicating that there is a groundwater basin divide just north of the Area IV Wellfield. This report is based on a 1980 USGS potentiometric surface map. However, another regional report indicates that the groundwater basin divide occurs south of the Area IV Wellfield. This report is likely based on a 1998 USGS potentiometric surface map. Because of the lack of data points in rural northwest Brevard County, the City did not rely on any groundwater basin divide maps, but rather collected site specific information regarding the proposed Area IV Wellfield. The District’s expert and the Petitioners’ own expert (the sponsor of Petitioners' potentiometric surface map exhibits) noted several errors in the flow direction arrows added by Petitioners to the maps. In addition, after reviewing the potentiometric surface maps presented by Petitioners, the District’s expert concluded that, in addition to local freshwater recharge, the predominant flow into the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield is generally from the northwest and southwest. To confirm his opinion, the District’s expert examined the head difference data collected in July 2006. At well UF-1S, the UFAS observation well at site 1, the elevation in the well was 16.27 NGVD. At site 3, which is southeast of site 1, the elevation in the UFAS observation well was 15.68 NGVD. At site 2, which is southeast of site 3, the elevation in the UFAS well was 13.87 NGVD. Since water generally flows from the highest to lowest head measurements, these measurements indicated that water would have been flowing from the northwest to the southeast in the vicinity of Area IV. However, the potentiometric surface can change both seasonally and yearly; likewise, the basin boundaries may also change. SAS and UFAS Drawdown Predicting drawdown in the SAS and UFAS in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is important to several permitting criteria, including interference with existing legal uses and impacts on wetlands, both of which relate to the public interest. During the permit application review process, the City submitted a succession of models to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed Area IV Wellfield would not result in unacceptable drawdown. Initially, BFA prepared and submitted groundwater flow simulations of the Area IV Wellfield prepared using an analytical model known as the “Multi-Layer/SURFDOWN Model.” Although the District initially accepted the submission as providing reasonable assurance to support the District's initial TSR, Miami Corporation petitioned and criticized the City's model as not actually providing reasonable assurance, both because of its predicted SAS drawdown and because it was an analytical model (which can only represent simple conditions in the environment, assumes homogenous conditions and simple boundary conditions, and provides only a model-wide solution of the governing equation). By comparison, a numerical model allows for complex representation of conditions in the environment, heterogeneous conditions and complex boundary conditions, and cell-by-cell iterative solutions of the governing equation that are typically performed by a computer. Over the past 10 to 15 years, a numerical model called MODFLOW has become the standard in groundwater modeling throughout the United States and much of the world. All of the Florida water management districts utilize MODFLOW or are familiar with it, so it is a model of choice today for groundwater flow modeling. Despite Miami Corporation's petition, the City and the District maintained that reasonable assurance had been given that operation of Area IV would not result in unacceptable drawdown. Miami Corporation's petition was scheduled for a final hearing in June 2005 that was continued until September 2005 after the first revised TSR was issued in May 2005. The final hearing was continued again until February 2006 to allow discovery and hearing preparation by Vergie Clark, who filed her petition in July 2005. As the case proceeded towards a February 2006 final hearing on the pending petitions, the City eventually made what actually was its second attempt to develop a calibrated MODFLOW model of the Area IV Wellfield. Unbeknownst to the District, BFA already had attempted to develop a MODFLOW Model of the Area IV Wellfield in 2004, with the assistance of Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. (WHI) (which later was retained as Petitioners’ consultant in this case in a reverse of the Hartman client switch). When BFA ended its efforts with WHI, their efforts to calibrate a MODFLOW model for Area IV that would predict acceptable drawdown was unsuccessful, and none of those modeling efforts were submitted or disclosed to the District. In the fall of 2005, the City turned to another consultant, SDI, to attempt to develop a calibrated MODFLOW Model of the Area IV Wellfield. SDI initially prepared a so- called MODFLOW model equivalent of the Multi-layer/SURFDOWN Model prepared by BFA. It was presented to District staff at a meeting held in January 2006 for the purpose of demonstrating to District staff that the MODFLOW model equivalent of the Multi- layer/SURFDOWN Model generated results for the Area IV Wellfield that were not very different from the results obtained by BFA using their Multi-layer/SURFDOWN Model. Petitioners criticized several weaknesses in the MODFLOW equivalent model and maintained that the modeling efforts to date did not give reasonable assurance of no unacceptable SAS drawdown. By this time, the District had decided to retain Dr. Peter Huyakorn, a renowned modeling expert. Based on his recommendations, the District required the City to produce a calibrated MODFLOW model of Area IV (as well as numerical solute transport modeling, which will be discussed below). The scheduled final hearing was continued until September 2006 to allow time for this work to be completed, discovered, and evaluated. After the continuance, the City had SDI prepare a calibrated MODFLOW model to predict the drawdown that would result from operation of Area IV. SDI produced such a model in March 2006. This model predicted less drawdown. Specifically, a steady-state simulation of a 2.75 mgd withdrawal from the proposed 15 UFAS production wells and a 0.18 mgd withdrawal from the four proposed SAS extraction/wetland augmentation wells predicted the maximum drawdown of the surficial aquifer to be less than 0.5 foot (which, as discussed infra, would be acceptable). (UFAS drawdown, which is not an issue, was predicted to be an acceptable 12 feet.) But Petitioners questioned the validity of the model for several reasons, including its suspect calibration. Dr. Huyakorn also had questions concerning the calibration of SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, but subsequent work by SDI satisfied Dr. Huyakorn and the District, which issued the TSR and proposed CUP at issue in May 2006 based in part on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, despite Petitioners' criticisms. The final hearing was continued until September 2006 to give Petitioners time to complete discovery on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model (as well as the City's new solute transport modeling, which is discussed, infra). To calibrate its March 2006 MODLFOW, SDI first used a transient MODFLOW model to simulate data from the 4-day aquifer performance test (APT) from the Area IV Wellfield sites (the transient APT calibration). (A transient model is used to analyze time-dependent variable conditions and produces a time- series of simulated conditions.) Then, after calibrating to the APT data, SDI used a steady-state, non-pumping MODFLOW model (a time-independent model used to analyze long-term conditions by producing one set of simulated conditions) to simulate the static head difference between the SAS and UFAS (the steady- state head difference calibration). If the head difference simulated in the steady-state calibration run did not match the measured head difference, the ICU leakance was adjusted, and then the revised parameters were rechecked in another transient APT calibration run. Then, another steady-state head difference calibration run was performed in an iterative process until the best match occurred for both calibration models. In order to achieve calibration, SDI was required to make the ICU leakance value several times tighter than the starting value, which was the value derived in the site-specific APT using conventional curve-matching techniques (and relatively close to the values ascribed to the region in general in the literature and in two regional models that included Area IV near the boundary of their model domains--namely, the District's East Central Florida (ECF) model, which focused on the Orlando area to the south and west, and its Volusia model, which focused on Volusia County to the north). SDI's calibrated ICU leakance value derived from calibration to observed static head differences is more reliable than an ICU leakance value derived from an APT using conventional curve-matching techniques. That leaves a question as to the quality of the static head difference measurements used for SDI's calibration. BFA took static head measurements at SAS and UFAS monitor wells located at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 in January 2004, April 2004, and July 2006. On each occasion, a downward head gradient was noted at each site, meaning the water table (i.e., the SAS) had a higher elevation than the potentiometric surface of the UFAS. In January 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 6.2 feet, 5.5 feet and 5.9 feet, respectively. In April 2004, the measured head differences at Test Sites 1 and 3 were 8.1 feet and 8.1 feet, respectively. In July 2006, the measured head differences at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 8.6 feet, 6.6 feet and 9.3 feet, respectively. The average of these observed head differences for the Area IV Wellfield was 7.46 feet. BFA's static head difference measurements included both wet and dry seasons. The measurements do not show significant differences between seasons and suggest that static head difference remains fairly constant at the Area IV Wellfield year round. This is typical of head difference data collected from hundreds of other Florida locations because the hydrologic systems seek equilibrium. Petitioners questioned taking an average of the head difference measurements because the region had experienced a rainfall deficit of 17 inches over the 12 months prior to time the measurements in July 2006 were taken. By itself, a rainfall deficit would not affect head difference measurements because the hydrologic system would seek equilibrium. But there was evidence of a possibly significant rainfall near Area IV not long before the July 2006 measurements. If significant rain fell on Area IV, it could have increased the static head differences to some extent. But there was no evidence that such an effect was felt by Area IV. Petitioners also contend for several other reasons that the static head differences used by SDI as a calibration target were "not what they are cracked up to be." They contend that "limited spatial and temporal extent . . . renders them inappropriate calibration targets." But while the site-specific static head difference measurements were limited, and more measurements at different times would have increased the reliability of the average static head difference used in SDI's steady-state calibration, the head difference measurements used were adequate. For a groundwater model of Area IV, they were as good as or better than the head differences used by Petitioners' expert modeler, Mr. LaFrenz of Tetratech, who relied on SAS and UFAS head levels from the regional-scale ECF model, which were measured by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in May and September 1995. Petitioners also contended that the measured head differences used by SDI for the steady-state calibration of the March 2006 MODFLOW model were significantly higher than other measured head differences in the general vicinity of Area IV. One such location is Long Lake, which has saltwater and an obviously upward gradient (i.e., a negative head difference between the SAS and UFAS), whereas SDI's MODFLOW depicts it as having a five-foot downward gradient (positive head difference). However, all but one of those measurements (including from Long Lake) were from locations five or more miles from Area IV. In addition, the accuracy of the measurements from the closer location (and all but one of the more distant locations) was not clear, so that the seemingly inconsistent head differences measurements may not be indicative of actual inconsistency with the head difference measurements used by SDI. Petitioners also accused the City and its consultants of "playing games with specific yield" to achieve calibration with a tighter-than-appropriate ICU leakance value. But the City and the District adequately explained that there was no merit to the accusations. It was appropriate for SDI to use just the relatively small specific storage component of SAS storativity (the 0.001 value) in its transient calibration runs, instead of the larger specific or delayed yield component. Storativity is not utilized at all in the MODLFOW steady-state calibration runs and steady-state simulations. Based on the foregoing, it is found that Petitioners' factual disputes regarding SDI's calibrated ICU leakance value do not make the City's assurance of no unacceptable drawdown provided by its MODFLOW simulations unreasonable. That leaves several other issues raised by Petitioner with regard to the SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. In calibrating its MODFLOW model, SDI utilized a value for the MCU leakance that was twice as leaky as the published literature values for the area, which Petitioners claim would reduce simulated SAS drawdown. Although the use of a higher MCU leakance value in the model may result in a prediction of less SAS drawdown, the actual effect, if any, on the predicted drawdown, was not made clear from the evidence. In any event, an MCU leakance value for Area IV calibrated to site-specific data is more reliable than regional values. Petitioners also accused the City and its consultants of using inappropriate or questionable boundary conditions, topography, and depth to the water table. They also contend that incorrect topography--namely, a nonexistent five-foot ridge or mound northwest of Area IV--provides an artificial source of water for SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. But the boundary conditions for SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model were clear from the evidence and were appropriate; and SDI's topography and water table depth were reasonably accurate (and on a local scale, were as or more accurate than the USGS topographic maps Petitioners were comparing). Besides, Dr. Huyakorn ran the Tetratech model with SDI's leakance value instead of Tetratech's value and got virtually the same drawdown results, proving that differences in topography between the two models made virtually no difference to the drawdown predictions of either model. As for the so-called "flow from nowhere," particle-tracking simulations conducted by experts from both sides established that, with pumping at 2.75 mgd, no water would enter the Area IV production zone from anywhere near the five-foot ridge area for at least 100 years. This gave reasonable assurance that the five-foot ridge or mound had no effect on the simulated results from SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. Petitioners also contend that the City's failure to simulate drawdown from pumping during the dry season, as opposed to a long-term average of wet and dry seasons, constituted a failure "to provide reasonable assurances as to the conditions that can be expected as a result of the anticipated operation of the wellfields." But the evidence was clear that long-term, steady-state groundwater model simulations are appropriate and adequate to provide reasonable assurance for CUP permitting purposes. See "Drawdown Impacts," infra. By definition, they do not simulate transient conditions such as dry season pumping. The SDI model predicts a maximum drawdown, from a 2.75 mgd withdrawal from all fifteen UFAS production wells and a 0.18 mgd withdrawal from the four SAS extraction wells, of slightly less than 0.5 feet in the SAS and of 12.0 feet in the UFAS in the immediate vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield. SDI’s model predicts a drawdown of 0.11 feet (approximately 1 inch) in the SAS and a drawdown of 2.2 feet in the UFAS at Ms. Clark’s property, which is located approximately 1 to 1.5 miles north of the Area IV Wellfield. It is found that SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model for Area IV is the best such model in evidence. That is not to say that the drawdown predicted by SDI's model is a certainty. The other models were not proven to be better than SDI's, but they did demonstrate that simulated results would vary significantly in some cases if SDI's calibration and calibrated ICU leakance values were incorrect. Having more good hydrologic information would have made it possible to reduce the uncertainties present in SDI's model, but it is found that SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model was sufficient to give reasonable assurance as to SAS and UFAS drawdown from pumping at 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd from the SAS for wetland augmentation. Drawdown Impacts As indicated, once drawdown is predicted with reasonable assurance, both interference with existing legal uses and impacts on wetlands, which relate to public interest, must be evaluated. Interference with Legal Uses Using SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, the City gave reasonable assurance that the drawdown predicted from pumping at 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd from the SAS for wetland augmentation will not interfere with existing legal users. The nearest existing legal users are located about one mile northwest and two miles east/southeast of the nearest proposed production well. The City’s MODFLOW modeling scenarios indicate that maximum drawdown in the SAS will be less than 0.5 feet and minimal (at most 2.2 feet) in the UFAS at the nearest active existing legal users. Obviously, drawdown would be much less at 0.5 to 0.75 mgd from the UFAS (with probably no wetland augmentation required). As indicated, the drawdown predicted by SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model is not a certainty. Although not likely based on the more persuasive evidence, if actual drawdown approximates the drawdown predicted by the Tetratech model, there could be interference with existing legal users. (The Tetratech model predicts that the long-term average reduction in the water table of approximately 1.6 feet of drawdown near the center of the wellfield and drawdown of 0.4 feet to 0.5 feet extending out more than a mile from the proposed Area IV Wellfield.) There probably still would be no interference with existing legal users with pumping at 0.5 to 0.75 mgd from the UFAS (with probably no wetland augmentation required). In the event of that much actual drawdown and unanticipated interference from the City’s pumping, “Other Condition” 15 of the proposed permit requires that it be remedied. See Finding 36, supra. There is no reason to think such interference could not be remedied. Environmental Impacts from Drawdown Miami Corporation’s property in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is a mosaic of pine flatwoods uplands interspersed with wetlands. The wetlands are mostly cypress swamps, with some areas of hardwood swamp, marshes, and wet prairies. Miami Corporation's property is managed for timber and is also used for cattle grazing and hunting. Miami Corporation has constructed a network of roads and ditches on its property, but overall the wetlands are in good conditions. The areas east and west of the proposed Area IV Wellfield consist of cypress strands, which are connected wetlands. Compared to isolated wetland systems, connected wetlands are typically larger, deeper, and connected to waters of the state. They tend to have hardwood wetland species. Connected wetlands are less vulnerable to water level changes brought about by groundwater withdrawals because they tend to be larger systems and have a greater volume of water associated with them. They are able to withstand greater fluctuations in hydroperiods than isolated herbaceous wetland systems. Isolated wetland systems are landlocked systems. They tend to be smaller in size and shallower than connected wetland systems. Isolated systems tend to be more susceptible to changes in hydrology than larger connected systems. The upland plant communities present near the proposed Area IV Wellfield include pine flatwoods that have been altered by Miami Corporation's timber operations. There is a large area surrounding the Area IV Wellfield to the north that consists of forest regeneration after timbering. There was evidence of the presence of the following listed animal species at the site of the proposed Area IV Wellfield: wood storks, roseate spoonbills, ibis, bald eagles, Sherman fox squirrels, American alligator, sandhill cranes, wood storks, black bear, and indications of gopher tortoises. The habitat in the vicinity also supports a number of other listed species that were not observed. The following listed plants species were also observed during the environmental assessment and site visits: hooded pitcher plants, water sundew, pawpaw and yellow butterwort. Ms. Clark’s property adjoins a cut-over cypress swamp on the western side of her property, and there is also a small man-made fish pond in her backyard. Some clearing has taken place in the wetland system on the back portion of Ms. Clark’s property. What appears to be a fire break on Ms. Clark’s property encroaches upon the wetland system. The wetlands on Ms. Clark’s property have experienced some human activities such as trash dumping and clearing, which have resulted in a degradation of those systems. Some trees within the wetland systems on the back portion of Ms. Clark’s property have been logged. For the most part, the hydrology appears to be normal. However, some invasive species have encroached upon the system due to the clearing that has taken place. There was no evidence of listed plant or animal species present on Ms. Clark’s property. If drawdown is of the magnitude predicted by the SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, unacceptable environmental impacts from drawdown would not be anticipated. At 0.5 or 0.75 mgd, there clearly would not be any unacceptable environmental impacts. In addition, “Other Condition” 12 of the proposed permit requires the City to perform extensive environmental monitoring. The environmental monitoring plan proposed for the Area IV Wellfield provides reasonable assurance that changes to wetland hydrology and vegetation due to groundwater withdrawals will be detected before they become significant. “Other Condition” 12 of the proposed permit prohibits the City from pumping any water from the production wells until the monitoring network is in place. The baseline monitoring will give a clear indication of the existing conditions prior to the production wells coming on-line. Once the production wells are online, the City will continue the same procedures that they conducted prior to the production wells coming online. This will allow the City and the District to monitor the effects of pumping. The City’s proposed environmental monitoring plan is adequate to detect drawdown impacts and is consistent with environmental monitoring plans that have been developed for other wellfields throughout the State of Florida. Since the City has given reasonable assurance that there will not be environmental harm from drawdown, the proposed permit does not propose mitigation. If unanticipated harm is detected, “Other Condition” 24 of the proposed permit requires the City to implement an avoidance and minimization plan to rehydrate the wetlands and restore the water levels to normal levels and natural hydroperiods by augmenting the water in the affected wetlands with water pumped from SAS wells and piped to the affected wetlands. “Other Condition” 24 includes specific timeframes for implementing wetland rehydration in the event unanticipated impacts were to occur. In addition, the City could, on its own, change its pumping schedules. If an impacted wetland is near a particular well, the City could reduce or shut off water withdrawals from that well and thereby restore water levels in the wetland. Direct augmentation of wetlands has been used at other facilities such as those of Tampa Bay Water and Fort Orange. The direct augmentation at these other sites appears to be effective. Direct augmentation of wetlands has proven to be a feasible means of offsetting adverse changes in wetlands due to groundwater withdrawals, at least in some circumstances. There is a viable source of water that can be utilized to augment these wetland systems, namely a large canal south of the production wells. Based on the predicted drawdown, SDI estimated the quantity of water needed for implementation of the avoidance and minimization plan to be 0.18 mgd. The water quality in the canal is comparable to the water quality within any wetland systems that would be affected by drawdown. The City plans to have its augmentation plan in place prior to the production wells coming online. In that way, if changes are observed within the wetland systems, the augmentation plan could be implemented in relatively short order to alleviate any impacts that might be occurring as a result of the production wells. The success of the augmentation plan depends on the extent of actual drawdown. If actual drawdown approximates Tetratech's predictions, environmental impacts would not be acceptable, and there would not be reasonable assurance that the augmentation plan would be sufficient to mitigate the environmental impacts. If drawdown is of the magnitude simulated in the City’s MODFLOW model, reasonable assurance was given that, if needed, the avoidance and minimization plan developed for the Area IV Wellfield would be capable of offsetting any adverse changes in wetlands and other waters detected through the environmental monitoring plan. If the City pumps not more than 0.75 mgd, the avoidance and minimization plan developed for the Area IV Wellfield probably would be unnecessary but certainly would be capable of offsetting any adverse changes in wetlands and other waters that would be detected through the environmental monitoring plan. If unanticipated environmental harm occurs due to excessive actual drawdowns, and the harm cannot be avoided either by the augmentation plan or by altering the pumping schedule, or both, the District can revoke all or part of the permit allocation under “Other Condition” 23. This ability gives reasonable assurance that no unacceptable environmental harm will occur even if actual drawdown approximates Tetratech's predictions. Saltwater Up-coning and Intrusion Predicting saltwater movement towards the production zone of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is important to several permitting criteria, including interference with existing legal uses and the ability of the resource to provide the requested allocation of freshwater, both of which relate to the public interest. During the permit application review process, the City submitted a succession of models to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed Area IV Wellfield would not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion. Initially, BFA prepared and submitted solute transport simulations using an analytical model known as the “UPCONE Model.” The District initially accepted the submission as providing reasonable assurance to support the District's initial TSR. Despite Miami Corporation's petition, the City and the District maintained that reasonable assurance had been given that operation of Area IV would not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion based on the "UPCONE Model." As indicated, supra, Miami Corporation's petition was scheduled for a final hearing in June 2005, but the hearing was continued until February 2006. As the case proceeded towards a final hearing in February 2006, the City not only turned to SDI to develop the numerical MODFLOW model, it also turned to SDI to develop a numerical solute transport model that would couple the MODFLOW groundwater flow equations with advection dispersion solute transport equations to simulate the movement of variable density saline groundwater in response to stresses. In addition to the initial boundary conditions, aquifer parameters and stresses specified for a groundwater model, a solute transport model requires solute parameters such as chloride concentrations, dispersivity and effective porosity. SEAWAT is a solute transport model code that combines the MODFLOW, which provides the groundwater flow component, with the MT3DMS code, which provides the mass transport component. When coupled with MODFLOW, the MT3DMS code tracks the movement of variable density water and performs internal adjustments to heads in the flow model to account for water density. Like MODFLOW, SEAWAT is capable of simulating the important aspects of the groundwater flow system, including evapotranpiration, recharge, pumping and groundwater flow. It also can be used to perform both steady-state or transient simulations of density- dependent flow and transport in a saturated zone. It was developed in the late 1990s and is rapidly becoming the standard for solute transport modeling throughout the United States. It is used by many water management agencies in the State of Florida. Initially, SDI used SEAWAT version 2.1 to simulate movement of saline water towards the Area IV Wellfield. The first such simulation was prepared in March 2006 using manually- adjusted head values along the eastern model boundary. It incorporated SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. The District, in consultation with Dr. Huyakorn, required SDI to perform what was termed a "sensitivity run" with reduced chloride concentrations in the eastern boundaries (5,000 mg/l versus 19,000 mg/l) to better match actual measurements recorded in wells in the vicinity. In April 2006 SDI prepared and submitted those simulations. After reviewing the March and April 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 simulations, Petitioners' consultants criticized the manner in which starting chloride concentrations in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield were input into the models. In those models, SDI had input initial chloride concentration at 50 mg/l throughout the depth of the UFAS. The model was then run for 100 years with no pumping to supposedly arrive at a reasonable starting chloride concentration for the UFAS. Then, the model was run for 25 years with pumping at 2.75 mgd. However, the initial chloride concentrations at the beginning of the pumping run still did not comport well with actual measurements that were available. After Petitioners raised the issue of the starting chloride concentrations assigned to the UFAS in SDI's March and April 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 runs, the final hearing was continued until September 2006 to give Petitioners time to complete discovery on those models (as well as on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, as discussed supra). During a deposition of Dr. Huyakorn in July 2006, he recommended that the District require SDI to perform another simulation (also termed a "sensitivity run") using starting chloride concentrations more closely comporting with known measurements. (There also were some changes in the constant chloride concentrations that were part of the boundary conditions on the western side of the model domain.) This resulted in SDI's early August 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 simulation of 15 years of pumping at 2.75 mgd. Petitioners also criticized the City for not using a newer version of SEAWAT, called SEAWAT 2000, as well as for using chloride concentrations as inputs for its SEAWAT 2.1 model simulations instead of total dissolved solids (TDS). (SEAWAT 2.1 required input of TDS, not chlorides; SEAWAT 2000 allowed chlorides to be input. Not until the last day of the final hearing was it pointed out by Dr. Huyakorn that using chlorides instead of TDS caused SDI's SEAWAT 2.1 simulations to over- predict saltwater intrusion.) As a result of Petitioners' criticisms, the City had SDI re-run both the April and early August SEAWAT 2.1 models in late August 2006 using SEAWAT 2000 (which the City and the District also termed "sensitivity runs.") Because the SEAWAT 2000 simulations would be time- barred from use in the City's case-in-chief under pre-hearing requirements, and whether they could be used in rebuttal could not be determined at that point in time, the City requested another continuance, this time until December 2006, to give Petitioners time to discover the SEAWAT 2000 model simulations. During Petitioners' discovery of SDI's August SEAWAT 2000 model simulations, it came to SDI's attention that SDI was not calculating mass outputs from the model correctly. Those errors were corrected by SDI in September 2006. SDI's corrected August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 simulation predicted that, after 15 years of pumping at 2.75 mgd, the chloride concentration in the Area IV production wells would increase from 54 mg/l to 227 mg/l. After the 15-year pumping run, SDI's corrected August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 simulation predicted that the chloride concentration in several of the southernmost production wells would exceed 250 mg/l. At 17.5 years of the pumping run simulation, the simulation predicted that the entire wellfield would have chlorides in excess of 250 mg/l. That prediction does not, however, mean the chloride concentration in these wells will exceed 250 mg/l in actual operation. The SDI model contains several conservative assumptions that magnified the potential chloride concentrations in those wells. First, it was assumed all the production wells would be drilled to 250 feet below land surface, while the City will likely drill the southernmost wells to a shallower depth. Additionally, the wellfield production rate used in the model was not optimized for water quality. Finally, the model was not set up to simulate a wellfield operation plan that turned wells on and off based on the saline water monitoring plan. For the sake of simplicity, the model assumed that all the wells would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire 15 year period. Petitioners continued to maintain for several reasons that SDI's SEAWAT models do not provide reasonable assurance that operation of the Area IV Wellfield will not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion. Chlorides versus TDS Petitioners criticized SDI's corrected SEAWAT 2000 model for still not inputting chlorides correctly. While SEAWAT 2000 allows the input of chlorides instead of TDS (and input of chlorides instead of TDS is recommended since chloride is a more stable chemical than some of the other components of TDS), they must be input correctly. However, while Petitioners demonstrated that the chlorides were not input correctly, causing the model to under-calculate fluid density, Dr. Huyakorn clarified in rebuttal that under-calculating fluid density caused SDI's SEAWAT 2000 models to over-predict saltwater intrusion into the wellfield. Starting Chloride Conditions Petitioners continued to question the representation of initial chloride concentrations in the SEAWAT models. SDI's SEAWAT models included multiple vertical grid layers to represent conditions better than the layering used in the MODFLOW set-up. The SAS was represented by layer 1, the ICU by layer 2, the UFAS by layers 3 through 14, the MCU by layer 15, and the LFAS by layers 16 and 17. SDI used a chloride concentration of 0 mg/l for the SAS and ICU in its August 2006 SEAWAT model, which probably does not represent the actual initial condition but is probably close enough since the SAS is recharged by rainfall that typically has very low (1 to 2 mg/l) chloride levels. SDI used a chloride concentration of 2,500 mg/l for the MCU and a chloride concentration of 5,000 mg/l for the LFAS in its August 2006 SEAWAT model, which are reasonable initial chloride values for the Area IV Wellfield. To develop the initial chloride concentration conditions of the UFAS for its August 2006 SEAWAT model, SDI first plotted the available water quality data (63 well-data points) on a map of the Area IV Wellfield area. After examining the distribution of the data, SDI divided the UFAS into two layers to represent the upper UFAS (above –200 feet NGVD) and the lower UFAS (below –200 feet NGVD). Then, using various scientific studies containing chloride concentration maps, groundwater recharge/discharge maps (recharge indicating an area is more likely to have low chlorides in the UFAS and discharge indicating an area is more likely to have high chlorides), and maps showing the shape and extent of the freshwater lens in the area, plus SDI’s own knowledge of groundwater flows and expected higher chloride concentrations along the coast and St. Johns River, SDI used scientifically accepted hand-contouring techniques to represent the initial chloride concentration conditions of the upper and lower UFAS on maps. SDI’s two hand- contoured chloride concentration maps were reviewed and accepted by the District’s experts and reflect a reasonable representation of the initial chloride concentration conditions in the UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield. Using the two hand- contoured chloride concentration maps, SDI input the chloride concentration values from those maps into its August 2006 SEAWAT model. The chloride concentration values from the upper UFAS map were input into layers 3 through 7 of SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model. The chloride concentration values from the lower UFAS map were input into layers 11 through 14 of SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model. SDI input the average of the chloride concentration values from the upper and lower UFAS layers into the middle UFAS (layers 8 through 10). It is appropriate to average the chloride values between the upper and lower UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield because the saline water interface is not that sharp and occurs near the bottom of the UFAS (unlike conditions 11 miles to the south). Petitioners accuse SDI, the City, and the District of ignoring unfavorable chloride data in setting up its August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 model. The evidence was that all chloride data was considered and evaluated. Mr. Davis and the District's experts did not rely on the 450 mg/l chloride packer test measurement taken from the interval between 270 and 295 feet at Test Site 3 in preparing the contour maps of the UFAS because the chloride measurement was deemed inaccurate because the sodium to chloride ratio is out of balance. Mr. Davis and the District's experts did not utilize the 2,336 mg/l and 2,717 mg/l chloride concentration packer test measurements at 442-500 feet below land surface at Test Sites 1 and 3 to prepare the chloride contour maps for the UFAS because they believed these measurements from the MCU. Mr. Davis and the District's experts deemed it inappropriate to utilize a 845 mg/l chloride value reported for Test Site 2 to prepare the chloride contour for the lower portion of the UFAS because this sample was collected at just 210 feet below land surface and because a 500 mg/l contour line separates a 882 mg/l measurement at Test Site 1 from a 134 mg/l measurement at Test Site 3. The decision not to include the Test Site 2 data also is supported by the particle tracking modeling prepared by the Petitioners and the City using the groundwater component of the SDI SEAWAT model and the TetraTech model, which show that water from Test Site 2 will not enter the Area IV production wells for at least 100 years with pumping at 2.75 mgd. The chloride contour maps developed by Mr. Davis and the District experts were consistent with previous studies conducted by the USGS and the District in the region. For example, the chloride contours shown on City Exhibit 142 for the upper portion of the UFAS are generally consistent with Figure 35 of the 1990 USGS Report by Charles Tibbals and Figure 15 of the 1999 District Report by Toth and Boniol. The two chloride contour maps developed by Mr. Davis and the District's experts are a reasonable representation of the existing water quality of the UFAS in the region of the Area IV Wellfield based on the available data. Mr. Davis used the 882 mg/l chloride concentration packer test measurement from the interval between 331 and 400 feet at Test Site 1 as the starting chloride concentration in four grid cells at the bottom of the UFAS, which Petitioners' experts referred to as a "pinnacle" or "column," that were assigned a chloride value of 700 mg/l. While the representation may not have been realistic, and the "pinnacle" or "column" quickly "collapses" when the model begins to run, the representation was a concession to the existence of the datum even though it appeared at odds with water quality collected from a packer test at Test Site 3 at the same depth interval, which was much fresher. District staff agreed with Davis’ approach to representing the saltier packer test measurement from Test Site 1. The initial chloride concentrations developed for the UFAS by Mr. Davis and District staff are not inconsistent with the water quality data collected by the Petitioners’ consultants from Long Lake. The lake is located in an area of the map where the chloride concentration in the UFAS, which discharges into the lake at that location, is between 1,000 and 5,000 mg/l. Mr. Davis decided not to use 2,000 mg/l to represent the bottom layer of the UFAS even though the bottom packer tests performed at Test Sites 1 and 3 showed an average value of 2,000 mg/l at the approximate boundary of the UFAS and the MCU. Instead, he decided to associate this chloride concentration with the MCU because even if the packer had penetrated a portion of the UFAS, he did not believe the measurement was representative of static water quality conditions at that depth. The packers had been pumped for over 4 hours at 25 gpm at Test Site 1 and over 4 hours at 85 gpm at Test Site 3, which could have doubled or tripled the static chloride concentration. As was later shown in sensitivity runs by Petitioners' expert, Dr. Guo, if SDI had incorporated the 2,000 mg/l value at the bottom of the UFAS, the model simulation would have shown unrealistically high initial chloride concentrations in the production wells at the start of pumpage when compared to the water quality measured during the APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3. (While only one well was pumping at a time, versus the 15 in the model simulations, the single APT well was pumping at approximately three times the rate of the 15 wells in the model simulation.) Based on all the evidence, it is found that the chloride concentrations used in SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model reflect a reasonable representation of the initial chloride concentration conditions in the UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield and were properly input into that model using an appropriate method. Location of the MCU Related to the last point is Petitioners' claim that the top of the MCU (i.e., bottom of the UFAS) is incorrectly represented in SDI's SEAWAT models at 450 feet below sea level (approximately 425 feet below land surface). They point to literature values indicating that the depth to the MCU is up to 150 feet greater. However, these reports did not include site- specific data or test wells in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield or in northern Brevard County. It was reasonable to consider and rely on site-specific information regarding the depth to the MCU in this case. BFA determined the approximate location of the MCU by examining cuttings collected during drilling at APT well sites 1 and 3 and by measuring various properties of the aquifer with down-hole geophysical techniques. Based on the site-specific information obtained, the depth to the MCU was determined to be approximately 450 to 475 feet below land surface or –425 to -450 feet NGVD. The lithologic log for well site 1 indicates the presence of gray/tan limestone between 450 to 460 feet below land surface and light/gray limestone and dolomitic limestone from 460 to 470 below land surface. The lithologic log for well site 3 indicates the presence of tan dolomitic limestone from 450 to 460 feet below land surface and tan limestone and dolomitic limestone from 460 to 470 feet below land surface. According to Petitioners' own expert, Dr. Missimer, the change to a mixture of limestone and dolomite is evidence of the MCU. After examining the video log for well site 1, Dr. Missimer noted a “lithologic change” at 477 feet below land surface (while still disputing BFA's conclusion that the MCU started there.) One characteristic of the MCU is a lower resistivity. At well site 1, a reduction in resistance occurred at approximately 470 feet below land surface. Another characteristic of penetrating the MCU is decrease in flow. The flow meter log for well site 1 suggests a decrease in flow at approximately 450 feet below land surface. On the other hand, it also is true that wells drilled completely into the MCU probably would not produce more than approximately 5 gallons per minute (gpm), whereas the packer test at the bottom of Wellsite 1 was yielding 25 gpm, and the packer test at the bottom of Wellsite 3 was producing 85 gpm. It is possible that the bottom packers were open to both the UFAS and the MCU, which could explain the higher flows. Petitioners maintain that BFA stopped drilling too soon (500 feet below land surface, or 475 feet below sea level) to ascertain the actual depth to the MCU. While it is true that drilling deeper would have made BFA's determination as to the depth to the MCU more convincing and certain, BFA's approximation of the depth to the MCU was reasonable for purposes of SDI's SEAWAT model. To the extent that BFA might have been wrong on the depth to the MCU, there was no convincing evidence that the error would have made SDI's SEAWAT model results unreliable. To the contrary, Dr. Huyakorn testified that, even if SDI put the MCU 75 feet too high, the label given to the interval is not critical to the reliability of the modeling results. More important are the parameters for transmissivity and leakance assigned to aquifers and confining units. Dr. Huyakorn testified that, given the aquifer parameters assigned to the intervals, SDI's SEAWAT modeling results would be reasonably reliable. Saline Movement Impacts As indicated, once chloride concentration changes are predicted with reasonable assurance, both interference with existing legal uses and the ability of the resource to provide the requested allocation of freshwater, which relate to public interest, must be evaluated. Significant saline water intrusion is defined as saline water encroachment which detrimentally affects the applicant or other existing legal users of water, or is otherwise detrimental to the public. (Rule 9.4.2, A.H.). Saline water may encroach from upconing or the vertical movement of saline water into a pumping well, and it may encroach laterally to the well from a saline waterbody like the ocean. The proposed use associated with the four surficial aquifer extraction wells is so minimal that it clearly would not cause saline water intrusion or harm the quality of this proposed source of water. The focus of attention is the production wells. The evidence was sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed consumptive use from the Area IV Wellfield will not cause significant saline water intrusion; further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems; induce significant saline water intrusion to such an extent as to be inconsistent with the public interest; or harm the quality of the proposed source of water. First, the long-term constant rate pump tests, which were conducted as part of the APT, give some indication of the potential for saltwater intrusion. While only one well was pumping during the tests, water quality did not degrade at pumping rates that far exceeded what would be approved as part of the proposed permit. During four-day pump tests in which the wells at sites 1 and 3 were pumped at approximately 1 mgd, chlorides never exceeded approximately 74 mg/l. Second, while (as with drawdown predicted by the groundwater flow modeling) saltwater movement predicted by the City’s SEAWAT simulations is not a certainty, the simulations gave reasonable assurance that the requested allocation could be withdrawn from the Area IV Wellfield without excessive changes to water quality (specifically chlorides) and that there is an adequate thickness of freshwater at the Area IV Wellfield that could supply the requested allocations of water for 15 years without saline water intrusion, especially since it is unlikely that a number of the wells will actually be constructed to the 250-foot depth assumed in the model, particularly as one moves south along the railroad right-of way. Third, it is even more unlikely that saltwater intrusion will occur before the proposed permit expiration in 2010. Due to the time required to construct the facility, it is anticipated that the Area IV Wellfield will become operational in 2009. Assuming the City seeks to renew the permit, there would be more information on saltwater intrusion for the District to consider on permit renewal. Since the City provided reasonable assurance as to its proposed withdrawals from Area IV, there clearly is reasonable assurance that withdrawal of not more than 0.75 mgd from Area IV would not result in significant saline intrusion. The TSR includes proposed “Other Condition” 11 which requires the installation of saline monitor wells. The spatial distribution of these wells is such that the beginning of water quality degradation or saltwater intrusion, either from upconing or lateral intrusion, would not occur without it being detected by these wells. In addition to these monitor wells, proposed “Other Condition” 14 requires water quality samples to be collected from each production well. These wells are to be sampled quarterly for a suite of parameters, including chlorides. “Other Condition” 25 is proposed as a “safety net” should unanticipated saltwater intrusion occur. If any production well shows a concentration of 250 mg/l chlorides, then this proposed condition would prohibit further use of the well until the chloride concentration drops. If the monitoring shows a chloride concentration in a production well of 200-to- 249 mg/l, the well will be placed on restricted use. A production well may be placed back into regular service once the chloride concentration in the well is below 200 mg/l. Other Issues Other issues raised and maintained by Petitioners in this case include: whether the City has provided reasonable assurance that it owns or controls the property upon which the proposed wellfield will be located; whether the Area IV Wellfield is an economically feasible option; whether the City has provided reasonable assurance that it will be able to implement the project before the expiration date of the proposed permit; whether the proposed CUP is inconsistent with the District's designation of Priority Water Resource Caution Areas; whether the proposed CUP constitutes an impermissible modification of the existing CUPs for Areas II and III; and whether the City failed to pay the appropriate permit fee. Ownership or Control The City has obtained an easement from the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) to use FEC right-of-way for the City's proposed production wells. It does not yet have ownership or control of land needed for all wetland and saline monitoring sites, or for wetland augmentation if necessary, but intends to acquire the right to use all land needed through negotiation or exercise of eminent domain. Petitioners contend that the FEC easement is insufficient for several reasons: the easement is "without warranty or covenants of title of any kind"; it is impossible to define the precise boundaries of the easement because the easement is defined in terms of distance from the center of a railroad bed that existed in 1866 but no longer exists; and the precise location of proposed production wells is not definite. While the easement is "without warranty or covenants of title of any kind," the evidence is that, if contested, the precise boundaries of the easement would be difficult but not necessarily impossible to define. It is reasonable to anticipate that at least Miami Corporation will contest the legality and extent of the FEC easement. Petitioners allege that there is confusion about the location of the proposed wells because some well locations identified in the City’s permit application did not match the coordinates assigned to certain production wells on the District’s on-line database. Actually, there is no confusion regarding the location of the wells; the well locations identified in the permit application were the well sites used for modeling purposes and for review of the application. District staff explained that the well site locations identified in the District’s database would be finalized after the wells are constructed and the exact locations have been identified using GPS technology. Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, the District’s rules do not require that an applicant own the property where the proposed production wells or monitoring wells are to be located. The District has issued many CUPs where either the subject property or the property associated with the monitoring requirements of the permit are not owned by the applicant. Recent examples include the CUPs for Orange County Utilities and the Orlando Utilities Commission. This makes sense when the applicant has the power of eminent domain or some other credible means of obtaining necessary ownership or control, such as an option contract. The District’s permit application form has a section that requires the applicant to identify who owns or controls the land on which the facility will be located. The District uses this information for noticing and contact information. Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, this section of the permit application form is not intended to create a substantive permitting standard requiring property ownership before a consumptive use permit can be issued. Petitioners argue that proof of ownership or control is necessary to determine whether a drawdown from a proposed water use will adversely affect stages or vegetation on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. However, the evidence was that these impacts can be assessed based on the facts of this case. The City's need to eventually obtain ownership or legal control to exercise the rights granted by the proposed CUP may be problematic in this case and is a factor to be considered in the next two issues raised and maintained by Petitioners: whether the Area IV Wellfield is an economically feasible option; and whether the City has provided reasonable assurances that its project can become operational before the expiration date of the proposed permit. But it is not a reason to automatically deny the City's proposed CUP. Economic Feasibility Petitioners argue that the proposed Area IV Wellfield is too expensive and that the expense should be a factor in deciding whether it is in the public interest. But cost to the City is not a factor in determining whether to issue the CUP proposed in this case. Statutes and rules cited by Petitioners on this point do not apply to this CUP determination. See Conclusions of Law 277-279, infra. Implementation Before Expiration Date Litigation of a case filed by Miami Corporation to contest the legality and extent of the City's FEC easement will add to the (cost and) time necessary to implement the project. This additional time was not specifically taken into account by the City in estimating the time it would take to implement the project. The (cost and) time for litigation of the legality and extent of the City's FEC easement could be spared by exercising eminent domain instead. That probably would add to total the cost of eminent domain but might not add appreciably to the time necessary for acquisition of required ownership or control. In an imprecise way, the time for eminent domain proceedings necessary to gain ownership or control of land for monitoring sites and wetland augmentation (without time for litigation of a contest over the legality and extent of the FEC easement, or for using eminent domain instead) was factored into the time estimated for implementation of the project. With this rough estimate, the evidence was that the project could be expedited and completed in 33 months from issuance of a CUP. It is possible but not probable that the project could be implemented in less than 33 months. It is possible and more probable that it will take longer than 33 months to implement the project. In a worst case scenario, it could take as much as 59 months complete the project. But 33 months is a reasonable, if optimistic, estimate (without time for litigation of the legality and extent of the FEC easement, or for using eminent domain instead). As found, the proposed CUP expires at the end of 2010. Given the 33-month estimate for implementation (without time for litigation of a contest over the legality and extent of the FEC easement), the CUP would have to be issued by March 2008 to be completed before expiration. Given that estimate, it would be in operation for six months before expiration. It is likely that the City will apply to renew both the existing CUP for Areas II and III and the proposed CUP for Area IV. It appears from Petitioners' Response to the other PROs that one purpose for their arguments that the proposed CUP for Area IV cannot be implemented before its expiration is to buttress their arguments, already addressed, that there is no need for the proposed CUP for Area IV. Priority Water Resource Caution Area Designation As part of its water supply planning process, the District designates priority water resource caution areas. A priority water resource caution area is an area where existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water and water conservation efforts may not be adequate to supply water for all existing legal uses and anticipated future needs and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems. The area surrounding the Area IV Wellfield was designated as a priority water resource caution area in the District’s 2003 Water Supply Assessment and 2005 Water Supply Plan based on groundwater modeling prepared by District planning staffing using the ECF and Volusia County Regional Models. The fact the Area IV Wellfield is located in a priority water use caution area does not mean a consumptive use permit cannot be issued for this facility. In fact, over one- third of the District is located within a priority water resource caution area, and permits continue to be issued in those areas. Rather, the essence of the designation is the recognition of a concern, based on the regional models, that the proposed consumptive use of water might violate the wetland and lake constraints and that water resources other than fresh groundwater will be needed to supply the expected need for water in the area and in the District over the next 20 years. That does not mean that no additional groundwater withdrawals should be permitted in a designated area. Rather, it means that other resources should be developed and used along with whatever remaining additional fresh groundwater can be permitted. It is not an independent reason, apart from the permitting criteria, to deny the City's application. Impermissible Modification of Existing CUP Petitioners contend that the proposed CUP for Area IV includes an impermissible modification of the existing CUP for Areas II and III because “Other Condition” 5 limits average annual withdrawals from the Area II, III, and IV Wellfields, combined, to 5.79 mgd in 2009 and 6.01 mgd in 2010. (As indicated, the limitations would have to be reduced to no more than 5.2 mgd based on the more reasonable projected need.) However, the City’s current CUP for the Area II and III Wellfields expires in February 2008, which is before the Area IV Wellfield would become operational, so that "Other Condition" 5 will have no practical effect on the existing CUP for Areas II and III. In essence, "Other Condition" 5 serves to advise the City that it should not view the allocation for the Area IV Wellfield in addition to the City’s existing allocations for the Area II and Area III Wellfields and that any renewal of the existing CUP for Areas II and III will have to take the Area IV allocation into account. Appropriate Permit Fee Petitioners have alleged that the City has not paid the correct permit processing fee. In March 2001, the City paid the District $200 when it submitted its initial permit application to modify its existing CUP. In May 2005, the City paid the District an additional $800 when it amended its application and withdrew its request to modify its existing permit. All required permit processing fees have been paid for this CUP application 99052. Miscellaneous As to other issues raised by Petitioners in the case, the evidence did not suggest any danger of flooding, any proposed use of water reserved by rule for other uses, any effect on any established minimum flows or levels, or inadequate notice. Standing As found, Miami Corporation owns property immediately adjacent to the proposed Area IV Wellfield, and Ms. Clark owns property a little more than a mile away. Both alleged and attempted to prove that SAS drawdown from the proposed CUP would degrade wetlands on their property and interfere with their legal use of groundwater, and that saline intrusion from the proposed CUP would degrade the water quality of the UFAS resource which they use for potable water. As found, Petitioners did not prove those allegations; however, the evidence was that both Petitioners have substantial interests (the quality of water in the aquifer from which their wells withdraw water and wetlands on their property) that would be affected by the proposed CUP at least to some extent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the District issue the City a CUP for Area IV as provided in the second revised TSR, except for a lower water allocation at this time, namely: 0.75 mgd on an annual average basis, with appropriately lower allocations on the other bases in the TSR, and with a combined annual average rate for Areas II, III, and IV in "Other Condition" 5 of 5.2 mgd for 2009 and 2010 instead of 5.79 mgd in 2009 and 2010, and appropriately lower combined maximum daily rates for Areas II, III, and IV in "Other Condition" 9. Jurisdiction is reserved to hear and rule on the pending motions for sanctions if renewed no later than 30 days after entry of the final order in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 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 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue The matters here presented concern the challenges by the named Petitioners to Rule Sections 17-3.061(2)(b), 17-3.111 (11), 17-3.121(14), 17-4.02(17),(19), and 17-4.28(2), Florida Administrative Code, related to definitions of "submerged lands" and "transitional zone of a submerged land" and the requirements set forth by rule provisions for permits related to dredge and fill activities in "submerged lands" and in the "transitional zone of submerged land" and water quality in Florida. The rule challenges are in keeping with the provisions of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioners claim that the rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners do not, by the challenges, question the procedures utilized in the promulgation of the subject rule provisions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Baker Cut Point Company, is a corporation which owns real estate in Key Largo, Florida, and James C. Dougherty owns the company. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is a governmental body which has been granted certain regulatory powers, to include the responsibility for requiring environmental permits for certain activities over which the Respondent has jurisdiction. In furtherance of that responsibility, the Respondent has promulgated the aforementioned rules which are the subject of this rules challenge case. The Petitioners have been subjected to the terms and conditions of the aforementioned rule provisions in the course of their application for environmental permits for developments in property in Key Largo, Florida, under DER File Nos. 44-21381 and 44-14356. Those matters were the subject of a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing in Division of Administrative Hearings' Cases Nos. 80-760 and 80-1055. The hearings in those cases were conducted on the dates described in this order and were held in view of the disputed material facts between the parties occasioned by the Respondent's stated intention to deny the permits based upon the Respondent's belief that the activities contemplated within the permit process would be in violation of certain regulatory provisions, to include those rule provisions which are the subject of this action. Throughout the process of permit review and the hearing de novo, and in response to the revisions to the original permit requests, the Respondent has continued to claim jurisdiction in keeping with the rule provisions at issue. The Baker Cut Point Company DER File No. 44-14356 letter of intent to deny dates from April 3, 1980, and the corresponding letter of intent to deny related to DER File No. 44-21381, James C. Dougherty, dates from May 27, 1980.
Findings Of Fact Background In 1983, Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. (Concerned Citizens), an intervenor in this case, filed a petition toe initiate rulemaking for single source reclassification of groundwater under the existing provisions of Rule 17-3.403, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In this manner, Concerned Citizens sought to have existent potable waters in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties classified Class G-I groundwater, and to thereby provide them the most stringent water quality protection accorded groundwaters of the state. At a public meeting in February 1985, the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) deferred action on the petition of Concerned Citizens, and directed the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) to review the existing G-I rule, prepare proposed revisions, and present its recommendations to the ERC. Following the ERC directive, the Department held numerous public meetings and workshops to explore different approaches to groundwater protection. As a consequence, it prepared the proposed revisions to Rules 17-3.021, 17-3.403, 17-3.404, and 17- 4.245, F.A.C., at issue in these proceedings. On October 31, 1986, the Department duly noticed the proposed rules in volume 12, number 44, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice interested parties that a public hearing would be held on December 16, 1986, before the ERC. 1/ On December 16-17, 1986, the ERC held a public hearing at which time it considered the rules recommended by the Department. During the course of this meeting, the ERC approved and adopted the rules with certain changes. These changes were duly noticed in volume 13, number 3, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 16, 1987. Petitioners and Intervenors Petitioners, Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc., and Alliance for Rational Groundwater Rules (Case No. 86-4492RP), and Petitioners Aloha Utilities, Inc.; Interphase, Inc.; Phase 1 Homes, Inc.; A.C. & R., Inc.; Tahitian Development, Inc.; Great Cypress Mobile Village, Inc.; and Barrington, Ltd. (Case No. 86- 4705R), filed timely petitions to challenge the validity of the proposed rules, which petitions were consolidated for hearing. Petitions for leave to intervene were granted on behalf of Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.; Florida Land Council, Inc.; and Pasco County. These Intervenors' interests were aligned with those of petitioners. Petitions for leave to intervene were a1so granted on behalf of West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority and Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. These Intervenors' interests were aligned with those of the Department and the ERC. Petitioner, Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc. (Adam Smith), is the owner/developer of a 3,800-acre development of regional impact (DRI) to be known as Trinity Communities. This development, which has been in the acquisition and planning stages for almost 5 years, is currently undergoing DRI review and Adam Smith anticipates that it will receive its development order by September 1987. The Trinity Communities development is located predominately in Pasco County, with just over 250 acres of its lands located in Pinellas County. These properties are predominately open pasture land, and are bordered on the north, east and west by roads and on the south by Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. As proposed, the Trinity Communities development will include 1100 acres of parks, golf courses, and other open areas. The remaining lands will be developed to accommodate 9500 dwelling units, as well as industrial and commercial uses to service the community, over a 20-year period. At today's market value, the property represents an investment of approximately 28 million dollars. Abutting the Trinity Communities development is the Eldridge-Wilde Well Field. This well field is covered by consumptive use permits issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and contains major public community drinking water supply wells as defined by the rules at issue in this proceeding. Of these wells, 5 are located within 9.63 feet and 181.5 feet of the proposed development's property line, and 5 are located with 204.72 fee and 297.5 feet of its property line. Petitioner, Alliance for Rational Groundwater Rules (Alliance), is an association of landowners who united to educate themselves about the proposed rules. The proof failed, however, to establish whether Alliance had ever elected any officers or directors, or the magnitude of its membership. Consequently, the proof failed to establish that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, were substantially affected by the proposed rules, and that the relief requested by it was of a type appropriate for it to receive on behalf of its members. Petitioner, Aloha Utilities, Inc. (Aloha Utilities), is a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide water and sewer service to two separate service areas in southern Pasco County. Currently, Aloha Utilities operates an 850,000 gallon per day (gpd) sewage treatment facility (Aloha Gardens) and a 1.2 million gpd sewage treatment plant (Seven Springs). It also operates 10-11 producing wells, at least 7 of which are permitted by SWFWMD to withdraw at least 100,000 gpd. One of these wells is located approximately 1/4-1/2 mile from an Aloha Utility sewage treatment plant. At least 3 of Aloha Utilities' wells which are permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd or more, will service or are servicing the Riverside projects and Aloha Gardens Unit Number 12 project discussed infra. Consequently, the proof establishes that Aloha Utilities operates a major public community drinking water supply system as defined by the subject rules. The Aloha Gardens facility is under a Department order to expand its effluent disposal capacity. To satisfy the Department's order and the need for increased disposal capacity, Aloha Utilities commenced condemnation proceedings 8-12 months ago to secure the needed property. While the condemnation proceeding is not yet completed, Aloha Utilities has already expended considerable sums for engineering studies and attorney's fees in its efforts to acquire the property. That property is located approximately 1/2 mile from an existing well that is permitted for an average daily flow of at least 100,000 gpd. The effluent disposal capacity of the Seven Springs facility is also being expanded to meet existing and future demand. In April 1987, Aloha Utilities acquired a 27-28 acre parcel of land immediately adjacent to its existing facility. Upon these lands, Aloha Utilities proposes to construct percolation ponds, a rapid rate land application effluent disposal process. As sited, these ponds would be located 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from a well permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. 2/ Petitioners, Interphase, Inc., Phase 1 Homes, Inc., and Tahitian Development, Inc., are corporations with common management which are developing three separate but geographically proximate projects in Pasco County. These projects will be, or are, serviced by Aloha Utilities. Interphase, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 100- acre tract known as Riverside Village Unit Number Four. This property is currently being developed to include 57 acres dedicated to single family use and 43 acres dedicated to multifamily use, and will require the installation of stormwater facilities and underground sewage transportation facilities. Two wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more are located 1/2 mile and 1/3 mile, respectively, from this development. Interphase, Inc., is also the owner of a 17-acre parcel of vacant land in Pasco County that is zoned commercial. This property is located within 400 feet of Aloha Utilities' Seven Springs sewer treatment plant, and its development will require the installation of underground sewage transportation facilities. Phase 1 Homes, Inc., is the owner/developer of a project known as Riverside Village Townhouses. This project is fully developed and is currently serviced by Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development are two wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Tahitian Development, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 40-acre tract known as Riverside Villas. Twenty of these acres have been developed and some of the units sold. The remaining 20 acres are currently under development. In developing its remaining 20 acres, Tahitian Development would be required to install stormwater drainage systems and sewage transportation lines to connect with Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development are wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Tahitian Development also owns a 40-acre parcel in Orange County which it plans to develop for light industrial uses such as an industrial park or an office complex. Such development would result in at least a 40 percent impervious surface, including building tops, within that 40-acre parcel, and require the installation of a sewage transportation system and a stormwater drainage system. Petitioner, A.C. & R., Inc., is the owner/developer of a project in Pasco County known as Aloha Gardens Unit Number 12. The project, which currently is represented by 40-50 developed lots, is located just north of the Aloha Gardens sewage treatment facility, and is serviced by Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development that is permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Petitioner, Great Cypress Mobile Village, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 149 unit mobile home park in Pasco County. Twenty of these units are completed and ready for occupancy. Completion of the project will require the installation of additional sewer lines. Located at the interior of the property is a sewage treatment plant owned by Northern Utilities which services the project, and within 600 feet of the project's boundary there is a well which services that utility. The capacity of that well was not, however, demonstrated in these proceedings, nor was it shown whether such well was part of a community water system. Petitioner, Barrington, Ltd. is a party of unknown capacity, origin, or interest. No evidence was presented on its behalf to demonstrate that its substantial interests would be affected by the proposed rules. Intervenor, Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG), a Florida corporation, is an association of Florida's electric utilities, and is composed of 37 members. The FCG has, as part of its internal organization, an environmental committee whose purpose is to participate in regulatory development and provide mutual member assistance with regard to water related matters. This committee was authorized by the FCG executive committee to participate in the development of the rules at issue in these proceedings, as well as Intervene in these proceedings, to represent and protect the interests of FCG members. The FCG participated in the development of the subject rules by the Department, and was granted full party status by the ERC during that rulemaking process. The members of FCG are owners and operators of electric power generating facilities. These facilities“ include the power plant and ancillary facilities such as substations. Incident to the operation of these facilities are wastewater discharges associated with the production of electricity and stormwater discharges. One of these facilities, Gainesville Regional Utilities' Deer Haven generating station is located across Highway 441 from a major community drinking water supply well. Intervenor, Florida Land Council, Inc., a Florid corporation, is composed of 12 primary members who own large tracts of land in interior Florida, and who are engaged primarily in agribusiness. The Land Council's purpose is to protect the asset value of its members property and, because of that purpose, it is concerned with environmental regulations, growth management regulations, land use regulations, and comprehensive planning. To protect its interests, the Land Council sought leave to intervene in these proceedings. There was, however, no proof that any lands owned by any member of the Land Council were proximate to any major public community drinking water well. Intervenor, Pasco County, is the owner/operator of 25 wastewater treatment plants with capacities In excess of 100,000 gallons per day, and has under construction, or in the design stage, additional facilities with capacities in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. The construction of these new facilities will require the installation of new lines for the collection of wastewater. Pasco County's current, as well as its planned, wastewater treatment facilities will utilities a rapid rate land application effluent disposal process. Within a mile of any wastewater treatment plan operated by Pasco County can be found a major public community drinking water well as defined by the rules at issue in these proceedings. Pasco County also owns and operates wells within the county with permitted withdrawal rates exceeding 100,000 gpd, and participates in the ownership and management of their wells with permitted withdrawal rates exceeding 100,000 gpd through West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority. Pasco County currently has plans to add new production wells in the county with an average daily pumpage in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Intervenor, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (West Coast), is an interlocal government body created in 1974 to develop, store, and supply water to its member governments so that all citizens within the areas served by the authority may be assured an adequate supply of water. Member governments served by WCRWSA are Hillsborough County, Pasco County, and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. Wellfields operated by West Coast are the Starkey Wellfield located in west central Pasco County, which serves the citizens of New Port Richey and Pasco County; the South-Central Hillsborough Regional Wellfield located in south-central Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough, County; the crossbar Ranch Wellfield located in north-central Pasco County, which principally serves the citizens of Pinellas, County; the Cypress Creek Wellfild located in south-central Pasco County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and western Pasco Counties and the City of St. Petersburg; the Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough County; the Section 21 Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg; and, the Come-Odessa Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg. 3/ Each of the wellfields operated by West Coast are public community water systems, and contain wells permitted to withdraw in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Collectively, these wellfields serve a total population of 800,000 persons. Intervenor, Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. (Concerned Citizens), is a not-for-profit corporation, was chartered in 1981, and has 350 members who obtain their drinking water from operational community water supply wells permitted for over 100,000 gallons per day in Inverness, Crystal River, Floral City, Sugar Mill Woods, Beverly Hills, and Rolling Oaks, Citrus County, Florida. The purpose of Concerned Citizens is to protect the natural resources of Citrus County through planning and zoning regulations, and local and state legislation and regulations. It was granted party status by the ERC. General aspects of the proposed rules The proposed rules establish new eligibility criteria for designation of an aquifer segment as Class G-I groundwater. Under the existing rule, the ERC could reclassify an aquifer or portion of an aquifer as G-I within specified boundaries upon a finding that: The aquifer or portion of the aquifer is the only reasonably available source of potable water to a significant segment of the population; and The designated use is attainable, upon consideration of environmental, techological, water quality, institutional, and social and economic factors. Under the proposed revisions, an aquifer segment could be classified by the ERC as G-I provided it was: ...within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined aquifers or from leaky confined aquifer... and, upon consideration of: ...environmental, technologial, water quality, institutional (including local land use comprehensive plans), public health, public interest, social and economic factors. As with thee existing rule, the proposed rules require that rulemaking procedures be followed to actually designate a G-I aquifer or aquifer segment at any particular location. The scheme envisioned by the proposed rules is to provide protection to "major community drinking water supply wells", community water systems that are permitted by consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater, by preventing contaminants from entering the groundwater within a circumscribed radius of the wells. To accomplish this purpose, the proposed rules establish a methodology whereby two zones of protection would be established around such wells if they were withdrawing waters from unconfined aquifers (an aquifer exposed to the atmosphere) or leaky confined aquifers (an aquifer in which groundwater moves vertically from the water table to the top of the aquifer in five years or less). The first zone (the inner zone) would be based on a fixed radius of 200 feet. The second zone (the outer zone) would be based on a radius, calculated under the rule's methodology, of 5 years groundwater travel time. Within the inner zone, discharges would be prohibited. Within the outer zone, certain developments which discharge to groundwater would be prohibited or restricted. A major emphasis of the proposed rules is to restrict discharges to groundwater within the zones of protection. For example, the rules eliminate the zone of discharge within the zones of protection, and require that new discharges to groundwater of treated domestic effluent meet the groundwater criteria specified in rule 17-3.404, F.A.C., prior to discharge. 4/ Additionally, such wastewater treatment facilities would be required to pre-treat industrial wastewater, provide daily monitoring to insure proper treatment plant process control, and provide 24 hour a day attendance of a wastewater operator under the general supervision of a Class A certified wastewater operator. New underground lines for the transport of domestic raw wastewater would be required to be constructed so that no more than 50 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per mile per day could leak into the ground. Within the 5 year zone of protection, there are no restrictions on stormwater discharges for residential developments. However, discharges from new stormwater facilities serving an area forty acres or larger with a forty percent impervious surface, excluding building tops, are required to monitor the discharge. Construction and operation of new sanitary landfills would be prohibited. As previously noted, to be eligible for reclassification as a G-I aquifer, the aquifer or aquifer segment under consideration must be leaky confined or unconfined. Whether the aquifer is leaky confined or not will be determined through application of the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae contained in the proposed rules, and the zones of protection will be established by reference to the "r" formula contained in the proposed rule. To date, neither the Department nor any party has applied the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae to identify wells hat are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers, nor has anyone delineated any zones of protection by application of the "r" formula. The Department has, however, identified those areas of the state at which it is likely that major community drinking water supply wells are withdrawing from such aquifers. Based on this identification, the Department has contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to "map" the Middle-Gulf region (Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties) by applying the "Vv" and "Tv" formulas to each well permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd or more to determine if it is withdrawing from such aquifers and, if so, to delineate proposed zones of protection around such wells or wellfields through application of the "r" formula. The USGS is currently mapping the Middle-Gulf region. Pertinent to this case, the Department has identified all of Pasco and Pinellas Counties, the northern half of Hillsborough County, and most of Orange County including Orlando, as areas within which wells are most probably withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers, and for which aquifers the Department will seek G-I reclassification. Under the circumstances, the parties have established, except as heretofore noted, that there is a reasonable likelihood that the proposed rules will substantially affect their interests. The rule challenge The gravamen of the protestant's challenge is that certain definitions and formulae continued within the proposed rule are vague, ambiguous, or not supported by fact or logic. The Protestants' also challenge the adequacy of the economic impact statement. The Protestants concerns are addressed below. Definitions Rule 17-3.021, as amended, would define "Confined Aquifer", "Leaky Confined Aquifer", and "Unconfined Aquifer", as follows: (7) "Confined Aquifer" shall mean an aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable beds or by beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself. For the purpose of G-I, it shall mean an aquifer confined from above by a formation(s) which restricts the movement of groundwater vertically from the water table to the top of the confined aquifer for a period of more than five years * * * (16) "Leaky Confined Aquifer" shall mean, for the purposes of G-I, an aquifer confined from above by a formation(s) which allows groundwater to move vertically from the water table to the top of the leaky confined aquifer in five years or less. * * * (34) "Unconfined Aquifer" shall mean an aquifer other than a confined aquifer. For the purpose of G-I it shall mean an aquifer other than a confined or leaky confined aquifer. 5/ Protestants contend that the definition of "confined aquifer" and "leaky confined aquifer" are vague and meaningless because they are "defined by use of the phrase being defined". Accordingly, they conclude that proposed rule 17-3.021(7) and (16) must fall because they are without thought and reason, irrational and vague. Protestants further contend that since the definitions of "confined aquifer" and "leaky confined aquifer" are flawed, proposed rule 17-3.021(34), which defines unconfined aquifer, must also fall. The Protestants' contentions are not persuasive. If one were restricted to the definition of "confined", "leaky confined" and "unconfined" aquifer to glean their meaning, the rules might be considered vague. However, these definitions are, as they specifically provide, "for the purpose of G-I" and they must be read in context with the balance of the rule. When so read, it is apparent that "top of the confined aquifer" or "top of the leaky confined aquifer" is the top of the aquifer that has been calculated as confined or leaky through manipulation of the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae. Under the circumstances, the subject definitions are not vague, arbitrary or capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(20) provides: "New Discharge" shall mean, for the purpose of G-I, a discharge from a new installation; or a discharge from an existing permitted installation that has been altered, after the effective date of G-I reclassification, either chemically, biologically, or physically or that has a 211 22 different point of discharge, and which causes a significantly different impact on groundwater. Protestants contend that the definition of "new discharge" is vague, arbitrary and capricious because existing installations would be classified as new dischargers, and subject to the more stringent requirements of the proposed rules, whether the alteration of their discharge significantly improved or adversely affected groundwater. As proposed, the rule would so define new discharge, and it is not vague or ambiguous. The proof demonstrated, however, that the Department only proposed to define, as new dischargers, those existing installations whose altered discharge caused a significantly different negative impact on groundwater. The Department conceded this point, and offered no proof to demonstrate the reasonableness of classifying existing installations that improve their discharge as new discharges. Under the circumstances, proposed rule 17-3.021(20) is arbitrary and capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(35) defines "underground storage facility or underground transportation facility as follows: "Underground storage facility" or "underground transportation facility" shall mean that 10 percent or more of the facility is buried below the ground surface. This proposed rule is, however, only pertinent to proposed rule 17-4.245, which addresses the permitting and monitoring requirements for installations discharging to groundwater. Pertinent to this case, proposed rules 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d) establish construction requirements for the following facilities within the five year zone of protection: Underground storage facilities. An underground storage facility includes any enclosed structure, container, tank or other enclosed stationary devices used for storage or containment of pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S. or any contaminant as defined in Sect ion 403.031(1), F.S. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to include septic tanks, enclosed transformers or other similarly enclosed underground facilities.... Underground facilities for transportation of wastewater or pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S. or any contaminant as defined in Section 403.031(1), F.S. excluding natural and liquified petroleum gas. Underground facilities for transportation of waste effluent or pollutants or contaminants include piping, sewer lines, and ducts or other conveyances to transport pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S., and contaminants as defined in Section 403.031(1), F.S.... Protestants contend that the proposed rules are contained in two separate chapters of the Florida Administrative Code with no bridge between them. Under such circumstances, they contend the rules fail to adequately define either facility in either chapter, and that the rules are therefore vague, arbitrary and capricious. Protestants' contention is not persuasive. Proposed rule 17-3.021(35) defines "underground storage facility" or "underground transportation facility" as meaning that 10 percent or more of the facility is buried below the ground surface. Proposed rules 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d) address what type of facility is included within the terms "underground storage facility" and "underground transportation facility." Notably, Rule 17-4.021, F.A.C., provides: Definitions contained in other chapters of the Department's rules may be utilized to clarify the meaning of terms used herein unless such terms are defined in Section 17-4.020, F.A.C., or transfer of such definition would defeat the purpose or alter the intended effect of the provisions of this chapter. Under the circumstances of this case, the rules are appropriately read together. So read, the construction requirements for "underground storage facilities" and "underground transportation facilities", as required by proposed rule 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d), are applicable if 10 percent or more of the containment device used for the storage or transport of pollutants is buried below the ground surface, and the proposed rules are not vague, arbitrary or capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(39) defines "Zones of Protection" as follows: "Zones of Protection" shall mean two concentric areas around a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) drawing from a G-I aquifer whose boundaries are determined based on radii from the well or wellfields of 200 feet and five years groundwater travel time respectively. Protestants contend that the definition of "Zones of Protection" is vague, arbitrary and capricious because nowhere within the proposed rules is "G-I aquifer" defined. protestants' contention is not persuasive. Proposed rules 17-3.403(1) and (7) adequately explain what is meant by "G-I aquifer", and proposed rule 17-3.403(8) sets forth the metodology for calculating the zones of protection. The definition of "Zones of Protection", set forth in proposed rule 17-3.02(39) is not vague, arbitrary or capricious, because of any failure to define "G-I aquifer." Mapping Priorities When considering whether to reclassify an aquifer or aquifer segment as G-I, proposed rule 17-3.403(5)(e)2 requires that the aquifer or aquifer segment: Be specifically mapped and delineated by the Department on a detailed map of a scale which would clearly depict the applicable zones of protection. Maps will be grouped and submitted for reclassification generally on a regional basis. Mapping priorities shall follow the Commission directive of February 27, 1985. The remaining areas of the state will be mapped by the Department as time and resources allow. The mapping priority directive referred to in purposed Rule 17-3.403(5)(e)2a, was an oral directive of the ERC that Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties, referred to as the Middle-Gulf region, be mapped first. That directive has not been reduced to writing and, consequently, a copy thereof has never been available for inspection. Categories of G-I Aquifers and determination of zones and protection Proposed rules 17-3.403(7) and (8), respectively, set forth the eligibility criteria for reclassification as G-I aquifers and the methodology whereby the boundaries of the zones of protection are established. To this end, proposed rule 17- 3.403 (7) provides: Categories of G-I aquifers. For aquifers or aquifer segments to be eligible for potential reclassification as G-I aquifers one of the following criteria must be met: That the aquifer or aquifer segment under consideration be within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined aquifers or from leaky confined aquifers.... (b)(. reserved.) Proposed rule 17-3.403(8) provides: Determination of the boundaries of the zones of protection. (a) The boundaries of the zones of protection shall be based on radii from the wellhead or wellfield (if closely clustered, so that the five year zones of protection are overlapping) measured in 200 feet for the inner zone and five years for the outer zone. The radius of the outer zone shall be determined using the following formula: percent.x4n where Q = permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day); T = five years (1825 days); 3.14 = mathematical constant pi; r = radius (feet); h distance from the top of the producing aquifer to the bottom of the hole (feet); n effective porosity. Protestants contend that the foregoing provisions of the proposed rules are vague, arbitrary and capricious because the wells that would be subject to and around which a zone of protection would be established cannot be identified or, if identifiable, do not comport with the Department's intent or interpretation. Protestant's concerns are not without merit. To be eligible for consideration as a G-I aquifer, proposed rule 17-3.403(7) requires that the aquifer segment be within the zones of protection of a "major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s). Proposed rule 17- 3.021(17) provides that "major public community drinking water supply" shall mean: those community water systems as defined in Section 17-22.103(5), F.A.C., that are permitted by consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater. Community water system" is defined by Section 17-22.103(5) as: a public water system which serves at least IS service connections used by year- round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. Facially then, the proposed G-I rules are applicable to "community water system" that hold a consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater", and which are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers. Notably, the rule does not ascribe the 100,000 gpd permitted rate of withdrawal to each well, but to a permit held by a community water system. Accordingly, under the literal reading of the proposed rules, each well covered by the consumptive use permit would be subject to a zone of protection regardless of its individually permitted rate, so long as it was withdrawing from an unconfined or leaky confined aquifer. While there may be legitimate reasons to designate zones of protection around wells, regardless of their individual permitted rate when the community water system holds a consumptive use permit to withdraw groundwater at a 100,000 gpd average, the Department advanced none. To the contrary, the Department contended that zones of protection were only to be established around a well that was permitted to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater. Under the circumstances, the provisions of proposed rules 17-3.403(7) and (8) are arbitrary and capricious. 6/ The "Vv" and "Tv" formulae Proposed rule 17-3.403(7)(a) prescribes the methodology where by vertical travel time will be calculated, and therefore whether a particular aquifer will be classified as confined or leaky confined. To this end, the proposed rule provides: ... Determination of vertical travel time for leaky confinement will be by application of the following formulae: Vv= Kv h/nl where: Vv= vertical velocity (feet/day). Kv= vertical hydraulic conductivities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials (feet/day). h= head difference between water table in the surficial aquifer and the potentiometric surface of the producing aquifer (feet). n = effective porosities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials. 1 = distance from the water table to the top of the producing aquifer (feet). Tv= 1/Vv 365 where: Tv= vertical travel time (years). 1 = same as above. Vv= same as above. The "Vv" formula and the "Tv" formula are valid formulae, and are commonly used by hydrogeologists to calculate the vertical velocity and vertical travel time of groundwater. As proposed, the formulae present a reasonable methodology for computing the vertical velocity and vertical travel time of groundwater if the well is producing from one aquifer. The formulae cannot, however, as hereafter discussed, be reasonably applied if tee well is producing from multiple aquifers or if another aquifer intervenes between the surf aquifer and the producing aquifer. While not the most prevalent occurrence in the state wells in the Middle-Gulf regions often do penetrate more than one aquifer and do produce water from more than one aquifer. The rule defines the "Kv" element of the "Vv" formula as the "vertical hydraulic conductivities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials (feet/day)." This is a reasonable definition and will produce a scientifically valid result provided the well does not penetrate multiple aquifers. Should the well penetrate multiple aquifers, the values derived for vertical velocity ("Vv") and vertical travel time ("Tv") will not be accurate since the hydraulic conductivities of the intervening aquifers are not, by the rule definition, factored into the calculation of "Kv". Under such circumstances, whether an aquifer was classified as confined or leaky confined would not be determined by a valid "Kv" but, rather, by chance. Protestants also contend that the rule is vague, arbitrary and capricious because it does not specify the methodology by which "Kv" is to be calculated. There are, however, methodologies commonly accepted by hydrogeologists to derive a scientifically valid "Kv", whether the well penetrates one or more than one aquifer. The infirmity of the rule is not its failure to specify a methodology, but its to include data necessary to produce a meaningful result. The rule defines the "n" element of the Vv formula as "effective porosities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials." This is a reasonable definition and will, though the application of commonly accepted methodologies, produce a scientifically valid result. 7/ The rule defines the element "Delta h" in the Vv formula as the "head difference between the water table in the surficial aquifer and the potentiometric surface of the producing aquifer (feet)", and defines the element "1" as the "distance from the water table to the top of the producing aquifer (feet)." These elements are utilized in the formula to calculate a gradient, and must be measured using the same points of reference to yield a meaningful result. To this end, the proof demonstrates that the definitions are reasonable since they utilize the same points of reference, and that when applied in accordance with accepted hydrogeologic practice will produce a scientifically valid gradient. (See Department exhibit 7). Protestants contend, however, that the definitions of "Delta h" and "1" are vague, arbitrary and capricious because they do not specify when the measurements should be made, do not define "producing aquifer", and do not define "top" of the producing aquifer. For the reasons that follow, Protestants' contentions are found to be without merit. While a water table is a dynamic surface subject to frequent, if not daily fluctuation, resulting from variations in rainfall and the demands of man, and while a potentiometric surface is likewise a dynamic elevation that changes with time and season, protestants failed to demonstrate that there was any particular date or dates that would be most appropriate to make such calculations. Rather, protestants contended that unless such measurements were taken contemporaneously, any derivation of "Delta h" and "1" would not be reliable. While such might be the case, the rule does not mandate a divergence from the accepted hydrogeologic practice of taking such measurements contemporaneously. While the rule does not define "producing aquifer," it is an accepted hydrogeologic term and not subject to confusion. The only confusion in this case was the introduction of the issue of multiple producing aquifers and protestants' contentions that this rendered the Vv formula vague, arbitrary and capricious since it did not factor in such a consideration. Protestants' contention does not, however render the term "producing aquifer" vague. The sole purpose of the Vv and Tv formulas are to determine whether the aquifer from which water is being produced is leaky confined. To establish this, the formulae are applied to calculate whether the vertical travel time is five years or less. If a well is withdrawing water from more than one aquifer it may be necessary to calculate Vv and Tv for each aquifer to discern which of those aquifers are within the 5 year vertical travel time threshold, and therefore subject to G-I reclassification. To this end the rule is not vague, and would adequately address the multiple producing aquifer scenario. While the rule doe not define "top" of the producing aquifer, this term is an accepted hydrogeologic term and is not subject to confusion. In application there may, however, be disagreements among hydrogeologists as to where this line should be established because geologic boundaries are fine gradations, and not sharp lines which would lend themselves to the designation of precise points of reference. This is not, however, a failure of the rule, but a peculiarity of nature, and is subject to scientific proof. Notably, protestants did not demonstrate that "top" of the producing aquifer could be defined with reference to a fixed point. Under the circumstances, "top" of the producing aquifer is a reasonable reference point. Zones of Protection Proposed rule 17-3.408 provides: Determination of the boundaries of the zones of protection shall be based on radii from the wellhead or wellfield (if closely clustered, so that the five year zones of protection are overlapping), measured in 200 feet for the inner zone and five years for the outer zone. The radius of the outer zone shall be determined using the following formula: QT 2 3.14 hn where Q = permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day); T = five years (1825 days); 3.14 = mathematical constant pi; r = radius (feet); h distance from the top of the producing aquifer to the bottom of the hole (feet); n effective porosity. For the purpose of this calculation the following effective porosities for representative Florida aquifers will be used: Floridan .05 Sand and Gravel .2 Biscayne .15 Surficial .2 The Department shall use more site-specific values for "Q", "n", or "h" when available for designation of the zones of protection by the Commission. Proposed rule 17-3.403(8)(a) provides that the inner zone of protection shall be based on a radius from the wellhead or wellfilled, as appropriate, of 200 feet. While denoted as an arbitrary radius, the 200 foot radius was not derived without fact or reason. Rather, it was a result reached at the workshops after consideration of existing regulations that establish buffer zones of 200-500 feet between a public water supply and a pollution source. Conceptually, the 200 foot zone was adopted because it is so small and so close to the well that it essentially constituted a zone of protection of the well head by preventing contaminants from moving into the well opening directly or the annular space around the well casing. Accordingly, the 200 foot zone has a reasonable basis. Its actual delineation is, however, as flawed as that of the five year zone discussed infra. The "r" formula defines the outer zone of protection, and calculates it as a radius equal to the distance groundwater would flow in five years toward the well. The basis for the "r" formula is the formula used to calculate the volume of a cylinder. That formula, V = pi r2 h, yields a simple volumetric measurement without any consideration of velocity. By the introduction of the element "n" (effective porosity), the "r" formula introduces a velocity component which would, properly applied, produce a radius equal to the distance groundwater would flow in 5 years. 8/ As proposed, however, the rule would establish a meaningless line around a well. Under the proposed rule, the Department would calculate "r" based on specified effective porosities ("n") for the Floridan, Biscayne, sand and gravel, and surficial aquifers absent site specific data. The Department is, however, under no requirement to generate site specific data, and currently is mapping the Middle-Gulf region based on the values established by the rule. Absent chance, the areas mapped will bear no relationship to groundwater travel time. The lithology of an aquifer and the surrounding layers is varied and diverse, and directly affects the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. By assuming "n", the "r" formula ignores the varied lithology, and produces a radius that would seldom, if ever, represent the actual rate at which groundwater moved toward any well. 9/ The zone thus circumscribed is an illusion since the groundwaters and contaminants within it may move at a rate significantly greater than or less than 5 years travel time. Notably, the Department has conducted no study or test to validate its proposed methodology. The element "Q" in the "r" formula is defined as the "permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day)." Protestants contend that such definition is vague, arbitrary and capricious because the Department proposes to rely on consumptive use permits issued by the various water management districts to derive "Q", and such permits would not necessarily provide the requisite data. While the proof demonstrates that "Q" cannot always be derived by reference to a consumptive use permit, this does not render the definition of "Q" vague, arbitrary, or capricious. Rather, "Q" is a factual matter, and subject to a factual derivation through reference to consumptive use permits and other site specific data. The element "T" in the "r" formula is defined as "five years (1825) days." By its inclusion, the Department proposes to circumscribe the outer zone of protection at five years groundwater travel time. The concept of a zone of protection is premised on the theory that restrictions should be placed on discharges to groundwater within an area proximate to a public water supply for public health and safety concerns. The five year standard, which is found throughout the rules, was based on the theory that if a contaminant was introduced to groundwater a period of time should be allowed to discover the contamination and remove it or make provision for an alternate water supply before the contaminant reached the public water supply. The five years proposed by the rule was not, however, founded on fact or reason. During the workshops that under scored the proposed rule, the time factor was the subject of considerable discussion and ranged from less than two years to greater than ten years. Based on its own in-house search, the Department initially proposed a 10-year standard. That search revealed that it took 10 to 15 years between the time a contaminant was discovered and cleanup could commence, and between seven and eight years between the time a contaminant was introduced into groundwater and it discovery. Notwithstanding the results of its own in-house search, the Department, in the face of debate, elected to "compromise" and propose a five-year standard. Such standard was not the result of any study to assess its validity, and no data, reports or other research were utilized to derive it. In sum, the five- year standard was simply a "compromise", and was not supported by fact or reason. As previously noted, the lithology of an aquifer and the surrounding layers is varied and diverse, and directly affects the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. The effective porosity of those materials in the Floridan aquifer canvary from to .4 at various places. The rule proposes, however, to use an effective porosity for the Floridan aquifer of .05 to establish "r." The value ascribed to "n" is a critical value, as previously discussed in paragraph 65. It also has a profound impact on the aeral extent of the zone of protection. For example, assuming "Q" equals 3 million gallons and "h" equals 600 feet, an "n" of .02 would result in a radius of 4,406 feet or 1,400 acres, an "n" of .03 would result in a radius of 3,578 fee or 934 acres, an "n" of .05 would result in a radius of 2,787 feet or 560 acres, and an "n" of .2 would result in a radius of 1,393 feet or 140 acres. While an effective porosity of 05 for the Floridan aquifer may be a reasonable value at a particular site, it is not a value that can be reasonably ascribed to the Floridan in general. For this reason, and the reasons heretofore set forth, the rule's specification of an effective porosity of .05 for the Floridan aquifer is unreasonable. Proposed rule 17-3.403(8)(a), sets forth the manner in which the zones of protection will be drawn around a well or wellfield. That proposed rule provides: For well fields whose individual zones of protection overlap due to clustering, a single zone of protection will be calculated in the following manner: Using the permitted average daily withdrawal rate of the wells with overlapping zones of protection, the area on the surface overlying the aquifer equal to the sum of the areas of the five year zones of protection of the individual wells, shall be used to define the area which encircles the perimeter of the wellfield. In cases where a zone of protection of a single well protrudues beyond the calculated perimeter or when the configuration of the wellfield is irregular, the perimeter will be shaped to accommodate the configuration. The surface are encircling the perimeter of the wellfield shall not exceed the total surface area of the overlapping zones of protection for individual wells. In the case of unclustered wells within a wellfield, individual zones of protection around each well will be calculated. As previously discussed, the proposed G-I rules are facially applicable to "community water systems" that hold a " consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater," and which are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers. Under proposed rule 1773.403(8)(a), the five-year zone of protection would be drawn around each of these wells. If the wells are located so close to each other that the five year zones of protection are overlapping (clustered), those wells would be deemed a wellfield by rule definition and a five year zone of protection would be established around it. The proposed rule's description at how to determine and configure a zone of protection around a wellfield is however, vague and ambiguous. While the rule provides that when the configuration of the wellfield is "irregular", the perimeter will be shaped to accommodate the configuration", it sets forth no standard by which the perimeter will be established. Effectively, the rule vests unbridled discretion in the Department to establish the configuration of a wellfield. The Economic Impact Statements Pursuant to the mandate of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, the Department prepared economic impact statements for the proposed revisions to Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The economic impact statements were prepared by Dr. Elizabeth Field, the Department's chief economist, an expert in economics. Dr. Field developed the economic impact statements by examining the proposed rules and discussing their potential impact with Department staff. Additionally, Dr. Field attended the public workshops that were held concerning the proposed rules, and solicited input from those participants. The Florida Home Builders Association and the Florida Petroleum Council submitted data for her consideration, but none of the petitioners, although some were represented at such workshops, responded to her requests for information. The economic impact statements prepared by Dr. Field to address the proposed rules conclude that, apart from the cost to the Department for mapping, there are no direct costs or economic benefits occasioned by the rules. Dr. Field's conclusion was premised on the fact that the proposed rules only establish the eligibility criteria for reclassification of an aquifer to G-I and the standards for discharge to that aquifer. Under the proposed rules, further rulemaking would be required to actually designate a specific aquifer as G-I, and delineate a zone of protection. 10/ Pertinent to this case, proposed rule 17-3.403, provides: The intent of establishing G-I eligibility criteria is to determine which aquifer or aquifer segments qualify for potential reclassification to G-I aquifers. Adoption of these criteria does not imply nor does it designate aquifer or aquifer segments as G-I. Such designation can only be achieved through reclassification by the Commission after eligible segments have been mapped by the Department. (6)... the following procedure shall be used to designate Class G-I aquifers: Rulemaking procedures pursuant to Chapter 17-102, F.A.C., shall be followed; Fact-finding workshops shall be held in the affected area; All local, county, or municipal governments, water management districts, state legislators, regional water supply authorities, and regional planning councils whose districts or jurisdictions include all or part of a proposed G-I aquifer shall be notified in writing by the Department at least 60 days prior to the workshop; A prominent public notice shall be placed in an appropriate newspaper(s) of general circulation in the area of the proposed G-I aquifer at least 60 days prior to the workshop. The notice shall contain a geographic location map indicating the area of the zones of protection and a general description of the impact of reclassification on present and future discharges to groundwater. A notice of a G-I workshop shall be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly prior to the workshop(s). At least 180 days prior to the Commission meeting during which a particular zone of protection will be considered for reclassification, the Department will provide notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly and appropriate newspaper(s) of the intended date of the Commission meeting. The Commission may reclassify an aquifer or aquifer segment as a G-I aquifer within specified boundaries upon consideration of environmental, technological, water quality, institutional (including local land use comprehensive plans), public health, public interest, social and economic factors. When considering a reclassification an aquifer or aquifer segment shall: ....(Be within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined or from leaky confined aquifers.).... Be specifically mapped and delineated by the Department on a detailed map of a scale which would clearly depict the applicable zones or protection. Maps will be grouped and submitted for reclassification generally on a regional basis. Mapping priorities shall follow the Commission directive of February 27, 1985. The remaining areas of the state will be mapped by the Department as time and resources allow. (Emphasis added). While, if and when applied, the proposed rules would certainly have a direct economic impact as a consequence of a reclassification of an aquifer to G-I and the designation of a zone of protection, as well as the standards for discharge to that aquifer, such costs at this stage are not direct or are not quantifiable. When mapped and the zones of protection identified, a reasonable assessment of the economic cost or benefit of the proposal can be addressed. This is specifically reserved by the Commission whereby its decision to reclassify an aquifer as G-I will, pursuant to proposed rule 17-3.403(6) follow rule making procedures and be based on consideration of economic factors. This result obtains whether the affected party is a small business or some other entity. In reaching the conclusion that the economic costs or benefits of the proposed rules, apart from the cost of mapping, do not at this stage have a direct or quantifiable impact, I have not overlooked the "announcement effect" that is occasioned by the announcement of a governmental agency to regulate an activity. Such announcement certainly has a chilling effect on the community that may reasonably be impacted. The economic impact is, however, speculative or not quantifiable in the instant case. Further, the proof does not demonstrate any incorrectness or unfairness in the proposed adoption of the rules occasioned by the EIS prepared in this case.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to variances from the requirements of Rule 40D-0.27(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact William E. Klein (Petitioner) owns two water wells, both in Tampa, Florida. Each water well serves three rental units which are also owned by the Petitioner. One well is located at 302 East North Bay Street. The second well is located at 4113 North Suwanee Street. Each water well is classified as a "limited use community public water system" as defined by Rule 10D-4.024(13)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The wells have been in existence for perhaps as long as eighty years. As of January 1, 1993, limited use community public water system wells must obtain permits to operate. Permits are issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The relevant permit requirements include water testing, submission of an application and a site plan, and payment of a fee. By February 23, 1996, the Department was aware of the Petitioner's wells and had provided notice of the permit requirements to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has met the water testing requirements, but has not submitted applications, site plans, or applicable fees related to these two wells. On May 30, 1996, the Petitioner filed applications for variances, seeks to be excused from submitting the applications, site plans and fees. On June 3, 1996, the Department denied the Petitioner's requests for variances. As grounds for the variance requests, the Petitioner cites financial hardship which will be imposed by payment of the fees. According to the stipulation filed by the parties, the application fee for each well is $110. Of the fee, $75 is retained by the state and $35 is retained by Hillsborough County, where the Petitioner's wells are located. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner is entitled to the requested variances. The evidence fails to establish that there are any costs related to submission of site plans. The Petitioner may prepare and submit site plans without assistance. The evidence fails to establish that there are any costs related to submission of a completed applications for permits. The evidence fails to establish that the total fee of $220 related to the issuance of well permits for six rental units will cause a financial hardship for the Petitioner. At most, the evidence indicates that the payment of the fee may reduce the Petitioner's profit from the rental units.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's requests for the variances at issue in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William E. Klein, Pro Se Thomas Lewis, Representative 8716 Ruth Place Tampa, Florida 33604 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY (STARKEY WELLFIELD) The Authority is a nonprofit five-member interlocal entity created in 1974, pursuant to Section 373.1962, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of planning, designing and operating new sources of water supply to governmental entities in Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Its members include the Counties of Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough and the Cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. The City of New Port Richey also has a seat on the Authority Board. The Authority's revenues are presently derived entirely from the sale of water to its customers. It owns and/or operates five wellfields, some of which are connected by a water transmission pipeline to each other and to wellfields operated or owned by Pinellas County and the City of St. Petersburg. In 1984, the Authority supplied approximately 74 million gallons per day (mgd) to its customers and held consumptive use permits (CUPs) for a total of 94 mgd average and 144 mgd peak or maximum. The Authority anticipates that it will serve approximately 800,000 people in the year 1985. Its master plan, which was last updated in 1982, projects future water demands through 1995 and identifies alternative sources of supply to satisfy those demands. One of the wellfields presently operated by the Authority is the Starkey Wellfield located in Pasco County. The Starkey Wellfield property, located on some 5,400 or 6,947 acres, was acquired in phases by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) over a period of years beginning in the early 1970's. There are two remaining parcels which the District has contracted to acquire in 1985 and 1986. These parcels will be acquired under the "Save Our Rivers" program embodied in Section 373.59, Florida Statutes. The various contracts between the District and the Starkey family contain restrictive covenants which require that "the land remain, as nearly as practicable, in its natural state" and that water withdrawals be restricted so that they "do not substantially and/or permanently damage the lands adjacent to the area." In 1981, the District granted the Authority an exclusive license to operate a wellfield on the Starkey property provided that it maintain the wellfield "as nearly as practicable in its natural state." All cater produced from the property is to be for the water supply needs of the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County, except that those entities can authorize the sale of surplus water. Prior to the Authority's involvement with the Starkey Wellfield, the City of New Port Richey planned and constructed water supply facilities at the extreme western portion of the wellfield. Four wells were originally permitted for 3 mgd average and 4.5 mgd maximum. In 1979, in conjunction with Pasco County as a co-applicant, the permit was modified to provide for increased withdrawals of 8 mgd average and 15 mgd peak. This increase was not implemented due to contractual problems between the City and the County. Then, in December of 1981, the Authority became involved in the Starkey Wellfield. Pursuant to a Water Transfer and Management Agreement and a Water Supply Agreement, the City of New Port Richey's four existing wells were transferred to the Authority and the Authority was authorized to construct additional wells and sell the water to the City and Pasco County. As noted above, any surplus water could be sold to others. These agreements have a term of 35 years, with an option of a 35-year renewal period. If the agreements are terminated, the facilities are to revert back to the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County. In 1982, the Authority, the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County obtained the present CUP authorizing the construction and operation of a total of 14 wells and permitting withdrawals at an average annual rate of 8 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 15 mgd. This CUP expires on February 3, 1986. The ten presently operating wells have the capacity to produce 22 mgd. The financing arrangements for the construction of the Starkey Wellfield are not sufficient to complete construction. There is a shortfall of about $720,000, which the Authority plans to make up in revenues from the facility. On December 20, 1983, the Authority, with the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County as co-applicants, applied to the District for a modification of the 1982 CUP to increase withdrawals from 8 mgd average, 15 mgd maximum to 11 mgd average and 21 mgd maximum. At the time, the Authority believed that the increases were justified by the projected water demands of the City and Pasco County. In preparing its water supply plan submitted to the District on March 1, 1984, the Authority determined that it would be feasible to interconnect the Starkey Wellfield with the Cypress Creek pipeline and other major production facilities. In order to finance this pipeline interconnection and again believing that there was sufficient demand in Pasco County and the City of New Port Richey to justify increased withdrawals, the Authority, along with the City and the County, amended the application to modify their CUP on March 23, 1984. This amendment sought average annual withdrawals of 15 mgd and maximum daily withdrawals of 25 mgd. Also requested was the relocation of 2 wells that have not yet been constructed. Between 1971 and 1982, five pump tests have been performed at the Starkey Wellfield, and monitor wells are installed throughout the property. Except for the northwest corner of the property, existing withdrawals have not changed the natural condition of the property. Utilizing these various tests and monitoring results to predict the hydrologic effects of the Authority's proposed increased withdrawals, the District found that the potentiometric drawdown and the water table drawdown at the requested rates would each increase to almost twice the drawdown at the currently permitted rates. The withdrawal of water will cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered more than five feet outside the northern and southern boundaries of the Starkey Wellfield property. The one-foot water table drawdown anticipated from the increased withdrawals could have an adverse effect upon lands immediately adjacent to the north and west. Likewise, this one foot water table drawdown could cause adverse ecological effects on forests and wetlands within the Starkey Wellfield properties. Approximately 40 percent of the Starkey property is high quality wetlands. In June of 1984, a three-day field validation multi-pump test was performed for the Authority. These test results were not available to the District at the time it performed its evaluation. The June tests showed aquifer characteristics different than those previously thought to exist. A much higher transmissivity level was found and the differing leakance values throughout the property demonstrated that the aquifer beneath the Starkey Wellfield is not homogenous. A higher transmissivity level decreases the extent of potentiometric surface drawdown. After substituting the new aquifer characteristics found from the June pump tests, the Authority's computer modeling demonstrates no violation of District hydrologic rules with respect to potentiometric surface and water table drawdowns at the increased level of withdrawals. The Authority's ecologist did not feel that the increased withdrawals would adversely affect natural conditions on the Starkey property, stating that a one-foot water table drawdown is well within the adaptive range of wetland vegetation. In addition, the Authority will maintain its existing ecological monitoring plan on site. The District has not established regulatory levels for the rate of flow of streams or other water courses, for the potentiometric surface or for the surface water in the vicinity of the Starkey Wellfield. Deep monitor wells on the property indicate that there has been no increase in chloride concentrations. Increased withdrawals are not expected to induce saltwater encroachment. If it is found that the potentiometric surface at the Starkey property boundary is lowered more than five feet, an alternative pumping schedule can be put into effect to prevent that occurrence. The pattern of production can be changed by shifting to different wells during the dry season. Increased withdrawals will not lower off-site water tables, lakes or other impoundments by more than one foot, and the potentiometric surface will not be lowered below sea level. The Authority's proposed consumptive use of 15 mgd average would withdraw 2,777.77 gallons per acre per day if the Starkey Wellfield contains 5,400 acres, and 2,159.13 gallons per acre per day if it contains 6,947 acres. Its present permitted withdrawals average more than 1,000 gallons per acre per day. The Authority's proposed increased withdrawals will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water. BEXLEY (CENTRAL PASCO WELLFIELD) Bexley owns 14,510 acres of land in Pasco County located immediately east of the Starkey Wellfield. The land contains improved pasture, crops, planted pine and some cypress heads and ponds. He presently holds a CUP authorizing a combined average annual withdrawal of 2,416,000 gallons per day with a maximum withdrawal of 11,520,000 gallons per day. Such withdrawals are permitted for agricultural irrigation purposes and come from five wells. In August of 1983, Bexley entered into a contract with Pasco County. The contract requires Bexley to produce and supply to Pasco County an average of 9 mgd of public supply water and a maximum of 13 mgd. Pasco County is given the exclusive right to purchase these amounts and, indeed, must pay for the water made available, whether it is accepted or not. The term of the agreement between Bexley and the County is 33 years. Pursuant to his contract with Pasco County, Bexley applied to the District on December 21, 1983 to modify his existing CUP. A decrease in agricultural withdrawals was requested, as were five additional wells to produce 10.0 mgd average and 13.5 mgd maximum for Pasco County's public water supply. The five additional wells are to be located on 10,848 acres of land, to be known as the Central Pasco Wellfield, located within the 14,510 acres owned or controlled by Mr. Bexley. The modification would result in total (agricultural irrigation and public water supply use) withdrawals of 11,881,000 gallons per day annual average and 23,580,000 gallons per day maximum. In order to determine the anticipated hydrologic effect of the proposed withdrawals, Bexley's hydrologist reviewed and analyzed previous studies of regional hydrogeology and other wellfields prepared by the District, the United States Geological Survey and private consultants. He also conducted a "slug test" and a single well pump test over a period of six days. The aquifer characteristics of the Bexley property were found to be within the range of values derived from other regional testing. Assuming an homogenous aquifer, these characteristics were used in computer modeling to predict the effect of increased withdrawals on and off the Bexley property. The five-foot potentiometric drawdown is confined to the Bexley property, as is the three-foot water table drawdown. The effects of any potentiometric surface and/or water table drawdowns on agricultural crops in the vicinity of the production wells can be offset by irrigation. No lake or other impoundment off-site will be lowered more than one foot. The proposed withdrawals will not cause the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level. Regulatory levels have not been established by the District for potentiometric surface, stream flows or surface water on the Bexley property. Although there was no deep monitor well testing done, salt water encroachment is not anticipated as a result of the proposed withdrawals. After an independent evaluation, the District staff also concluded that the proposed Bexley withdrawals would not violate the District's hydrologic rules. The proposed public water supply use of 10 mgd average from 10,848 acres will average 921.80 gallons per acre per day. The combined public supply and agricultural irrigation use of 11.8 mgd from 14,510 acres will average 818.78 gallons per acre per day. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG (SOUTH PASCO WELLFIELD) The City of Saint Petersburg owns and operates the South Pasco Wellfield, located on a 589 acre site to the south of the Bexley property. This wellfield has been in operation since 1973, and the City has a CUP to withdraw water at the rate of 16.9 mgd annual average and 24 mgd maximum as part of a public supply system. This CUP expires on September 1, 1992. The CUP requires the City to balance production from its South Pasco Wellfield equally with its two other well fields -- Section 21 and Cosme-Odessa. Among the terms and conditions of the CUP are that three regulatory wells be monitored so as not to cause the cumulative weekly average elevations of the potentiometric surface of the aquifer to be lower than the regulatory level set for each well. One of the regulatory wells is located on State Road 54, about 1.5 miles south of the Bexley southern property boundary. The regulatory level set for that well is that the potentiometric surface not be below 42.0 feet above mean sea level on a cumulative weekly average basis. On a noncumulative weekly average basis, the elevations may be 37.0 feet above mean sea level. Since 1974, average water levels at the State Road 54 regulatory well have fluctuated from 44.8 feet to 49.4 feet. Bexley's proposed combined average withdrawals may cause a potentiometric surface drawdown of between 1.3 and 1.9 feet at the State Road 54 regulatory well. The City of Saint Petersburg presented evidence that if the City pumps at its permitted average of 16.9 mgd and Bexley pumps at its average of 11.8 mgd, the City will only be able to withdraw 14.1 mgd without violating the regulatory level for the State Road 54 well. However, this result was obtained by starting off with the normal water levels in the State Road 54 well as they existed in 1980-81, a particularly dry year, and then comparing them with the results obtained if Bexley were to pump its total combined average of 11.8 mgd. This methodology fails to take into account Bexley's permitted withdrawals of 2.4 mgd as they existed in 1980-81, and in effect, double-counted them by initially ignoring their impact on the 1980-81 water levels and adding them back in as a part of the new combined total. In addition, the exhibits and testimony offered by the City failed to demonstrate that the cumulative weekly average elevations would go below 42.0 feet if Bexley were pumping at its requested average rate. While the City of St. Petersburg did utilize its permitted average capacity in 1975, for the past five years it has averaged only between 10.1 and 12.3 million gallons per day from its South Pasco Wellfield. Even if the regulatory level of the State Road 54 well were in jeopardy of violation, it would be possible to shift the pumpage among the eight production wells to counter such a result. The Bexley property is located approximately 3.5 miles from the center of pumpage at the South Pasco Wellfield. THE OTTO POTTBERG TRUST PROPERTY The Otto Pottberg Trust Property, owned by the Pottberg family since 1936, is comprised of 8,000 acres of land located immediately north of the Starkey Wellfield. The property is used for cattle grazing and a nursery operation, and wildlife on the property is abundant. The intervenor Pottberg has observed that since the operation of the well field began on the Starkey property, the cattle ponds on the Pottberg property dry up and vegetation and grasses are adversely affected during the dry seasons. He has observed a noticeable decline in all lake levels. He fears that increased withdrawals from the Starkey well field would diminish the use of his property for cattle grazing and nursery operations, would create a fire hazard and would adversely affect plant, animal and human life on his property. The Authority's experts found no surface drawdowns which would extend into the Pottberg property. The District determined that the potentiometric surface drawdown resulting from the proposed increased withdrawals from the Starkey Well field would exceed five feet on the northern boundary--thus extending into the property owned by the Otto Pottberg Trust. Likewise, the water table drawdown of one foot extends beyond the property at the northwest corner. However, there was no evidence that there are lakes on the Pottberg property at or near the northwest corner of the Starkey property, or that there is an existing CUP well on the Pottberg property in the area where the potentiometric surface drawdown exceeds five feet. PASCO COUNTY'S WATER DEMANDS AND SUPPLIES Pasco County is legally authorized and required to provide an adequate public water supply for its citizens. Based upon per capita use and estimates of population growth, the quantity of public supply water needed by Pasco County has been estimated by various experts as follows: YEAR AVERAGE MGD MAXIMUM MGD 1985 11.3 20.3 1986 12.3 1988 12.8 28.6 1990 16.4 29.5 1993 18.8 40.8 1995 21.8 39.5 2000 27.2 49.0 In the year 1983, the Pasco County Utility Department actually utilized 8.1 mgd for public water supply purposes. Pasco County has a contract right and obligation to purchase the following amounts of water produced by the Authority at the Starkey Wellfield: YEAR AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM MGD 1985 7 1986 6.7 1987 6.4 1988 6.1 1989 5.8 1990 and thereafter 5.5 The City of New Port Richey also has an allocated entitlement to the remaining amounts of water withdrawn from the Starkey Wellfield under its current permit. The Water Supply Agreement for the Starkey Well field recognizes that the City and County will have increasing water supply needs, and provides that they may, upon giving the Authority two years prior notice, increase their entitlement. The Pasco County Utility Department also has 13 CUPs covering public supply wells located on or near the coast. These CUPs, which were renewed in May of 1984 and expire in May of 1992, authorize a total withdrawal of 4.54 mgd average. The majority of these wells are located in coastal areas along and to the west of the 10-foot potentiometric surface contour near the saltwater- freshwater interface. Wells west of the 10-foot contour line generally have high chloride levels. The County has experienced inefficiency in operating some of these wells, and they are considered suitable mainly for fire control and peaking purposes. A condition of the 13 CUPs requires a proportionate, or gallon by gallon, decrease of average day withdrawals should Pasco County acquire another source of public water supply. Pinellas County is contractually obligated to provide Pasco County with up to 10 mgd upon demand. Pasco County controls how much water it will take from the Pinellas County water system. This water is produced by the Authority from other wellfields located within Pasco County, is purchased by Pinellas County and then is transported to Pinellas County. Upon request by Pasco County, the water is then transported back up north again to Pasco County. The water travels approximately 25 to 40 miles from Pasco County to Pinellas County and back to Pasco County. The Pinellas County water system has sufficient capacity to continue to provide 10 mgd to Pasco County. Pasco County does not currently utilize the full 10 mgd, partially because such use would currently present difficulties in fulfilling its contractual obligation or entitlement from the Starkey Wellfield. The contract between Pinellas and Pasco Counties was not placed into evidence. No evidence was presented as to whether Pasco County is either able to or desires to eliminate or change its contract with Pinellas County. It was the position of the Pasco County Director of Public Works and Utilities that it would be more cost-effective to have an alternative source of public water supply. There was insufficient evidence produced at the hearing to determine if the Pinellas County water provided to Pasco County is more or less expensive than the rates presently charged by the Authority or by the contractual agreement between Bexley and Pasco County.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a permit to Out of Bounds, Inc. (Out of Bounds, or applicant), to construct, operate, and close a construction and demolition debris disposal facility (C&D facility) in Hernando County.
Findings Of Fact On September 8, 2008, Out of Bounds applied to DEP for a permit to construct, operate, and close an unlined C&D facility on 26 acres located at 29251 Wildlife Lane, Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida, to be known as the Croom C&D Debris Landfill and Recycling Facility. There were four requests by DEP for additional information, which was provided, and the application was complete on September 3, 2009. In 1994, a previous owner of the property was issued a permit to construct, operate, and close an unlined C&D facility on the property. That owner did not proceed with construction, and the permit expired in 1999. The Out of Bounds application was for a new permit, not for the renewal of an existing permit. Robert McCune owns property adjacent to the proposed C&D facility. He and his wife reside on the property, keep horses in stables on the property, and use the property for horseback riding business, which includes hosting public horseback riding events. Hernando SSK was formed by David Belcher and one or more others to continue the business being operated by Paige Cool when she died during this proceeding. The business is conducted on ten acres of property Cool owned approximately one mile west of the proposed C&D facility. Belcher is one of two co-personal representatives of Cool’s estate. Belcher and his wife hold a mortgage on the property. When the estate is finalized, the Belchers plan to assign their mortgage to Hernando SSK. It is not clear who will own the property after the estate is finalized, or how Hernando SSK will be authorized to continue the business on the property. Western pleasure and trail-riding horses are boarded on the Cool property, which is known as At Home Acres. The business also has access to 20 adjoining acres to the east, which are used for grazing. Access to the horseback riding trails in the Withlacoochee State Forest is conveniently located just across Wildlife Lane from the property, to the north. A manager resides in a double-wide trailer on the property, and another trailer and a barn to the east of it are leased out. There is a potable water well on the property, which is the source of drinking water for the manager and lessees. Well Setback In the application process, Out of Bounds disclosed two potable water wells within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area. The application provided that those wells would be converted to non-potable use. Out of Bounds did not disclose the existence of a third potable water well, on property owned by Daniel Knox, which is within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area. When the Knox well was brought to the attention of DEP, Out of Bounds admitted that the well was permitted for potable use but took the position that it was not for potable use because it was not in use, was not connected to a source of electricity, and appeared to be abandoned. Daniel Knox and his brother, Robert Knox, had the Knox well dug and permitted in 1979 in anticipation of using it as the source of potable water for a residence to be built on the property for their parents and sister. The Knoxes have not yet built a residence on the property, but it still is their intention to do so and to use the well as the source of potable water. Since its construction, the well had been maintained and operated periodically using a gasoline-powered generator so that it will be ready for use when needed. During the application process, Out of Bounds also did not disclose the existence of a fourth potable water well within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area on property once owned by Larry Fannin and now owned by his daughter and son-in- law, Robert McCune. The McCune well was permitted and installed in mid-2005 while the sale of the land from Fannin to the McCunes was pending. The intended purpose of the well was to provide potable water for the use of the McCunes when they started to reside on the property. Despite this intent, and unbeknownst to the McCunes, Fannin had the well permitted as an irrigation well. In mid-2008, the McCunes began to reside on their property. At first, they resided in a mobile home. They ran pipes from the well to the mobile home to provide drinking water. Eventually, later in 2008, they began construction of a residence on the property and ran pipes from the well to the house to provide drinking water to the house. The well was being used for drinking water before the Out of Bounds application was complete. (They also use water from the well from time to time for irrigation purposes--i.e., when they host horseback-riding events on weekends, they truck water from the well to their horseback-riding arena to apply to the ground to control dust.) Groundwater flows from the disposal area of the proposed landfill to the west and southwest. The Knox and McCune wells are down-gradient of the groundwater flow from the proposed disposal area. Out of Bounds represented at the hearing that it would accept a permit condition that no C&D debris, but only clean debris, would be disposed within 500 feet of the Knox and McCune wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(15)-(16) and (24). However, there was no evidence of new designs, plans, or operations that would be used to meet such a permit condition. Liner and Leachate Collection Existing unlined C&D facilities in the Southwest District report various parameters that exceed groundwater quality standards and criteria. These include arsenic, benzene, iron, aluminum, nitrate, ammonia, vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, 3- and 4-methyl phenols, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Arsenic and benzene are primary (health-based) groundwater quality standards. The others are secondary standards that relate to taste, odor, and aesthetics. The likely source of the reported arsenic violations in the Southwest District is wood treated with chromate copper arsenate (CCA). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(11). Out of Bounds proposes to not accept CCA-treated wood and to use a trained “spotter” to exclude CCA-treated wood from the landfill. This is an appropriate measure to prevent arsenic violations, and is now required for C&D facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(7)(d), (8), and (20). It was not clear from the evidence whether the C&D facilities in the Southwest District with arsenic violations accepted CCA-treated wood. Even if they did, the operational plan proposed by Out of Bounds to exclude CCA-treated wood and to use a trained spotter is not a guarantee that no CCA-treated wood will enter the landfill. A C&D facility would not be expected to dispose of material that would result in benzene contamination. The reported benzene violations suggest that unauthorized material contaminated with benzene nonetheless makes its way into C&D facilities in the Southwest District. The evidence was not clear whether a trained spotter was used at those facilities. Whether or not a spotter was used at those facilities, having a trained spotter would not guarantee that no benzene-contaminated material will enter the landfill proposed by Out of Bounds. Out of Bounds suggested that ammonia violations result from C&D facilities accepting yard trash. However, there was no evidence of a connection between acceptance of yard trash and ammonia violations. The operational plan proposed by Out of Bounds to “cover as you go” is the accepted best practice to control hydrogen sulfide odor, which comes from wet drywall. Out of Bounds suggested that its cover plan would prevent any sulfate violations, but there was no evidence to prove it. There was no evidence as to whether the C&D facility proposed by Out of Bounds would be substantially different from the other existing C&D facilities in DEP’s Southwest District. Absent such evidence, Out of Bounds did not provide reasonable assurances that its proposed facility would not cause groundwater quality violations. The site for the C&D facility proposed by Out of Bounds is internally drained. There are no surface waters onsite or within a mile of the site. There was no evidence of a surficial aquifer above the Floridan aquifer. Rainfall entering the Out of Bounds property migrates downward into the Floridan aquifer. Once in the aquifer, there is a horizontal component of groundwater water flow in a generally southwest direction, towards the Knox and McCune wells. Contaminated leachate from the proposed C&D facility would migrate with the groundwater. Out of Bounds suggests that a thick clay layer under the site of its proposed facility would prevent the downward migration of groundwater into the Floridan aquifer. There are several reasons why the clay layer does not provide the reasonable assurance of a liner that contamination from the proposed landfill would not reach the Floridan aquifer. Clay is much more permeable than a geomembrane meeting DEP’s specifications for use as a liner. The clay on the proposed site is on the order of at least a thousand times more permeable. (Out of Bounds appeared to confuse the permeability of such a geomembrane with the allowable permeability of the geosynthetic clay layer or compacted clay layer underlying the geomembrane. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(4)(f).) In the application process, Out of Bounds relied on the clay layer for purposes of sinkhole prevention and mitigation, not for reasonable assurance that no liner was needed. The limestone formation underlying the site is highly variable, with numerous pinnacles; for that reason, the thickness of the clay layer also is highly variable, making it difficult to excavate the proposed landfill with complete assurance that the clay layer would not be penetrated. To provide reasonable assurance for purposes of sinkhole prevention and mitigation, Out of Bounds proposed to leave or create a clay layer at least six feet thick underlying the bottom of the proposed landfill. Because the site is in an area of high recharge to the Floridan aquifer and drains entirely internally, the clay layer alone does not provide reasonable assurance that there will be no downward migration of contaminated groundwater to the Floridan aquifer. Reasonable assurance requires a liner and leachate collection system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP deny the application for a C&D facility made by Out of Bounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2011, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronda L. Moore, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John R. Thomas, Esquire Law Office of John R. Thomas, P.A. 233 Third Street North, Suite 101 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3818 Timothy W. Weber, Esquire Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A. Post Office Box 41100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743-1100 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue This is a procurement protest. The ultimate issue is whether the Respondent’s award of the "Agreement for the Construction and Operation of a Seawater Desalination Plant and Water Purchase Agreement" ("WPA") to Intervenor, S & W Water, LLC ("S&W") on July 19, 1999, is contrary to Tampa Bay Water's (TBW’s) governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the proposal specifications, or is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Additional issues presented for decision are: (1) whether Petitioner has standing to maintain this protest; and (2) whether, by participating in the procurement process, Petitioner has waived or is estopped from claiming irregularities arising out of that process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that TBW enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's Formal Protest. Jurisdiction is reserved for consideration of S&W's request for a determination of improper purpose under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, if such request is made by motion within 10 days from the issuance of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 25th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles W. Pittman, Esquire 400 North Tampa Street Suite 1040 Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard A. Harrison, Esquire John W. Wilcox, Esquire Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, P.A. Post Office Box 2111 Barnett Plaza, Suite 1240 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33601-2111 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3950 John H. Rains, III, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 One Tampa City Center, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33601
Findings Of Fact On December 31, 1976, Respondent's territorial jurisdiction was expanded by transfer of substantial areas formerly regulated by other water management districts. The transfer was effected pursuant to legislative revision of Section 373.069, F.S., which delineates the geographic boundaries of Florida's water management districts. The following rule promulgated by Respondent became effective on January 31, 1977, and was amended on February 3, 1981: 40C-4.031 (previously 16I-4.04, Florida Administrative Code). Implementation. These regulations shall become effective February 1, 1981, throughout the District and will be implemented in those areas transferred to the St. Johns River Water Management District from the Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District and the Southwest Florida Water Management District on the same date. Implementation in other areas will be effected pursuant to public hearing at subsequent dates determined by the Board. The regulations implemented by the above rule establish permitting procedures for projects which involve holding, diversion, or discharge of significant quantities of water. However, permits are required only in the transferred territory. Petitioner owns 11,500 acres located within the territory where permits are required. Petitioner seeks to improve his property for agricultural purposes, which involves the holding and diversion of surface waters. He has accepted Respondent's determination that his property is within the permitting area and has filed the requisite application. However, Petitioner contends that he is unable reasonably to confirm Respondent's determination that his property is situated in the regulated territory. Respondent demonstrated that a determination can be made by comparing the statutory descriptions of Respondent's jurisdiction prior to and after the transfer, and has maps available which reflect the permitting area. To accomplish this task independently requires knowledge of legal territorial descriptions (section, township, range) and a laborious comparison of legal descriptions set out in the 1975 and 1977 versions of the Florida Statutes. At the time reorganization of the water management districts became effective (December 31, 1976) , Respondent had limited regulatory capability. Its decision to implement permitting only in the transferred territory was based on this limited capability and the need to preserve continuity 1/ in areas where permits had previously been required. In the years following this decision, Respondent has continued to require permits only in those areas transferred in 1976. The evidence established that the boundary between the regulated and unregulated areas is one of convenience and has no hydrological or other scientific basis. Respondent is considering a revision of its rules to become effective sometime in 1982. This revision may enlarge the permitting territory and modify the criteria for grant or denial of permits. Petitioner asserts that his application is being evaluated by rules not yet adopted and fears that new standards may be applied after hearing on the application, which is now under consideration pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), F.S., (DOAH Case No. 81-1588). Hearing is scheduled for December, 1981. In support of this contention, Petitioner points to the technical staff report prepared in May, 1981, which recommends denial of the application giving, among others, the following reasons: Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase 1 of the Upper Basin Plan catalogue a history of a diminish- ing water resource in the upper basin. The water resources in the upper basin have been harmed and the proposed project aggravates the existing harm to the resource. Moreover the proposed project is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district for the upper basin. Resolutions 75-11 and 81-2, the 1977 Management Plan, and Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase I of the Upper Basin Plan indicate that the objectives of the District are to curtail inter-basin diversion and maintain and enhance, if possible, the existing hydro- logic regime in the upper basin. The pro- posed project is not in conformance with either of these statutory requirements. (Emphasis added.) An earlier technical staff report prepared in November, 1980, recommended grant of the application, with some modification. This report did not refer to inter-basin diversion.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether sufficient grounds exists for the Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, to terminate Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr.'s employment with the Authority because of the matters alleged in the Letter of Termination dated February 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Authority, was a governmental agency with membership held by Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. It is charged with the responsibility of providing water resource management for its members. In November, 1994, the Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr., then employed for 9 1/2 years by the Authority as a maintenance technician, was under the supervision of Ben Nevel, lead supervisor for his crew and Harry Vogel, the facilities maintenance supervisor at Cypress Creek pump station. Just before Thanksgiving that year, his crew was given the responsibility of removing certain supposedly above ground aluminum pipe belonging to Pinellas County and replacing it with buried PVC pipe on the county's well field on Cross Bar Ranch, owned by Pinellas County. On the last day of the project Respondent was working by himself at the job site doing those things necessary to complete the project. This included removing three aluminum pipes and replacing them with three PVC pipes. In the course of the removal of the aluminum pipe, two pipes were damaged by Respondent because they were buried and he could not see them. When Respondent attempted to bury the three pieces of PVC pipe, he found that he needed some pipe lubricant in order to get them joined and called the pump station to have someone bring it. The lubricant was brought to the site by Mr. Vogel about noon, and the two men talked about the project. According to Mr. Vogel, Respondent made no mention of any damaged pipe nor did Vogel see any damaged pipe while he was at the site. Vogel adamantly denies that he ever, either that day or at any other time, told Respondent that he could throw away damaged pipe. The instructions that Vogel had left with Mr. Nevel for transmittal to the crew was that the removed pipe was to be placed in storage at the north end of the ranch because it belonged to Pinellas County, not to the Authority, and even if the pipe was damaged, the ends might be used for fittings. It is not clear whether Respondent knew the pipe belonged to the county or to the cattle company which had originally owned the ranch. Notwithstanding, Respondent took the two damaged pipes back to the Cypress Creek pumping station where, without speaking to anyone about what he proposed to do, he placed them in the trash dumpster for disposal. The following day, after completing his day's work, Respondent noted that the pipe was still in the dumpster and, without seeking approval from anyone, removed it from the dumpster, placed it in his truck, and that same day, sold it to All American Metal Recycling in Land O'Lakes, Florida, for $29.00 which he kept for his personal use. He collects scrap aluminum and copper in order to sell them. Respondent admits that as an Authority employee, he did not have the authority to take property owned by the Authority or its members for his own use. Ordinarily, he admits, the disposal of Authority-owned property had to be approved. The authority for approval, as contained in the agency's standard operating procedure for disposal of Authority assets, dated February 14, 1994, was the Cypress Creek storekeeper. Though it is not written, the Authority has a policy against employees taking material out of the dumpsters at the Cypress Creek facility. It was Toler's understanding, however, that old, unusable pieces of piping and wood could be thrown away, but equipment and property that had value had to be turned into Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, who would evaluate it for disposal or repair. At no time did Respondent have the authority to make that determination. Mr. Toler admits he was aware of the Authority's policy on the disposal of property as noted in the February 14 SOP, as it had been outlined at no lees than two safety meetings he had attended. He understood that if he threw property away without authority, he could be fired. In fact, he admits, Mr. Vogel had so advised him of that. In the instant case, however, he contends, Mr. Vogel told him on the last day of the project in issue, in response to his inquiry, that he should throw the damaged pipe away. This was, as stated earlier, categorically denied by Mr. Vogel. Respondent also indicates that on the second day of the project, pipe being removed was damaged. That pipe was taken to the north pasture and stacked near other, undamaged pipe. The total amount of aluminum pipe removed in this project consisted of approximate one hundred twenty foot long "sticks". Respondent well knew he could not take and sell the stacked pipe, even that which was damaged. Respondent claims that no one saw him put the damaged pipe into the dumpster. He did not think about the opportunity to salvage the pipe when Mr. Vogel told him to throw it away or even when he brought it back and threw it into the dumpster. It was not until the next day when, after work, he saw the pipe still in the dumpster, that it occurred to him to take it, he claims. Respondent admits he has taken scrap metal and sold it before and claims others have done so, too. When he put this pipe in the dumpster he realized that others might take it, so he was somewhat surprised when it was still there the next day. Respondent also admits he did not tell Mr. Vogel how he had disposed of the pipe at first. Once the situation came under investigation, however, as a result of an inquiry regarding missing pipe from the Cross Bar Ranch project, he did so. He admits that sometime after the day he took and sold the pipe as scrap, but before the investigation was commenced, Mr. Vogel asked him what he had done with the pipe, and Respondent replied he had thrown it away. A few days later, in Vogel's office, when the investigation had begun, Mr. Vogel again asked Respondent what he had done with the pipe, and this time Respondent admitted to scrapping it. In the course of the investigation, Respondent spoke with Mr. Capp, a Cypress Creek engineer, about the allegation. In that conversation, held in Mr. Capp's office while no one else was present, Respondent admitted selling the broken pipe for scrap and advised that Mr. Vogel had told him to throw it away. At that time, he offered to replace the pipe, but his offer was not accepted. Some time later, and prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing, he was given a letter by Mr. Capp placing him on administrative leave pending investigation. At that time, Mr. Capp denied knowing what was in the letter. On February 8, 1995 a pre-disciplinary hearing was held with Respondent and counsel present at which time Respondent was given an opportunity to tell his side of the story. At that time, he did not mention any other individuals who had taken scrap from the dumpster, nor had he ever told Mr. Vogel, Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy about that. He claims he does not know of any cases where either Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy knew of others taking scrap but not being disciplined. However, Respondent is of the opinion Mr. Vogel knows what is going on but he cannot be sure. As was stated previously, Respondent has taken scrap from the dumpster before and claims Mr. Vogel knew it. Vogel, predictably, denies that. Some time after the pre-disciplinary hearing, after Kennedy received the information regarding the incident as determined therein, he discharged Respondent for several violations of the Authority's personnel rules. These included the removal and sale of the scrap pipe owned by Pinellas County, committing a breach of public trust, and committing a breach of member government trust which was deleterious to the Authority in that, in Kennedy's opinion, it undermined the public's faith and confidence in the Authority's public service responsibilities. Kennedy asserts that the relationship between the Authority and its member governments requires that each cooperate with the other in the mission to supply water to the public. Trust and confidence are essential elements of that relationship. Employees of the Authority and its member governments frequently are in and out of each others' facilities. If a member government loses trust in an Authority employee, the Authority's ability to efficiently perform its function would be hampered. This is a reasonable and supportable position and it is so found. In the past, the Authority has discharged employees for violating employee rules which reflect adversely on Authority integrity. One was discharged for the improper use of an Authority vehicle, and others have been discharged for violations of the property disposal policy. It would appear that Mr. Toler has not been treated differently than any others who were found to have violated similar policies. Since February, 1944, when the Authority adopted its policy regarding disposal of property, three employees, including Respondent, have removed materials from the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility for their own use. Among these are Mr. Nevel who admits to taking electric wire and three discarded printers. Nothing taken by the others included aluminum pipe, however. Capp, Kennedy and Vogel all deny knowing that employees were taking scrap. Respondent cannot say that any of them did know. Consistent with that philosophy, Mr. Kennedy indicates he would have discharged Respondent for placing the scrap in the dumpster whether or not he sold it. By the same token, he would have discharged Respondent had he taken and sold the pipe, even if he had not placed it in the dumpster. Another incident arose in June, 1995, just prior to the hearing, involving the potential disposal of scrap pipe. Mr. Kennedy learned that a stick of aluminum pipe was in the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility. The pipe, owned by the Authority, had been placed there by Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, after Mr. Nevel used the ends to retrofit some piping at the Cross Bar Ranch. When this was discovered, Mr. Kennedy directed the pipe be recovered and held for possible future use or sale. Whereas Respondent contends this action was an attempt at a cover-up, it is more likely the result of an unintentional discard of potentially useful pipe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the East Coast Regional Water Supply Authority deny Respondent's Petition for Relief and Enter a Final Order discharging him effective February 15, 1995. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted but irrelevant to any disputed issue of fact. Accepted. - 8. Accepted. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. Accepted. 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's counsel has identified his Proposed Findings of Fact by letter rather than number. For the sake of consistency in this Order they will be re- identified herein with numbers. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a proper Finding of Fact but more a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 North brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire Battle & Edenfield, P.A. 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 General Manager West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Donald D. Conn General Counsel West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621
