The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Respondents Falkner to transfer and modify a Water Use Permit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) is responsible for regulation and protection of water resources in the geographic area involved in this proceeding. Since 1994, John Falkner has owned the property in Hillsborough County which is the subject of this proceeding. The Falkner property is farmed by Christopher Falkner, the owner's brother. Prior to purchasing the land, the Falkners farmed the property, also known as the Rogers farm, through a lease arrangement with the previous owner. Rose Ann DeVito owns property to the south of the Falkner property. In the time since Ms. DeVito purchased the property, the elevation of Sumner Road has been raised and culverts were replaced. A fish farm was constructed in close proximity to her property. The result of this and other development has been to direct all the water flow from the surrounding area into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. Drainage patterns in the area of Ms. DeVito's property have been altered since she first occupied the property. A ditch along Sumner Road which used to handle runoff from her property has been blocked by a neighbor's driveway. Maintenance on the ditch, allegedly a county responsibility, is described as poor. The ditch at the rear of Ms. DeVito's property handled water flow to Bullfrog Creek until the water flow became blocked, and the water diverted onto her property. The effect is that Ms. DeVito's property often contains a large amount of water. A substantial amount of sand is visible on her property, allegedly deposited by water flow. According to Ms. DeVito, both the county and the District have blamed the Falkner farm for the water-deposited sand. Charles and Diana Booth own property adjacent and to the south of the Falkner property. From 1992 to 1994, the Booths suffered from water running off the Falkner/Rogers farm and flooding the Booth property. A flood of the Booth property in the Fall of 1994 was not caused by irrigation but was related to a ten inch rainfall event at the Falkner farm. A ten inch rainfall exceeds a 25 year storm event and would likely result in widespread flooding. The Booths' pasture, top soil and driveway were eroded by the flooding. During the two years of flooding, Mr. Booth complained on several occasions about the flooding to the Falkners' foreman, "Cleo." The complaints were not relayed to Mr. Falkner. In October 1994, Mr. Booth reported the problem to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Soon after the complaint was made, a representative of the District inspected the property and determined that a ditch needed maintenance. Shortly thereafter, the ditch was cleaned and a berm was installed to redirect runoff away from the Booth property. There has been no further flooding of the Booth property. In October 1995, Mr. Booth became concerned that a ditch was filling with sand and would not continue to handle the runoff. After voicing his concern, a water diverter was installed in the ditch and appears to have remedied the situation. At the time the Falkners began to lease the Rogers property, an existing water use permit, numbered 206938.01, had been issued and was valid for the farm. The Falkners have applied to transfer the existing water use permit from the previous property owner. The Falkners also seek to modify the permit, increasing the total quantities which can be pumped by transferring previously approved quantities from another permit the Falkners currently hold. All of the relevant wells are within the District's Most Impacted Area (MIA) of the Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area. The District allows a permit holder within the MIA to increase withdrawals from a well by transferring the quantities from another permitted well within the MIA. The other Falkner farm (the "301 farm") from which the quantities would be transferred is located approximately one-half mile to the south of the Rogers farm and is within the MIA. The District reviewed the application and, on September 29, 1995, issued its Proposed Agency Action to Issue Water Use Permit No. 206938.03. The proposed permit includes special conditions requiring monthly pumping reports, water quality reports, adherence to District irrigation allotments (irrigation levels established by the AGMOD computer model) and crop reporting. In reviewing the application the District utilized the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review, incorporated into the code by reference. In order to obtain a Water Use Permit, an applicant must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. Additionally, the applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use: will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters; will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application; will not cause water to go to waste; and will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the water use is reasonable, beneficial and is in the public interest. The Falkners irrigate farmland to produce agricultural products. The production of food is in the public interest. The proposed use is reasonable and beneficial. Further, uncontradicted evidence and opinions of expert witnesses establish that the proposed use will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. The applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters. The evidence establishes that pumping from the Falkner wells will not adversely affect the quality of water within the aquifers from which the water is drawn. Mr. Booth asserted that he is having water quality problems, specifically with rust in his well. The Booth well is approximately 25 years old. There is no evidence that the rust is related to the Falkner pumping. The DeVito and Booth wells draw from the Intermediate aquifer. Review of the potentiometric surface map of the intermediate aquifer indicates that there is a water level variation of 17 feet between the rainy and dry seasons. The result of the variance can be "dry" wells. There are two wells on the Falkner/Rogers property relevant to this proceeding. The first (District ID number 1) is 770 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 160 feet, and opens to the Floridan aquifer. The second (District ID number 2) is 1100 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 140 feet, and opens to the Intermediate and the Floridan aquifers. A cased well does not withdraw water from the formations through which the casing is placed. For example, a well cased to a depth of 160 feet draws no water from the top of the casing (at approximately ground level) to the bottom of the casing at 160 feet. The Intermediate aquifer releases water at a much slower rate than the Floridan aquifer. Based on the type and location of the Falkner wells, the vast majority of the water pumped by the Falkners comes from the Floridan aquifer. Impacts on existing wells are calculated through computer modeling. The "MOD" flow model demonstrates impacts that will occur after 90 days of pumping at peak month levels with no recharge to the aquifer. The MOD flow model results in a conservative "worst case" projection. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 1 to be approximately .9 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 2 to be approximately 1.4 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at the Booth well to be approximately one-half foot. The impact on the DeVito well will not exceed that projected at the Booth well. District permitting criteria allow for projected MOD flow model drawdown impacts of less than five feet at existing wells. The impact possible after approval of this application falls well within the District's guidelines. The impact of pumping if the application at issue in this proceeding is approved will result in a maximum variation of one-half foot at the Booth well. The evidence fails to establish that any problems related to water quantity encountered by the Booths are related to agricultural pumping at the Falkner farms. The evidence also establishes that, based on the existing retention and drainage system, the proposed use will not adversely impact surrounding surface water bodies. A system of swales and ditches is utilized to retain the water on the farm property. The evidence fails to establish that runoff from the Falkner/Rogers farm will adversely impact surrounding surface waters if this application is approved. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application. The evidence establishes that the runoff from the Falkner farm does not discharge directly to the stream at the rear of the DeVito property. Other agricultural property discharges into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. There is a steady waterflow through the stream at all times, whether or not the Falkner pumps are operating. Ms. DeVito's property consists of Myakka soil, which has little capacity to absorb rainfall and generates large amounts of runoff. The altered drainage patterns in the area have resulted in substantial water on her property. The evidence in insufficient to establish that the Falkner farm pumping has resulted in flooding on Ms. DeVito's property. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the application at issue in this proceeding will cause adverse impact to the DeVito property or will result in water quality or quantity problems. The Booths are concerned that the existing drainage system will not be maintained and that increased pumping will result in their land being flooded again. The evidence fails to establish a substantial likelihood that the Falkner farm drainage system will not be maintained. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause water to go to waste. The Falkners use a semi-enclosed seep irrigation system at the Rogers farm. Irrigation is only used when necessary. Mushroom compost, humates, and plastic mulch retain moisture in the soil. A special condition of the permit requires the Falkners investigate the feasibility of tail water recovery and reuse. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The permit application results in no increased withdrawal of water than is allowed under the existing permits for the Rogers and the "301" farms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting the Falkner application and issuing permit number 206938.03. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM, 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 26th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NO. 95-5763 and 95-5764 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioners Booth The Petitioners Booth proposed findings of fact fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, which requires citations to the record of hearing. The proposed findings are rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the greater weight of the evidence except where they are consistent with the Findings of Fact set forth herein. Respondents The Respondents' joint proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, cumulative. 28-29. Rejected, subordinate. 33. Rejected, subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Rose Ann DeVito, pro se 11001 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Diana P. and Charles B. Booth, pro se 10812 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Patricia Petruff, Esquire Dye and Scott, P.A. 1111 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 Martin Hernandez, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact District is a governmental agency of the State of Florida created and empowered by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to regulate permitting and construction of water wells, and to regulate well contractors. William Bedard, Post Office Box 545, Branford, Florida 32208, is a water well contractor with license #2830. Bedard constructed a water well for Wendell Forsythe in Three Rivers Estate, Township 6 South, Range 15 East, Section 25 in Columbia County, Florida. This is within the District. Said well was a four inch water well. Said well was constructed sometime prior to July 11, 1991. Bedard applied for a permit from the District on July 11, 1991. District requested additional information from Bedard by telephone on July 11, 1991, and followed up with a letter which was mailed March 23, 1992. The additional information in the form of a survey was provided to the District on May 22, 1992. The District issued a permit for said water well on June 16, 1992, approximately 11 months after the well was drilled. Bedard had one previous violation for drilling a water well without a permit. He applied for and received an after-the-fact permit in that instance. In mitigation, Bedard offered the following facts: Wendell Forsythe (Forsythe) lives in South Florida and only comes to his property in Columbia County on weekends. Forsythe met with Bedard on the site to discuss the proposed well. Forsythe said he wanted to go forward, and Bedard advised Forsythe that he would begin on Monday after he obtained a permit from the District Office which was closed. Forsythe wanted to see the work done, and told Bedard that he would get another contractor if Bedard would not start the well right away. Bedard constructed the well and applied for a permit on the first working day after construction of said well. Before Bedard constructed the well, Forsythe told him that the site was not within the flood plain and a survey would not be required. The site was within the flood plain, and a topographic survey was required. The District asked Bedard for a survey. Bedard passed the request for the survey on to Forsythe, however, Forsythe did not provide this information until May of 1992 when he became aware that he might be liable. The District's attorney's fees and administrative costs were $970.00.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A penalty be assessed against the Respondent in the amount of $275, and and Two and one half points be assessed against the Respondent's license, No attorneys fees or costs be assessed through this administrative hearing process. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire 10 North Columbia Street Lake City, FL 32056-1029 William Bedard Post Office Box 545 Branford, FL 32208 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3 Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
The Issue The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, is an active Florida, limited- liability corporation, and is the owner of submerged lands and adjacent upland property contiguous to Sarasota Bay. Petitioner is a closely held entity, the only members being Achim and Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including duties as a federally-approved state program for the implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, pursuant to authority conferred under section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota, City of Venice, Town of Longboat Key, and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) (collectively the “Applicants”) are responsible for certain existing stormwater point-source discharges to waters of the state from those portions of MS4 facilities owned or operated by one or more of the individual Applicants. The DEP issued a notice of proposed agency action to issue a renewal of an existing MS4 Permit to the Applicants. On January 30, 2013, Sarasota County arranged for the notice to be published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice provided as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Sarasota County, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34236 within its jurisdiction and including the following co- permittees: Florida Department of Transportation District One, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Sarasota, and City of Venice, for renewal of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] permit. Any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision of the Department may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.). The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station 35, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Petitions must be filed within fourteen days of publication of this public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition [or a request for mediation, as discussed below] within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person?s right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner, the Department Permit Number and the county in which the MS4 is located; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department?s action; A statement of how each petitioner?s substantial interests are affected by the Department?s action; A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; A statement of facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department?s action; A statement of which rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department?s action; and A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the final action of the Department may be different from the position taken by it in the notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the permit revision have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S. is not available for this proceeding. The permit application file and supporting data are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, at Department of Environmental Protection, NPDES Stormwater Section, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Room 560, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, phone number (850) 245-8430. Date of pub. January 30, 2013. Because a portion of the Town of Longboat Key extends into Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key arranged for the notice to be published in the Bradenton Herald, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Manatee County. The notice was published on February 4, 2013. The substance of the notice, except for the date of publication, was identical to that published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Neither Petitioner, nor its representatives, saw either of the published notices prior to the filing of the Petition. On or about February 8, 2012, as a result of the filing of a pre-hearing stipulation in related litigation involving an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), Petitioner became aware of the existence of the MS4 Permit. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt obtained a copy of the permit online, and on February 12, 2013, sent an e-mail to employees of the DEP Ft. Myers? office expressing her general concern with water quality from the disputed stormwater outfall. She expressed her belief that Sarasota County was in violation of the existing MS4 permit, and requested that the recipients of her e-mail “[p]lease be so kind as to look into this matter and let us know what could be done to prevent this unacceptable condition to continue unchecked like it did in the past.” The e-mail did not request any information regarding the MS4 Permit renewal application, nor did it request any information regarding notices or deadlines related to the application. On February 13, 2013, Christopher Wright, a consultant for Petitioner, called the DEP to gather information and do some “legwork” related to Petitioner?s challenge to the SWFWMD?s ERP. The purpose of the call was to determine if information submitted to the DEP in conjunction with the MS4 application, particularly drainage basin maps, could have been of use in the SWFWMD litigation. Mr. Wright spoke with DEP employee, Heather Ritchie, regarding the drainage basin maps that had been submitted to the DEP. During the course of their discussion, Ms. Ritchie advised Mr. Wright that a Notice of Intent to issue the MS4 Permit had been issued by the DEP. However, Ms. Ritchie did not know when Sarasota County had published the notice or when the deadline for challenging the proposed agency action was to run. In short, Ms. Ritchie expressed to Mr. Wright that “she didn?t know what the status of things were.” The discussion then went back to the primary substance of the call, which was watersheds and discharge points. Ms. Ritchie agreed to provide Mr. Wright with an electronic copy of a drainage map from the MS4 Permit file. At 12:43 p.m., on February 13, 2013, Ms. Ritchie sent a map to Mr. Wright via e-mail, and indicated that “[i]f you have additional questions or comments, you may call or e-mail me.” Later on the afternoon of February 13, 2013, Mr. Wright decided that he should ask Ms. Ritchie for a copy of the Notice of Intent. At 5:59 p.m., on February 13, 2013, after the close of business for the day, Mr. Wright wrote to Ms. Ritchie thanking her for her “rapid response to my inquiry today,” and providing her with comments on various basin areas and discharge structures. Mr. Wright concluded his e-mail by stating that “at this time I would also like to request a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit.” The next morning, February 14, 2013, Ms. Ritchie provided Mr. Wright with the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit as requested. Later that morning, Mr. Wright inquired as to the time for filing a challenge to the permit. Ms. Ritchie replied at 2:34 p.m. that afternoon that the MS4 Permit “was publicly noticed by the county on January 30th with a 14 day window. The window closed yesterday.” There is no evidence that Ms. Ritchie had any specific information as to the date of publication or the deadline for filing a challenge prior to that communication with Mr. Wright. Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2013. The disputes identified in the Petition were directed exclusively at a 46-acre drainage basin in downtown Sarasota, and a related discharge structure that discharges stormwater from the basin to Sarasota Bay just south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Fruitville Road. The disputed basin and discharge point are located in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, issue a final order dismissing Petitioner?s Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for FLS000004-004 on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 18th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should correct a health violation and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule and statute, as alleged in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 22, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves an allegation that Respondent, Steve DeLuca, violated an agency regulation and statute by making repairs to a drainfield on property located at 1444 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida, without obtaining the necessary permits from the Volusia County Department of Health (Health Department). That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner, Department of Health (Department). Respondent denies the charge and, as clarified for the first time at hearing, contends that the repairs were minor in nature and thus did not require a permit, no authorization was given to the excavation firm which performed the repairs, and the Citation was not issued to the actual owner of the property. On October 29, 1999, William N. VanderLugt (Vanderlugt), a Health Department environmental specialist, received a complaint regarding a septic tank repair being undertaken at 1430 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida. During the course of inspecting that property, Vanderlugt observed excavation activities on the drainfield located next door at 1444 East New York Avenue. More specifically, Vanderlugt observed an area in the back yard approximately 6 feet by 20 feet in size which had been recently excavated and a large pile of sand nearby. In the excavated site, he saw a rock bed of the size commonly used in drainfields, "clean" and "newly installed" rocks, and a "black paper" covering a part of the rocks. Therefore, he concluded that the excavating firm had just installed a new rock drainfield. This type of activity constitutes a repair to an existing drainfield and requires that such work be performed by a licensed septic tank contractor. It also requires that appropriate permits be obtained from the Health Department. Although Respondent contended that the work was merely to correct a "minor structural flaw" which would not require a permit, Vanderlugt's testimony is more persuasive on this issue, and it is found that a more substantial repair to the drainfield was made. Further inquiry by Vanderlugt revealed that no permits had been obtained for the repair of a drainfield from the Health Department by the excavating company, Collier Enterprises. After a brief conversation with a Collier Enterprises employee, the substance of which is hearsay in nature and cannot be used, Vanderlugt visited the offices of Delco Oil Company and spoke with Respondent, who is employed by that firm. In doing so, Vanderlugt was under the impression that Respondent owned the property in question. During his brief conversation with Repondent, Vanderlugt pointed out that he had to issue a citation because no permit had been obtained for the work at the property in question. DeLuca responded with words to the effect that "they [Collier Enterprises] broke a pipe and they fixed what they broke." Apparently, there was no discussion as to whether Respondent or someone else actually owned the property. Vanderlugt returned to the property in question and performed a second inspection on November 3, 1999. Because no permits had been obtained by that date, and the drainfield site had been covered, a recommendation for a citation was prepared by Vanderlugt. A Citation for Violation was later issued by the Department on December 22, 1999, alleging that Respondent had failed to obtain permits before making a drainfield repair. The Citation was delivered to Respondent at Delco Oil Company. Because Collier Enterprises was not licensed to perform the work, it was given a first violation "warning" letter by the Health Department, as required by a Department rule. During later meetings with Respondent and others, Vanderlugt learned that the actual owner of the property in question was Deluca Properties, Inc., and not Steve DeLuca. For some reason, however, the Department declined to amend its citation and charge the actual owner with the alleged violation. Although Petitioner asserted at hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order that Respondent is the owner's registered agent, there is no competent evidence of record to support this assertion. According to the general manager of Delco Oil Company, which is apparently owned by Steve Deluca and others, no permission was given to the excavating company to make any repairs. Indeed, Deluca Properties, Inc. has a licensed septic tank contractor who makes all septic tank repairs, when needed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Christopher R. Ditslear, Esquire Post Office Box 41 Deland, Florida 32721-0041 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the "District"), should issue Water Use Permit ("WUP") No. 20005687.003 to Dr. Thomas E. Kelly, pursuant to the terms of the proposed permit issued on April 11, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: PARTIES Petitioner Becky Ayech is a resident of Sarasota County and a citizen of the State of Florida. The District is a water management district in the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 373.069(1)(d) and (2)(d), Florida Statutes. The District is the governmental agency charged with the responsibility and authority to review and act upon water use permit applications, pursuant to Chapter 373, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 40D-1 and 40D-2, Florida Administrative Code. Dr. Thomas E. Kelly is the owner of the real property in Sarasota County on which Pop's Golf and Batting Center is located, and as such is recognized as the applicant for and holder of any WUP issued for the property. Pursuant to a 50- year lease with Dr. Kelly, Ralph Perna owns and operates Pop's Golf and Batting Center and is the person who would be responsible for day-to-day compliance with the terms of the WUP at issue. Neither Dr. Kelly nor Mr. Perna formally intervened in this proceeding. THE PROPOSED PERMIT The proposed permit is for irrigation and sanitary uses at a golf driving range and batting cage facility called Pop's Golf and Batting Center, on Fruitville Road in Sarasota County. The site leased by Mr. Perna comprises approximately 30 acres, of which the westward 15 acres is taken up by the Pop's facility. The eastern 15 acres is heavily wooded, overgrown with brush, and contains a five-acre lake. The majority of the 15 acres used by Pop's is taken up by the landing area for the driving range. Near the front of the facility are a tee box and putting green sown with Bermuda grass. This grassy area, about six-tenths of an acre, is the only part of the 30-acre property requiring irrigation, aside from some landscape plants in front of the business office. The landing area is not watered and is not even set up for irrigation. The Pop's facility is in a low-lying area historically prone to flooding. For this reason, the tee box, putting green, and business office are elevated about two and one-half feet higher than the landing area. This elevation also serves the esthetic purpose of allowing golfers to follow the flight of their drives and watch the balls land. The proposed WUP is a renewal of an existing permit. The existing permit is premised on the property's prior use for agriculture, and permits withdrawals of 34,000 gpd on an average annual basis and 99,000 gpd on a peak monthly basis. The renewal would authorize withdrawals of 1,700 gpd on an average annual basis and 4,400 gpd on a peak monthly basis, reductions of 95 percent and 96 percent, respectively. "Average annual" quantity is the total amount of water withdrawn over the course of one year. This quantity is divided by 365 to arrive at the allowable gallons per day. "Peak monthly" quantity is the amount of water allowed to be withdrawn during the driest month of the year. This quantity is divided by 30 to arrive at the allowable gallons per day. Pop's draws water from two wells on the property. A six-inch diameter well, designated District Identification No. 1 ("DID 1"), is used for irrigation of the tee box and putting green. A four-inch diameter well, designated District Identification No. 3 ("DID 3"), is used to supply water to the two restrooms at the facility. THE PERMIT CONDITIONS The proposed WUP includes the following basic information: the permittee's name and address; the permit number; the date the permit application was filed; the date the permit was issued; the expiration date of the proposed permit; the property location; the quantity of water to be permitted; the withdrawal locations; and the water use classification proposed pursuant to the District's permit application. The District's permit application provides the applicant with the following five choices regarding proposed water use: Public Supply; Industrial or Commercial; Recreation or Aesthetic; Mining or Dewatering; and Agriculture. The proposed permit in this case has been classified as Recreation or Aesthetic. The proposed WUP would allow the permittee to withdraw from DID 1 an average of 1,600 gpd, with a peak monthly withdrawal of 4,200 gpd, and to withdraw from DID 3 an average of 100 gpd, with a peak monthly withdrawal of 200 gpd. The proposed WUP contains four Special Conditions. Relevant to the issues raised in this proceeding, Special Condition No. 3 requires the permittee to incorporate best water management practices, to limit daytime irrigation to the greatest extent practicable, to implement a leak detection and repair program, to conduct a system-wide inspection of the irrigation system at least once per year, and to evaluate the feasibility of improving the efficiency of the current irrigation system. Special Condition No. 4 requires the permittee to submit a conservation plan no later than April 30, 2006. The plan must address potential on-site reuse of water and external sources of reuse water. The proposed WUP also contains 16 Standard Conditions. Standard Condition No. 2 reserves the District's right to modify or revoke the WUP following notice and a hearing, should the District determine that the permittee's use of the water is no longer reasonable and beneficial, consistent with the public interest, or if the water use interferes with an existing legal use of water. Standard Condition No. 3 provides that the permittee may not deviate from the terms of the WUP without the District's written approval. Standard Condition No. 4 provides that, if the District declares a water shortage pursuant to Chapter 40D-21, Florida Administrative Code, the District may alter, modify, or declare inactive all or any part of the proposed WUP as necessary to address the water shortage. Standard Condition No. 5 provides that the District will collect water samples from DIDs 1 and 3, or require the permittee to submit water samples to the District, if the District determines there is a potential for adverse impacts to water quality. Standard Condition No. 9 provides that the District may require the permittee to cease or reduce its withdrawals if water levels in aquifers fall below minimum levels established by the District. Standard Condition No. 11 provides that the District may establish special regulations for Water Use Caution Areas ("WUCAs"), and that the permit will be subject to such regulations upon notice and a reasonable period to come into compliance. Standard Condition No. 12 requires the permittee to install flow metering or other measuring devices to record withdrawal quantities, when the District deems it necessary to analyze impacts to the water resource or existing users. CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMIT Generally, the miniscule withdrawals proposed by Pop's would not fall within the District's permitting authority, which mostly confines itself to withdrawals of 100,000 gpd or more. However, Rule 40D-2.041(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires a permit for any withdrawal from a well having an outside diameter of six inches or more at the surface. DID 1 has an outside diameter of six inches. An applicant for a WUP must demonstrate that the proposed use of water is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water, by providing reasonable assurances on both an individual and a cumulative basis that the proposed use of water satisfies the 14 specific conditions set forth in Rule 40D-2.301(1)(a)-(n), Florida Administrative Code, identified in the subheadings below. Necessary to Fulfill a Certain Reasonable Demand Pop's is open for business twelve hours per day. During the summer months, it averages 100 customers per day. The tee box and putting green at Pop's are heavily used. When golfers hit balls from the tee box, they make small gouges, or divots, in the Bermuda grass. These divots are later filled with sand, and the grass naturally grows over them. Irrigation is essential to the health of the Bermuda grass, allowing the application of fertilizer and chemicals to treat for pests and fungus. The tee box and putting green are watered as little as possible, because over-watering can itself lead to fungus problems with the Bermuda grass. The District uses an irrigation allocation computer program called AGMOD to determine reasonable average annual and peak monthly quantities for irrigation in an objective and consistent manner. Data on the pump capacity, soil type, the area to be irrigated, and its geographic location are input, and AGMOD allocates a quantity of water sufficient to irrigate for the driest 20 percent of the time, based on 75 years of historic rainfall data. The AGMOD program allows quantities for irrigation of the fairways of a typical golf course; however, Pop's does not have fairways and thus the proposed permit does not authorize any water for such irrigation. The District's expert, David Brown, credibly testified that the amounts allocated under this permit are conservative because the area to be irrigated is a high traffic area, because the irrigation methodology employed by Pop's ensures that 75 percent of the water withdrawn from DID 1 will get to the grass, because of the fertilizers and chemicals necessary to maintain and repair the grass, and because of the elevation of the area to be watered. Mr. Brown testified that the AGMOD model uses native soil types, not the fill used to elevate the tee box and putting green, and therefore the soil for the elevated areas will likely require more water and drain more quickly than AGMOD indicated. The quantities allocated for withdrawals from DID 3 on an average annual and peak monthly basis are necessary to fulfill the demand associated with the use of the two restrooms by Pop's employees and customers. In summary, the amounts of water authorized for withdrawal under the proposed permit are no more than necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand. Quantity/Quality Changes Adversely Impacting Resources The evidence at the hearing established that the operation of DIDs 1 and 3 pursuant to the terms of the proposed WUP will cause no quality or quantity changes adversely impacting the water resources. The proposed withdrawal amounts constitute a decrease of 95 percent on an average annual basis and of 96 percent on a peak monthly basis from the existing permit. The District reasonably presumes that decreases in permitted withdrawal amounts will not cause quantity or quality changes that will adversely impact the water resources. Nonetheless, Mr. Brown performed groundwater modeling to confirm that the District's presumption was correct in this case. The first step in model development is to study the geology at the site being studied. Mr. Brown looked at detailed information from surrounding WUPs and geographic logs to arrive at a "vertical" view of the stratigraphic column in place at Pop's, giving him an idea of which zones below Pop's produce water and which zones confine water and impede its movement between the producing units. Mr. Brown then looked to site-specific aquifer test information from other permits to give him an idea of the "horizontal" continuity of the system across the area under study. The hydrogeologic profile at Pop's contains five different aquifer production zones separated by confining units of clay or dense limestone. Moving downward from the surface, the production zones are the surficial aquifer, zones called Production Zone 2 ("PZ-2") and Production Zone 3 ("PZ- 3") within the intermediate aquifer, and the Suwannee limestone and Avon Park limestone layers within the Upper Floridan aquifer system. DID 3 has approximately 96 feet of casing and a total depth of approximately 195 feet. It draws water from PZ-2, the upper production zone of the intermediate aquifer. DID 1 was built before the District assumed regulation of well construction and consumptive water use; therefore, the District does not possess specific information as to its construction. Mr. Brown reviewed historical documents, including a 1930s report by the United States Geological Survey ("U.S.G.S.") about irrigation wells drilled in the location now occupied by Pop's. Mr. Brown's review led him to a reasonable conclusion that DID 1 has approximately 75 to 100 feet of casing and is drilled to a total depth of 600 to 700 feet below land surface. The District's water level measurements confirmed Mr. Brown's judgment, indicating that the well penetrates only through the Suwannee limestone formation in the Upper Floridan aquifer. His hydrogeological findings in place, Mr. Brown proceeded to perform a number of analyses using a five-layer groundwater model based on the "Mod-Flow EM" program developed by the U.S.G.S. to determine whether the withdrawals authorized by the proposed WUP would have any adverse impacts on water resources. The model's five layers simulated the five aquifer zones found in the area of Pop's. Mr. Brown performed simulations to predict the effect of the combined pumping of DID 1 and DID 3 at 1,700 gpd on a steady state basis and at 4,400 gpd for a period of 90 days. A "steady state" model assumes continuous pumping at the stated quantity forever. The scenario for pumping 4,400 gpd for 90 days is called a "transient" model, and simulates the effect of continuous pumping at the peak month quantity, without replenishment of the water source, for the stated period. Both the steady state and transient models used by Mr. Brown were conservative, in that it is unlikely that their scenarios would actually occur at Pop's. The modeling predicted that Pop's withdrawals would have no effect on the surficial aquifer or on the deep Avon Park limestone formation. Because DID 1 is likely to open to the PZ-2, PZ-3, and Suwannee limestone production zones, Mr. Brown analyzed the steady state and transient conditions for each zone. The greatest effect predicted by any of the modeling runs was a drawdown in water levels of approximately two-hundredths of a foot in the PZ-3 and Suwannee limestone zones. This drawdown would extend no farther than the boundary of Pop's property. All of the predicted drawdowns were smaller than the natural fluctuations in water levels caused by changes in barometric pressure. Thus, any possible effects of withdrawals at the quantities proposed in the WUP would be lost in the background noise of the natural water level fluctuations that occur in all confined aquifers. The water level or pressure within subterranean production zones is referred to as the "head." For water to move from one zone to another, there must be a difference in head between the zones. The evidence established that groundwater quality declines with depth at the Pop's site, but that the heads in the PZ-2, PZ-3, and Suwannee limestone production zones are essentially the same in that area. The similarity in heads means that there is no driving force to move water between the zones and thus no potential for adverse water quality changes caused by DID 1's being open to multiple production zones. In summary, the amounts of water authorized for withdrawal under the proposed permit will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters. Adverse Environmental Impacts to Wetlands, Lakes, Streams, Estuaries, Fish and Wildlife, or Other Natural Resources Mr. Brown's model indicated there would be no drawdown from the surficial aquifer, where there would be the potential for damage to water related environmental features and/or the fish and wildlife using those features as habitat. Petitioner offered no evidence indicating that the proposed water use will cause adverse environmental impacts. Deviation from Water Levels or Rates of Flow The District has not established minimum flows or levels for the area including Pop's. Therefore, Rule 40D- 2.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, is not applicable to this WUP. Utilization of Lowest Quality of Water Ninety percent of the water withdrawn from DID 1 will come from the Suwannee limestone formation and is highly mineralized and of lower quality than the water in PZ-2 or PZ- 3. DID 3 draws its water from PZ-2. As noted above, DID 3 provides water to the two restrooms on the premises of Pop's. Because its water is used in the public restrooms, DID 3 is considered a limited public supply well, the water from which must meet potable standards. Mr. Brown testified that, though PZ-2 provides water of higher quality than do the zones beneath it, that water only barely meets potable standards. Lower quality water than that obtained from PZ-2 would require extensive treatment to meet potable standards. Reuse or reclaimed water is unavailable to Pop's under any rational cost-benefit analysis. There is a reclaimed water transmission network in Sarasota County, but the nearest point of connection is more than one mile away from Pop's. The wetland lake on Pop's site is unsuitable because extensive land clearing, pipeline construction, and intensive filtration would be required to use its water. Such a project would not be technically or economically feasible for the small amount of water in question. The evidence establishes that Pop's will utilize the lowest quality water available. Saline Water Intrusion The evidence demonstrated that the proposed use will not significantly induce saline water intrusion. Saline water intrusion occurs in the Avon Park limestone formation. Withdrawals must cause a drawdown in the Avon Park formation to further induce saline water intrusion. DID 1 does not penetrate into the Avon Park formation. Mr. Brown's modeling indicated that the withdrawals allowed under the proposed WUP will not cause any drawdown in the Avon Park formation. Pollution of the Aquifer The proposed use will not cause pollution of the aquifer. As noted above, absent a difference in head or some driving force, there is no potential for water to be exchanged between the confined producing zones. Any small quantity that might be exchanged due to the pumping of the well would be removed by the same pumping. There is no potential for pollution of the aquifer by storm water moving through DID 1 or DID 3 because there is no head differential or driving force to move storm water down into the wells. The District's historic water level measurements indicated that during the rainy season, when the site is most likely to be inundated, water levels in the wells are 0.15 feet above land surface. The well structures extend at least one foot above ground level and are sealed with plates and gaskets. Adverse Impacts to Existing Off-site Land Uses The proposed use will not adversely impact off-site land uses. The District's reasonable practice, when authorizing renewal of the permit for an existing well, is to consider off-site impacts only where the applicant seeks to increase withdrawal amounts. In this case, the applicant is requesting a substantial decrease in the amount of withdrawals allowed under the renewed WUP. Adverse Impacts to Existing Legal Withdrawals The proposed use will not adversely affect any existing legal withdrawals of water. The District's reasonable practice, when authorizing renewal of the permit for an existing well, is to consider adverse impacts to existing legal withdrawals only where the applicant seeks to increase withdrawal amounts. In this case, the applicant is requesting a substantial decrease in the amount of withdrawals allowed under the renewed WUP. As noted above, Mr. Brown's modeling indicated that any drawdowns caused by these withdrawals are so small as to be lost within the natural fluctuations of water levels in the aquifer, even at the edge of Pop's 30-acre site. Petitioner's well is more than ten miles away from the wells at Pop's. Utilization of Local Resources to Greatest Extent Practicable The proposed use of water will use local resources to the greatest extent practicable, because the water withdrawn pursuant to the permit will be used on the property where the withdrawal occurs. Water Conservation Measures The proposed use of water incorporates water conservation measures. Pop's uses a commercial irrigation system with low volume misters, spray tips and sprinkler heads, and a rain gauge that automatically shuts down the system if one-eighth to one-quarter inch of rain falls. Mr. Perna testified that the automatic shutdown system rarely has the opportunity to work, because he manually shuts down the system if the weather forecast calls for rain. Mr. Perna testified that the typical golf range irrigates from 30 to 45 minutes per sprinkler head. Pop's irrigates roughly eight minutes per head. Overwatering can cause fungus on the Bermuda grass, giving Pop's a practical incentive to minimize irrigation. Pop's irrigates only the high traffic areas of the tee box and putting green, not the landing area. In its Basis of Review, the District has adopted a water conservation plan for golf courses located in the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area ("WUCA"). Basis of Review 7.2, subsection 3.2. Pop's is located in the Eastern Tampa Bay WUCA, and has implemented the items that golf courses are required to address in their conservation plans. Reuse Measures Given the small total irrigated area and the efficiency of the irrigation methods employed by Pop's, there is no realistic opportunity to capture and reuse water on the site. There is no reuse water realistically available from other sources. Thus, Pop's incorporates reuse measures to the greatest extent practicable. Waste Given the reduction in permitted quantities and the limited scope of the irrigation, the proposed use will not cause waste. Otherwise Harmful to District Resources No evidence was presented that the use of this water by Pop's will otherwise harm the water resources of the District. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE Petitioner testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Ellen Richardson. Ms. Richardson testified that she had once seen a sprinkler running at Pop's during a rainfall, though she conceded that it had just begun to rain when she saw it. Ms. Richardson also testified that she had more than once seen sprinklers running at Pop's during daylight hours. However, Mr. Brown testified that some daytime irrigation is permissible under the District's watering restrictions, where heat stress and applications of fertilizers and chemicals make daytime watering necessary. These conditions applied to Pop's. Petitioner's chief concern was with her own well. Since the late 1980s, she has experienced intermittent water outages. The District has repeatedly worked with Petitioner on her well problems, and Petitioner feels frustrated at the District's inability to solve them. However, the District's evidence established that Petitioner's problems with water levels in her own well could not possibly be caused or exacerbated by the withdrawals at Pop's, ten miles away. To the extent that the renewal of this WUP will result in drastic decreases in permitted withdrawals, Petitioner's position would be improved even accepting her theory that these withdrawals have some impact on her well. In her petition, Petitioner alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact as to eight of the fourteen permitting criteria discussed above. While she engaged in spirited cross-examination of the District's witnesses, Petitioner offered no affirmative evidence showing that the any of the conditions for issuance of permits were not met. Petitioner's chief attack was that Rule 40D- 2.301(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires "reasonable assurances" that the permittee will fulfill the listed conditions, and that the applicant here could not supply "reasonable assurances" because of his long history of failure to comply with the conditions of prior permits. As evidence, Petitioner offered the District's historic record of this permit, which indeed was replete with correspondence from the District requesting records related to pumpage and water quality, and apparent silence from Dr. Kelly in reply. However, the record also explains that the failure to provide data was not the result of obduracy, but because farming had ceased on the property. When the less water intensive use of the driving range commenced approximately nine years ago, the owner ceased monitoring activities. The District, under the impression that farming was still taking place on the property, continued to request pumpage and water quality data for several years after the conversion. It appears from the record that Dr. Kelly, an absentee landlord, simply did not bother to respond. Dr. Kelly's past discourtesy does not rise to the level of calling into question the reasonable assurances provided in this permit renewal application, particularly where the lessee, Mr. Perna, has every reason to ensure that the conditions of the WUP are fulfilled. The evidence did not prove that Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose--i.e., primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of the permit renewal application. To the contrary, the evidence was that Petitioner participated in this proceeding in an attempt to raise justifiable issues as to why the permit renewal application should not be granted. In particular, Petitioner raised an important policy issue as to whether an applicant's history of failure to comply with permit conditions should be considered by the District in assessing the reasonableness of the applicant's assurances of future compliance. The District contended that the applicant's compliance history is irrelevant. While the District ultimately prevailed on the substantive issue, its procedural claim of irrelevance was rejected, and Petitioner was allowed to attempt to prove her contention as to Dr. Kelly's noncompliance. It is not found that Petitioner's litigation of this claim was frivolous.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order determining that Dr. Thomas E. Kelly has satisfied the requirements of Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, and Rule 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code, regarding conditions for issuance of water use permits, and that the District issue Water Use Permit No. 20005687.003 to Dr. Thomas E. Kelly. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 27th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Becky Ayech 421 Verna Road Sarasota, Florida 34240 Jack R. Pepper, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604 E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Respondent William O. Reynolds filed with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation an application to construct a weedgate and fence at the mouth of a dead-end canal in Atlantis Estates Subdivision located on Big Pine Key in Monroe County, Florida. When the Department noticed its intent to issue a dredge and fill permit to Reynolds, Petitioner James A. Abbanat filed his objection. That cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing and was assigned DOAH Case No. 84-1508. On March 8, 1985, a Recommended Order was entered in that cause find in, inter alia, that the proposed project would be constructed in Class III waters of the State (Outstanding Florida Waters), that the weedgate and fence should cause no state water quality violations and should not unreasonably interfere with navigation, that they should actually improve water quality and navigation within the canal and should not significantly decrease water quality outside of the canal, that the project would not be contrary to the public interest, and that the applicant had provided reasonable assurances that the project would not violate Department standards, rules, or applicable statutes. Although the permit application was not certified by a professional engineer registered in the state of Florida, the Recommended Order concluded that that technical deficiency should not form the basis for denying the permit but rather that the permit should be granted with conditions. On April 22, 1985, a Final Order was issued adopting the Recommended Order but denying the permit application solely due to the lack of certification of the permit application by a professional engineer registered in the state of Florida. Despite the denial of his application for a permit, Respondent William O. Reynolds caused to be constructed a weedgate and fence. At some undisclosed time Reynolds did, however, submit to the Department of Environmental Regulation a set of drawings for the fence and weedgate. Although the drawing for the weedgate as built was certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, no fence drawing was so certified and the fence as built was located differently than the fence as shown in the drawings. The drawings showed a fence extending from the weedgate through the cove at the entrance to the canal for a distance of 200 feet, while the fence as installed is 100 feet in length and is located within the canal itself. On August 19, 1986, Respondents entered into a consent order acknowledging the prior denial of Reynolds" application due to lack of certification of the permit application, reciting that certification had been obtained, and authorizing the project. Interested persons were not notified of the entry of the consent order. Accordingly, when Petitioner Abbanat learned of its existence and filed his objection to the entry of that consent order, the Department of Environmental Regulation afforded the required point of entry into administrative proceedings and referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal hearing. That objection initiated this cause. The weedgate as built is in substantial accord with the plans submitted to the Department by Reynolds and certified by Joel Rosenblatt, a professional engineer registered in the state of Florida. The design, location, and size of the weedgate as built is substantially similar to that proposed in DOAH Case No. 84-1508. The weedgate as built has the same system of cables and weights and is supported by support posts on each side. As built, the weedgate opens in the middle to permit unimpeded ingress and egress of boats. The weedgate causes neither interruption of water flow nor erosion. The effect of the weedgate as built on state water quality standards is the same as the effect determined in DOAH Case No. 84-1508, i.e., the presence of the weedgate causes no water quality violation either in the canal or in the water just outside the gate and fence. The presence of windblown wrack in the canal was the major cause of state water quality violations. The sole purpose of the gate and fence is to prevent wrack from entering the canal and decaying there causing lowered dissolved oxygen levels and anoxic and/or anaerobic conditions. There has been little or no wrack in the canal since the weedgate and fence were installed, and the weedgate and fence are beneficial to and appear to have improved the water quality in the canal. The 200-foot fence across the cove at the mouth at the canal shown in the drawings submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation does not exist since it has been prohibited by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, Reynolds constructed a 100-foot fence perpendicular to the north side of the weedgate and joined to the rip-rap on the north side of the canal which forms the south edge of the cove. The fence as built prevents wrack from being blown around the gate into the canal, does not affect the water quality in the canal or in the cove, and does not interfere with navigation. The cove itself collects wrack to some degree under natural conditions and without the fence to the south of it because all discontinuities on the Florida Keys eastern coastline tend to trap windblown wrack until it is moved elsewhere by wind or current. The cove does collect more wrack since the fence was installed than it did before the fence was installed; however, estimating the amount would be speculative. Although Petitioner's lot adjoins the canal, it does not adjoin the cove. The owner of the property which does adjoin the cove favors the existing weedgate and fence. The placement of the weedgate and fence does not interfere with navigation in or out of the canal. It is a policy of the Department of Environmental Regulation to issue a consent order for a project if the project has already been built and is of such design and quality that the Department would be able to issue a permit for it had a proper permit application been filed. The weedgate and the fence are of such design and quality that the Department would be able to issue a permit had Reynolds resubmitted his application showing the revised location of the fence and if the drawings were certified by a professional engineer. It was determined in DOAH Case No. 84-1508 that the project was not contrary to the public interest. Since that time the standard has changed from "not contrary to the public interest" to "in the public interest." Although the Department presented only conclusory evidence that it had received reasonable assurances that the public interest standard is met by the project as built, Petitioner allowed that evidence to stand uncontroverted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the consent order signed by the Department of Environmental Regulation and William O. Reynolds on August 19, 1985, and ratifying the conditions contained therein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 21st day of January 1987. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NO. 86-1091 The Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, the first two sentences of 2, 3-5, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of the Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: the third sentence of 2 as not being a finding of fact; the first two sentences of 9 as being unnecessary; the last two sentences of 9 as not being supported by the record; and 13 and 15 as being irrelevant to the issues herein. Respondent Reynolds' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 5, and 6 have been adopted in this Recommended Order either verbatim or in substance. The remainder of Reynolds' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 2-4 and 5 as being unnecessary for determination herein, and 7 as being not supported by the record in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 and the first sentence of number 4 have been adopted in this Recommended Order either verbatim or in substance. The remainder of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 1 and 2 as being unnecessary; 3 and 6 as not being supported by the record in this cause; 5 and 10 as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence; and 7 and the second and third sentences of 4 as not constituting findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James A. Abbanat 5561 S.W. 3rd Court Plantation, Florida 33317 William O. Reynolds Route 1, Box 661-E Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 2B-1.002 is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," as alleged by Petitioner.
The Issue Whether Respondents have violated Chapter 403, Florida Statutes by dredge and fill activities at Sampson Lake, Bradford County, Florida, and should therefore be subject to corrective action and costs, as set forth in Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, dated March 4, 1982. This case arises from Petitioner's filing of a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action against Respondent Dudley P. Hardy on March 4, 1982, alleging that he conducted dredge and fill activities on property which he owned adjacent to Sampson Lake without obtaining a departmental permit for such activities. The notice further alleged that such activities created a stationary installation reasonably expected to be a source of pollution, and sought to have the Respondent take corrective action by restoring the affected area, and also to nay investigative costs, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Respondent Hardy responded to the Notice of Violation and therein requested an informal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. He also averred that he only owned a one-half interest in the subject property, and that the other one-half interest was owned by J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife. Based upon Petitioner's request, a formal hearing under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, was scheduled for July 14-15, 1982, but pursuant to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, the hearing was rescheduled for August 12- 13, 1982, by Order dated May 24, 1982. Petitioner thereafter amended its notice of violation to include J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom as Respondents in the proceeding as indispensable parties. By Order dated July 7, 1982, Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend was granted. By Order of Consolidation dated April 28, 1982, this case was consolidated with five other cases involving similar activities at Sampson Lake. (DOAH Cases Nos. 82-907and 02-909 - 82-912) However, prior to the scheduled hearing, counsel for Petitioner advised the Hearing Officer that the other cases had been resolved by consent orders. At the hearing, Respondent J. D. Odom, Jr. appeared without counsel and was advised of his rights in a Chapter 120 administrative proceeding. He acknowledged his understanding of such rights and elected to proceed without counsel. Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses and submitted ten exhibits. Respondent testified in his own behalf and submitted two exhibits. After the conclusion of the hearing, Respondent J. Odom submitted a letter to the Hearing Officer, dated August 17, 1982, which enclosed a copy of a survey which had been previously received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and photographs which had not been received in evidence at the hearing. Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike these matters, and the motion is hereby partially granted. The additional photographs presented by Respondent can not be taken into consideration in this Recommended Order because they were not admitted in evidence at the hearing. Petitioner's post-hearing Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered, and those portions not adopted herein are deemed either unnecessary or irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact. In like manner, the statements made by Respondent Odom in his post-hearing letter that are unrelated to the photographs have been fully considered.
Findings Of Fact By warranty deed, dated March 12, 1980, Sampson Lake Properties, Inc. conveyed a parcel of the land located in Bradford County, Florida to Respondent, Dudley P. Hardy. The property is bordered by Sampson Lake on the west and Rowell Canal on the south. By warranty deed, dated July 10, 1980, Hardy conveyed an undivided one-half interest in the property to Respondents J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife. (Testimony of J. Odom, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6, Respondents' Exhibit 1) Rowell Canal is a man-made canal which is designated as Class III waters of the State, and connects lakes Rowell and Sampson, also Class III waters of the State. Lakes Sampson and Rowell are natural lakes that are owned by more than one person. Each lake is larger than ten acres with an average depth of more than two feet existing throughout the year, and neither becomes dry each year. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondents' property lies immediately west of a railroad right-of-way, and a railroad ditch lies parallel to the property next to a railroad trestle. The ditch was approximately 45 feet wide at Rowell Canal and some 215 feet long at the time Respondents acquired the property. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer) At some undisclosed date in 1981, Respondent J. Odom widened and deepened the west side of the ditch with a backhoe in order to create a canal which would enable him to launch boats at the Rowell Canal. The dirt removed from the ditch was piled along the side of the newly created canal. When finished, the canal was some 213 feet long, 20 to 30 feet wide, with depths ranging from 2 to 7 feet. At the present time, a natural earthen plug remains between the excavated canal and the Rowell Canal. During the rainy season, water overflows the plug and any waters from the Odom Canal would interchange to some degree with those of Rowell Canal. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Barber, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Respondents' Composite Exhibit 2) Respondent Odom did not apply for a permit to conduct the dredging and filling activities on his property. After Petitioner became aware of the situation in September, 1981, two members of the enforcement section of Petitioner's St. Johns River Subdistrict visited the site and determined that the Department had enforcement jurisdiction due to the fact that the dominant vegetation for approximately the first hundred feet of Respondents' canal from Rowell Canal to the north was a band of cypress trees (Taxodium Sp.). Such a wetland species serves as a guide to determining the landward extent of waters of the State, pursuant to Rules 17-4.02(17) and 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. There is also a large number of pine trees on the property. Thereafter, by letter of November 30, 1981, Petitioner's St. Johns River Subdistrict Manager sent a letter to Respondent Hardy placing him on notice concerning unauthorized dredging and filling activities. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-4, Respondents' Exhibit 2) By warranty deed, dated July 26, 1982, Respondent Hardy conveyed his interest in the property to J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom. (Testimony of Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) On August 10, 1982, DER personnel took dissolved oxygen readings of the dredged canal. Analysis of the water samples reflected depressed dissolved oxygen levels throughout the canal in violation of water quality standards for Class III waters. (Testimony of Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 9) A dead-end canal reasonably can be expected to cause pollution due to the fact that organic matter decays on the bottom and becomes a nutrient trap, thus depressing the dissolved oxygen in the water. During the inspection by DER personnel, gas bubbles were observed in the canal, thus indicating the presence of hydrogen sulphate, which is indicative of anaerobic conditions. The presence of fish in the canal at the present time indicates there is enough dissolved oxygen to sustain life, however. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Until a few years ago, Sampson Lake had not been developed. However, at the present time many canals have been built and Petitioner has issued twelve notices of violations in the area. Canals such as that of Respondents' can be expected to have an adverse cumulative impact on the waters of Rowell Canal and Sampson Lake due to the entry of water containing excessive nutrients. (Testimony of Barber) Respondent Odom Intended to remove the earthen plug at the end of his canal in order to gain access to Rowell Canal from his proposed cement boat ramp to provide access to Sampson Lake. About twelve to fifteen years ago, a dam was built on Sampson Lake to control the water level. Prior to construction of the dam, a road existed around the lake which could be driven upon approximately 50 percent of the time during dry season. At the present time, Respondent can transport a boat through his property to Rowell Canal with difficulty because of the existing trees. Prior to the dredge and fill activity of Respondent, a boat could be moved through the property to Rowell Canal, generally in the area where the present dredged canal is located. (Testimony of Respondent Odom) Petitioner expended $132.34 in costs of investigating Respondents' dredging and filling activities. (Testimony of Barber, Petitioner's Exhibit 10)
Recommendation That Petitioner issue a final order requiring Respondents to take corrective action with regard to their dredge and fill activities as specified in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, and to pay departmental investigative costs, but withhold the effective date thereof to provide Respondents a period of thirty days to make application for an "after- the-fact" permit pursuant to Rule 17-4.28, F.A.C. If they fail to make such application within the required period, the final order should then become effective. If application is made, the effect of the final order should be staved until conclusion of proceedings on the application. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 7th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia K. Christen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel and Michael Tammaro, Certified Legal Intern DePartment of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dudley P. Hardy, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1030 Starke, Florida 32091 J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife Post Office Box 517 Starke, Florida 32091 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-908 DUDLEY P. HARDY, J.D. ODOM, JR., and VERNIE PHILLIPS ODOM, Respondents. /
