The Issue The issues to be adjudicated in this proceeding concern whether Conrock Utility Company's application for a water certificate in Hernando County meets the requirements of Sections 367.041 and 367.051, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, whether it should be granted.
Findings Of Fact 1. Applications and notices of intent to apply for a water certificate for a particular service area are required to be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation in the service area involved. In this proceeding, an affidavit was introduced from the "Sun Coast News," to the effect that Conrock had caused to be published in that newspaper its notice of intent to apply for the water certificate. That newspaper is published on Wednesdays and Saturdays in New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida. Conrock's proposed service area, or territory, is in that portion of Hernando County lying east of the City of Brooksville. This newspaper is a free publication and states on the front page that it is circulated in Pasco and Hernando Counties. There is some testimony to the effect that the newspaper is only circulated in that portion of Hernando County lying westward of Brooksville near the Pasco County border, which is an area removed from Conrock's proposed service territory. No evidence was presented to the effect that that newspaper actually circulates in Conrock's proposed service territory. 2. Rules 25-30.030(2)(f), 25-30.035(3)(f) and 25-30.035(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code, require that the utility provide evidence that it owns the land where the treatment facilities are to be located or provide a copy of an agreement providing authority for the continuous use of the land involved in the utility operations and that a system map of the proposed lines and facilities be filed with the Commission. It was not established that Conrock owns or has a written lease for the land where the water facilities are proposed to be located. No actual lease has been executed providing for long-term continuous use of the land. It is true, however, that a verbal agreement exists with the Williams family members and/or the Williams Family Trust, who own the land upon which the facilities would be located, authorizing the use of the land for the proposed operations and facilities. That unrebutted evidence does establish, therefore, that Conrock has authorization to use the land where the water facilities, including the wells, are, or will be located. Although there is no extant written agreement, as yet, providing for the continuous use of the land involved, Conrock did establish that such an agreement can be consummated in the near future based on the verbal agreement it already has. Conrock did place into evidence a territorial map of the proposed service area. It did not, however, provide a system map or otherwise provide concrete evidence of where distribution lines and other facilities would be located for its proposed system. It submitted instead a "planning study" directed to the question of whether a water utility is needed for the proposed territorial area. It submitted no design specifications for the proposed system into evidence however. Conrock has not filed any tariff rate schedules for any water service it might conduct, if granted a certificate. Concerning the question of the need for the proposed water service, it was established by Conrock that 900 acres of the proposed service territory are mainly owned by the Sumner A. Williams Family Trust (Family Trust). Additionally, some small tracts are owned by S. A. Williams Corporation, a related family corporation. The majority of the 900-acre tract is zoned agricultural and the S.A.W. Corporation operates a construction/demolition landfill on that property. There is no evidence that it contemplates a real estate development on that 900-acre tract or other tracts in the area which could be served by the proposed water utility. Neither is Conrock attempting entry into the utility business in order to supply water to a development of the above-named corporation or any related party, person or entity. The proposed service area is rural in nature. The majority of people living in the area live on tracts of land ranging from 1 to 200 acres in size. The people living in the proposed territory either have individual wells or currently receive water service from the City of Brooksville or from Hernando County. Both of those entities serve small subdivisions, or portions thereof, lying wholly or in part in the proposed service territory of Conrock. Conrock has not received any requests for water services from residents in the proposed service territory. There is some evidence that discussions to that effect may have occurred with an entity known as TBF Properties, lying generally to the north of the proposed service territory. TBF Properties apparently contemplates a real estate development on land it owns, which also encompasses part of the Williams family property; some of which lies within the proposed service territory. Plans for TBF's residential construction development are not established in the evidence in this case however. There is no evidence which shows when or on what schedule the construction of that development might occur, nor whether it would actually seek service from Conrock if that entity was granted a water certificate. TBF Properties is the only entity or person in Conrock's proposed service territory that has expressed any interest to the City of Brooksville concerning receiving water service from the city. There have been no requests to the county for water service in the proposed service territory, except by Budget Inn, a motel development. The proposed service area includes a number of small subdivisions. These subdivisions are Mundon Hill Farms, Eastside Estates, Cooper Terrace, Country Oak Estates, Chris Morris Trailer Park, Potterfield Sunny Acres, Gunderman Mobile Home Park, and Country Side Estates. Mundon Hill Farms is an undeveloped subdivision. Eastside Estates and Cooper Terrace have limited development and the Country Oak Estates consist of only three homes. The Chris Morris Trailer Park has a small number of mobile homes but is not of a high density. Potterfield Sunny Acres has six to eight homes. Gunderman Mobile Home Park is a minor development. The Country Side Estates development has its own independent water system. Some subdivisions in Conrock's proposed service area already receive water service from the city or the county. Conrock was incorporated in the past year and as yet has not had any active business operations. It currently has no employees. Mark Williams, the President of Conrock, manages the construction/demolition landfill operation owned by the S.A.W. Corporation. The landfill business is the most closely related business endeavor to a water utility business in the experience of Mr. Williams, Conrock's president. If Conrock were granted a water certificate, either Ms. Donna Martin or Mr. Charles DeLamater would be the operations manager. Neither of these persons possesses any license or training authorizing him or her to operate a water utility system. No evidence was presented as to Ms. Martin's qualifications to operate a water utility system. Mr. DeLamater manages a ranch at the present time and also works in a management capacity in the landfill operation for the Williams family. There is no evidence that he has received any training in the operation of a water utility. It is true, however, that the representatives of the engineering and consulting firm retained by Conrock, who testified in this case, do possess extensive water and sewer design and operation expertise. The evidence does not reflect that those entities or persons would be retained to help operate the utility, but Conrock established that it will promptly retain operating personnel of adequate training and experience to operate the water system should the certificate be granted. Conrock has not established what type of system it would install should the certificate be granted, but a number of alternatives were examined and treated in its feasibility study (in evidence). One alternative involves the use of well fields alone, without treatment, storage or transmission lines. In this connection, the feasibility study contains some indication that the water quality available in the existing wells is such that no water treatment is necessary. In any event, Conrock has not established of record in this case what type of facilities it proposes to install in order to operate its proposed water service. Further, that feasibility study, designed to show a need for the proposed water service, is based upon the actual population, density and occupancies in the homes and subdivisions of the proposed service territory, even though those current residents and occupants have independent water supplies at the present time, either through private wells or through service provided by the City of Brooksville or Hernando County. Thus, the feasibility study itself does not establish that the proposed service is actually needed. Concerning the issue of the proposed facility's financial ability to install and provide the service, it was shown that Conrock stock is jointly held between the Williams family and the S.A.W. Corporation. The Conrock Corporation itself has no assets. The president of Conrock owns 100 shares of the utility corporation, but has not yet committed any personal funds to the venture. No efforts, as yet, have been made to obtain bonds, loans or grants. In fact, the first phase of the proposed project, which is expected to cost approximately $400,000, can be provided in cash from funds presently held by the Williams Family Trust and the S.A.W. Corporation. The various system alternatives proposed in Conrock's feasibility study, in evidence, range in cost from $728,200 to $5,963,100. Conrock has no assets and therefore no financial statement as yet. The financial statements of Mr. and Mrs. Sumner A. Williams, the parents of Conrock's president, include approximately $3,069,907. This is the corpus of the family trust mentioned above, and with other assets, amount to a net worth for those individuals of approximately 5.8 million dollars. Mr. Williams, Conrock's president, has an income interest in the family trust. The financial statements of the S.A.W. Corporation indicate it has a net worth of $1,588,739. The Family Trust financial statement shows a net worth of $3,069,907 of which $1,444,165 consists of stock in the S.A.W. Corporation. The Family Trust owns 90.9 percent of the S.A.W. Corporation stock. It is thus a close-held corporation, not publicly traded and thus has no value independent of the corporation's actual assets. In spite of the fact that Conrock, itself, the corporate applicant herein, does not have assets or net worth directly establishing its own financial responsibility and feasibility, in terms of constructing and operating the proposed water service, the testimony of Mr. Williams, its president, was unrefuted and does establish that sufficient funds from family members and the trust are available to adequately accomplish the proposed project. Concerning the issue of competition with or duplication of other systems, it was established that the City of Brooksville currently provides water service to the Wesleyan Village, a subdivision within the Conrock proposed service territory. The City has a major transmission line running from its corporate limits out to the Wesleyan Village. The Wesleyan Village is receiving adequate water service at the present time, although there is some evidence that water pressure is not adequate for full fire flows. The City also has another water main running from US 41 down Crum Road, which is in the proposed service territory of Conrock. By agreement with Hernando County, a so-called "interlocal agreement," the City of Brooksville is authorized to provide water and sewer utility service in a 5-mile radius in Hernando County around the incorporated area of Brooksville. This 5-mile radius includes much of the proposed service territory of Conrock. The City of Brooksville comprehensive plan, approved by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, contains an established policy discouraging "urban sprawl" or "leap frogging"; the placing of developments including separate, privately owned water utilities in predominantly rural areas. It, instead, favors the installation of subdivision developments in areas which can be served by existing, more centralized, publicly owned water and sewer utilities such as the City of Brooksville or Hernando County. Thus, the installation of the separate, privately owned system in a rural area of the county would serve to encourage urbanization away from area contiguous to the municipality of Brooksville which is served, and legally authorized to be served, by the City of Brooksville. Such a project would be in derogation of the provisions of the approved comprehensive land use plan. Further, Conrock's proposed system would be in partial competition with and duplication of the city and county water systems in the proposed service territory. The county provides some water service through its water and sewer district system to some of the subdivisions and residents in the proposed service territory of Conrock and much of Conrock's territory, as mentioned above, lies within the 5-mile radius urban services area of Brooksville, authorized to be served by the city and county interlocal agreement. Such interlocal agreements, including this one, are contemplated and authorized by the comprehensive plan approved by the Department of Community Affairs and the city/county agreement involved in this proceeding was adopted in 1978 in accordance with certain federal grant mandates in Title 201 of the Federal Safe Water Drinking Act. In terms of present physical competition and duplication, Conrock's proposed system would likely involve the running of water lines parallel to and in duplication of the county's lines within the same subdivision.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of Conrock Utilities Corporation for a water certificate authorizing it to operate a water utility in Hernando County, Florida, as more particularly described herein, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1990. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Hearing this 24th day of January 1990. APPENDIX Petitioners, City of Brooksville, Hernando County, and Hernando County Water and Sewer District's proposed findings of fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in itself materially dispositive. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not in itself materially dispositive. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Copies furnished to: William B. Eppley, Esquire Post Office Box 1478 Brooksville, Florida 34605 Peyton B. Hyslop, Esquire 10 North Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 James F. Pingel, Jr., Esquire South Ashley Drive Suite 1400, Ashley Tower Post Office 1050 Tampa, Florida 33601 David C. Schwartz, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0855 Steve Tribble, Director Records and Recording Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 David Swafford Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Susan Clark, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The petitioner is a private landowner of a tract of land adjacent to the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with carrying out the mandates of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in the Florida Administrative Code promulgated thereunder. The Petitioner's proposed project entails the construction of a twelve- foot wide filled road across approximately 270 feet of swampy area in which the dominant plant species is bald cypress (taxodium distichum), a species listed in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. The property to be so developed by the petitioner lies within the landward extent of the Suwannee River in Dixie County. The Suwannee River, in this project area, constitutes waters of the state over which the Department has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 17-4.28(a), Florida Administrative Code. The project areas within "outstanding Florida waters" as defined in Rule 17-3.04(1)(3)g, Florida Administrative Code. The "upland berm" or river terrace on the property immediately adjacent to the navigable portion of the river is caused by the natural alluvial deposition of the river and the landward extent of the state waters here involved crosses the property in approximately the center of the parcel. The proposed filing for the road crossing the swamp would result in the permanent elimination of at least 3,240 square feet of area within the landward extent of the Suwannee River. Specifically, the project would consist of a road some 12 feet wide at the bottom and 8 feet wide at the top, extending approximately 270 feet across the swampy area in question from the portion of the property which fronts on a public road, to the river terrace or "berm" area along the navigable portion of the Suwannee River. The road will be constructed with approximately 450 cubic yards of clean fill material with culverts 12 feet in length and 3 feet in diameter placed under the road at 25 foot intervals. The parties have stipulated that the Department has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-500, to require a permit and water quality certification or the construction of a stationary installation within the waters of the state which this project has been stipulated to be. The area to be filled is primarily vegetated by bald cypress, ash, blackgum, planer trees and other swamp species falling within the definitional portion of the above rule. The swamp contributes to the maintenance of water quality in the river itself by the filtering of sediment and particulates, assimilating and transforming nutrients and other pollutants through the uptake action of the plant species growing therein. The proposed project would destroy by removal, and by the filling, a substantial number of these species on the site which perform this function. The swamp area also serves as a habitat, food source and breeding ground for various forms of fish and wildlife including a species of state concern, the yellow-crowned night heron, which has been observed on this site and which requires such habitat for breeding and for its food source (see the testimony of Kautz). The area in question provides flood protection by storing flood waters and releasing them in a gradual fashion to the river system, especially during dry periods when the river level is lower than that of the swamp which serves to augment stream flow in such periods. As established by witness Kautz, as well as witnesses Rector and Tyler, the filling proposed by the Petitioner would cause degradation of local water quality within the immediate area where the fill would be placed and, the attendant construction activity adjacent to either side of the filled area would disturb trees, animals and other local biota. The period during and immediately after the construction on the site would be characterized by excessive turbidity and resultant degradation of the water quality within the area and downstream of it. The long-term impact of the project would include continued turbidity adjacent to and downstream from the filled road due to sloughing off of the sides of the road caused by an excessively steep slope and to the necessary maintenance operations required to re-establish the road after washouts caused by each rain or rainy period. An additional long-term detrimental effect will be excessive nutrient enrichment expected in the area due to the removal of the filtrative functions caused by removal of the trees and other plant life across the entire width of the swamp and the resultant inability of the adjacent areas to take up the nutrient load formerly assimilated by the plant life on the project area. The project will thus permanently eradicate the subject area's filtrative and assimilative capacity for nutrients, heavy metals and other pollutants. The effect of this project, as well as the cumulative effect of many such already existent fill roads in this vicinity along the Suwannee River, and the effect of proliferation of such filling, will cause significant degradation of local water quality in violation of state standards. The effect of even this single filled road across the subject swamp is especially severe in terms of its "damming" effect (even with culverts). The resultant retention of water standing in the swamp for excessive periods of time will grossly alter the "hydro period" of the area or the length of time the area is alternately inundated with floodwaters or drained of them. This will cause a severe detrimental effect on various forms of plant and animal life and biological processes necessary to maintenance of adequate water quality in the swamp and in its discharge to the river itself. The excessive retention of floodwaters caused by this damming effect will ultimately result in the death of many of the tree species necessary for the uptake of nutrients and other pollutants which can only tolerate the naturally intermittent and brief flood periods. This permit is not necessary in order for the Petitioner to have access to his property as his parcel fronts on a public access road. The purpose of the proposed road is merely to provide access to the river terrace or "upland berm" area on the portion of the property immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the Suwannee River. The Department advocated through its various witnesses that a viable and acceptable alternative would be the construction of a walkway or a bridge on pilings across the jurisdictional area in question connecting the two upland portions of Petitioner's property. Such a walkway would also require a permit, but the Department took the position that it would not object to the permitting of an elevated wooden walkway or bridge for vehicles. The petitioner, near the close of the hearing, ultimately agreed that construction of such a walkway or bridge would comport with his wishes and intentions for access to the river berm portion of his property and generally indicated that that approach would be acceptable to him. It should also be pointed out that access is readily available to the waterward portion of the property from the navigable waters of the river by boat. The Petitioner did not refute the evidence propounded by the Department's expert witnesses, but testified that he desired the fill-road alternative because he believed it to be somewhat less expensive than construction of an elevated wooden bridge or walkway and that he had been of the belief that the use of treated pilings for such a walkway or bridge would result in chemical pollution of the state waters in question. The expert testimony propounded by the Respondent, however, establishes that any leaching action of the chemical in treated pilings would have a negligible effect on any life forms in the subject state waters at any measurable distance from the pilings. In summary, the petitioner, although he did not stipulate to amend his petition to allow for construction of the bridge as opposed to the fill road, did not disagree with it as a viable solution and indicated willingness to effect establishment of access to the riverfront portion of his property by that alternative should it be permitted.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection may issue to Respondent Tampa Bay Water a variance from the requirements, in Rules 62-555.520(4)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code, that an application for a permit to construct and operate a drinking water system contain drawings of the project with sufficient detail to describe clearly the work to be undertaken and complete specifications of the project to supplement the drawings.
Findings Of Fact Inception of Tampa Bay Water, Consolidated Permit, and Other Documentation for the Production of Drinking Water Respondent Tampa Bay Water (TBW) is a wholesale public water supply utility. TBW is governed by a nine-member board of directors with one member each from the municipalities of Tampa, St. Petersburg, and New Port Richey and two members each from the counties of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco. The purpose of TBW is to use group resources to find regional solutions to the problems of water supply in the region. Over two million persons in the three-county area rely on TBW for their drinking water. The predecessor of TBW was the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA), which was created in 1974. The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority was also a wholesale public water supply authority. However, the authority operated as a cooperative entity, and TBW operates as a regulatory entity. In 1996, WCRWSA sought to renew its permit from Intervenor Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) to allow continued withdrawals from four of its eleven major wellfields. Concerned with the environmental impacts, such as drawdowns of the water levels of wetlands, streams, and lakes, from the environmental, if not regulatory, overpumping of the wellfields, SWFWMD denied the application for the quantities requested. An Administrative Law Judge at the Division of Administrative Hearings conducted a hearing and issued a recommended order finding adverse environmental effects from overpumping, but recommending that SWFWMD issue the requested permits subject to certain conditions. Subsequent negotiations resulted in the parties' entering into a series of agreements covering withdrawals from the four wellfields that had been the subject of the administrative hearing and seven more wellfields that were approaching repermitting (11 Wellfields), as well as a series of other matters. On May 20, 1998, WCRWSA, the three member counties, the three member municipalities, and SWFWMD entered into the Northern Tampa Bay New Water Supply and Ground Water Withdrawal Reduction Agreement (Partnership Agreement). The Partnership Agreement requires WCRWSA to bring one or more projects online, by December 31, 2002, to produce at least 38 million gallons per day (MGD) and, by December 31, 2007, to produce at least 85 MGD of new water supply. The Partnership Agreement requires SWFWMD to provide WCRWSA with $183 million toward eligible water supply projects. The Partnership Agreement notes that the then-current Master Water Plan of WCRWSA recognizes that "an aggressive conservation and demand management program is an integral component of a sustainable water supply." (Joint Exhibit 3, p. 31.) The Partnership Agreement notes that the then-current Master Water Plan states that the conservation program was expected to reduce use by 10 MGD per day by 2000 and 17 MGD by 2005. From the effective date of the agreement through December 31, 2002, the Partnership Agreement requires a reduction in pumping of the 11 Wellfields to 158 MGD, based on a rolling 36-month average. For the next five years, the Partnership Agreement requires a reduction in pumping of the 11 Wellfields to 121 MGD, based on an annual average. After that, effective December 31, 2007, the Partnership Agreement requires a reduction in pumping of the 11 Wellfields to 90 MGD, also based on an annual average. Three weeks after the execution of the Partnership Agreement, WCRWSA was reorganized into TBW in June 1998 through the execution of two documents: an Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement dated June 10, 1998 (Interlocal Agreement), and a Master Water Supply Contract dated June 10, 1998. TBW assumed WCRWSA's rights and responsibilities under the Partnership Agreement. The Interlocal Agreement empowers TBW to produce and supply drinking water "in such manner as will give priority to reducing adverse environmental effects of excessive or improper withdrawals of Water from concentrated areas." (Joint Exhibit 1, pp. 20-21.) The Interlocal Agreement incorporates the phased-in reductions in withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields that are set forth in the Partnership Agreement. The Interlocal Agreement notes that, if the Partnership Agreement provides for extensions of the deadlines, the deadlines contained in the Interlocal Agreement shall likewise be subject to extension. Applying to the 11 Wellfields, SWFWMD issued TBW a Consolidated Permit, which was issued on December 15, 1998, and became effective on January 1, 1999. Complementing the Partnership Agreement, which reflects SWFWMD's resource- development role, is the Consolidated Permit, which reflects SWFWMD's regulatory role. The Consolidated Permit incorporates the phased-in reductions of withdrawals, as set forth above, for the 11 Wellfields. Although the deadlines for phased-in reductions are conditioned on the funding to be provided by SWFWMD, pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, these deadlines are otherwise unconditional and firm. The Consolidated Permit expressly provides for extensions of deadlines, except the deadlines set for the phased-in reductions of withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields. The Consolidated Permit imposes upon TBW extensive responsibilities regarding environmental monitoring, reporting, and mitigation. These responsibilities extend to groundwater, wetlands, and surface waters, as TBW must, among other things, monitor and report levels in the surficial and Floridan aquifers and potentiometric surfaces in the Floridan aquifer in the vicinity of the 11 Wellfields, as well as in the vicinity of selected wetlands and surface waters. The Consolidated Permit sets specific "regulatory levels" for these resources. Present and Future Tampa Bay Water Facilities, Including the Surface Water Treatment Plant A majority of TBW's production facilities consists of the 11 Wellfields. In an effort to supplement these production sources so as to comply with the phased-in reduction deadlines set forth in the Consolidated Permit and other documents, TBW annually adopts a New Water Plan, which describes capital planning for drinking water production facilities. The June 2000 New Water Plan summarizes the requirements of the Partnership Agreement. The June 2000 New Water Plan notes that TBW reaffirmed its Master Water Plan and New Water Plan projects in April 2000. These projects include the Enhanced Surface Water System, which includes the Tampa Bay Regional Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP), Tampa Bay Reservoir Project (Reservoir), and projects obtaining water from the Alafia River, Hillsborough River, and Tampa Bypass Canal. Other projects, besides the Enhanced Surface Water System, include Seawater Desalination (Desal Plant). The June 2000 New Water Plan states that the Enhanced Surface Water System is eligible for a maximum of $120 million from SWFWMD, pursuant to its funding obligation under the Partnership Agreement. This case involves the means by which the SWTP will be permitted, and, in consideration of the manner of permitting, this case involves the means by which the SWTP will be designed and constructed. The June 2000 New Water Plan notes that TBW and USFilter Operating Services, Inc. (USFilter) have entered into a contract for the latter to design, build, and operate (DBO) the SWTP (DBO Contract). The June 2000 New Water Plan reports that USFilter is currently constructing an access road to the site. Among current issues, the June 2000 New Water Plan describes this case, noting that TBW obtained a variance from Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) allowing a design, build (DB) approach to permitting the SWTP. The June 2000 Water Plan states that the present challenge "has the potential to delay the completion of the [SWTP] by an estimated 8 months, subsequently delaying delivery of the initial 22 mgd (dry weather conditions) of new surface water to the regional system until May 2003 and more likely final acceptance of the [SWTP] to September 2003." (Joint Exhibit 5, p. 4.) (The accuracy of this statement is open to debate because SWFWMD granted an environmental resource permit for the SWTP project only on June 27, 2000--before which no significant alteration of the land could have taken place.) In the meantime, the June 2000 New Water Plan predicts a water supply shortfall of 100,000 to 2 million gallons per day in the South-Central service area of Hillsborough County. Addressing the SWTP, the June 2000 New Water Plan states that TBW purchased the site in October 1999 and released a Request for Proposals on July 19, 1999. Four pre-qualified DBO teams responded on October 18, 1999. The June 2000 New Water Plan erroneously states that TBW applied for a public drinking water facility construction permit (Water Treatment Permit) in October 1999. Actually, in September or October, TBW prefiled with the Hillsborough County Health Department (Health Department) its application for a Water Treatment Permit and paid the $7500 filing fee. The purpose of this courtesy filing or prefiling was to allow Health Department representatives to examine the application, including drawings and specifications for the SWTP, and perhaps expedite the approval process, once TBW filed a formal application. The June 2000 New Water Plan reports that the SWTP will have a peak day, surface water treatment capacity of 60 MGD and will be located on a 433-acre site near U.S. Route 301 and Broadway Avenue in central Hillsborough County. The June 2000 New Water Plan states that the SWTP project schedule calls for completion of construction by March 2003 with plant startup and testing in May 2003 and final acceptance testing in September 2003. The June 2000 New Water Plan estimates that detailed design, site permitting, and construction of the SWTP will cost $84.3 million, and the annual operation and maintenance expenses will be $7.9 million. As for the Desal Plant, the June 2000 New Water Plan reports that TBW will pursue a design, build, own, operate, and transfer (DBOOT) approach to acquire a plant to produce, initially, 25 MGD and capable of expansion by an additional 10 MGD. The June 2000 New Water Plan states that this plant will cost a total of about $96 million in capital expenses and about $19 million annually to operate. Procurement of the Surface Water Treatment Plant Design, Build, Operate Contract and Basis of Design TBW issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) that invited base and alternative proposals for the SWTP. TBW hired Parsons Engineering Sciences to prepare a preliminary design of the SWTP, so as to assist in the preparation of the proposals; although offerors could use alternative designs to the Parsons base design, all proposals had to meet the performance standards specified in the RFP. After publishing the RFP in papers and technical journals and on the Internet, TBW was able to prequalify five teams of offerors. Four of the five prequalified offerors submitted proposals. TBW received a total of nine proposals because each offeror submitted a base proposal and one alternative proposal, and one offeror submitted a second alternative proposal. At its January board meeting, TBW selected the USFilter proposal. No party filed a bid protest to the specifications of the RFP or the selection of USFilter and its team. After the selection of USFilter, TBW entered into negotiations with USFilter. During this process, USFilter agreed, at its expense, to add sand to the granulated activated carbon filters to remove fine particles more efficiently, even though it cannot recover the resulting cost of $1.5 million before or after the commencement of operations. TBW and USFilter entered into the DBO Contract on April 10, 2000 (DBO Contract). The DBO Contract identifies "Design Requirements" that "are intended to include the basic design principles, concepts and requirements for the [c]onstruction . . but do not include the detailed design or indicate or describe each and every item required for full performance of the physical [c]onstruction . . .." (Joint Exhibit 23, Section 1.2.6.) The "Design Requirements" are Schedule 6 to the DBO Contract. Schedule 6 contains all of the individual, technical specifications for the SWTP. Schedule 6 occupies two of the four volumes of large, three-ringed binders forming the DBO Contract. The DBO Contract identifies USFilter, Clark, and Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (Camp Dresser) as the DBO team for the SWTP project. Camp Dresser is providing design services, Clark is performing the construction, and USFilter is providing the operation and maintenance services for at least 15 years, as well as the financial guarantee, through its corporate parent. The DBO Contract provides TBW with a fixed construction cost, fixed operating costs, and guaranteed finished water quality. Schedule 8 assures that finished water quality will meet all applicable state and federal drinking water quality standards. Two witnesses at the hearing testified that TBW exacted from USFilter assurances of water quality that, as to certain parameters, will exceed applicable state and federal drinking water quality standards. The DBO Contract provides TBW with a firm completion date, subject to design modifications requested by TBW and uncontrollable circumstances, such as acts of God, raw water whose quality exceeds the maximum limits, or the delay caused by this case. A key document in this case is the Basis of Design Report (Basis of Design), which was prepared by the DBO team in April 2000. Acknowledging the phased-in withdrawal limitations and potential for fines for not meeting the deadlines set forth in the Consolidated Permit, the Basis of Design describes the purpose of the DBO process as follows: By utilizing the [DBO] approach for the [SWTP], [TBW] expects to secure substantial benefits . . .[,] includ[ing] costs savings, innovative design, reduced risk of schedule and cost excesses, long-term contracted facility operations, and maintenance efficiencies and guaranties. (Joint Exhibit 8, pp. 1-2.) The Basis of Design reports that the SWTP will be located on a 100-acre parcel within a 435-acre tract that will also accommodate facilities for groundwater treatment and storage of the treated groundwater, treated surface water from the SWTP, and treated saline water from the Desal Plant. The Basis of Design identifies the sources of raw water for the SWTF as the Tampa Bypass Canal, Hillsborough River, and Alafia River. Once online, the reservoir will help normalize quantities of available raw water throughout the dry season. The Basis of Design describes the main treatment process as pretreatment, including pH adjustment with sulfuric acid or caustic soda, powdered activated car feed, and ferric sulfate coagulant addition; coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation using a high-rate ballasted sedimentation process known by its tradename as ACTIFLO; ozonoation for primary disinfection, taste and odor control, and partial conversion of dissolved organic carbon to an assimilable or biodegradable form; biologically active filtration for turbidity reduction, taste and odor control; reduction of biodegradable organic carbon; and post-treatment, including secondary disinfection using chloramines. The finished water will then be pumped into tanks for storage and blending before release into the distribution facilities. Distinguishing the DB process from the typical design, bid, build (DBB) process, the Basis of Design states: a very significant amount of process studies and pre-engineering was performed by the Project Team in support of its [DBO p]roposal. This work included a set of drawings covering all disciplines and developed to the 25 to 30 percent completion stage at a minimum with some drawings developed to a greater degree. This stage of drawing development is significantly beyond the sketches and diagrams usually provided in Basis of Design or Preliminary Design Reports. For this [Basis of Design,] the referenced drawings are attached and should be examined when reviewing this [Basis of Design]. As such, a relatively small number of figures are contained within this [Basis of Design]. (Joint Exhibit 8, pp. 1-4.) The Basis of Design notes that the Project Team conducted "pilot-scale" studies of the chosen treatment processes using Lake Manatee raw water. The purpose of these studies was to validate the selected treatment processes, provide water quality data, and establish appropriate operating criteria, such as coagulant dosages. The Basis of Design addresses raw water quality issues. One table sets out values for 30 different water quality parameters for each of the three raw water sources. The Basis of Design discloses expected water quality data for 11 water quality parameters. Of particular interest are total nitrogen and total phosphorus because, as noted in the Basis of Design, the algal life-cycle increases dissolved organic carbon and nutrient concentrations in reservoir water, and the "severity of this problem is impossible to predict." (Joint Exhibit 8, pp. 2-4.) The expected water quality values for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, respectively, are, on average, 0.8 and 0.55 mg/L and, at maximum, 1.6 and 2.1 mg/L. Each of the three surface waters approaches the average values, but none approaches the maximum values, for total nitrogen. The same is true for total phosphorus for the Tampa Bypass Canal and Hillsborough River. However, for the Alafia River, total phosphorus is 2.09 mg/L, so the raw water from the Alafia River may present a substantial treatment challenge, as it exceeds even the maximum expected value for total phosphorus. An error in Table 2-4 in reporting the maximum and average values of manganese (either the maximum value should be 0.02 mg/L or the average value should be 0.001 mg/L) and the omission of a turbidity parameter expressed in NTUs precludes analysis of these water quality parameters. However, the other expected parameters appear to reflect the actual water quality of these three surface waters. Section 4 of the Basis of Design describes the facilities and design criteria for the SWTP. This section begins with site grading, roadways, yardpiping, and stormwater management and extends to detailed discussions of the pretreatment and treatment processes, including the ACTIFLO, ozone contactor, and biologically active filtration. Urgency of New Means of Producing Drinking Water The SWTP is the hub of a network of production, storage, transmission, and distribution facilities that TBW plans to bring online in order to meet the requirements and deadlines set forth in the Consolidated Permit and other documents. The urgency for bringing this component of these new facilities online as soon as possible is due to environmental reasons, as well as the financial and legal reasons set forth above. Overpumping of existing wellfields has drawn down water levels in surface waters and wetlands, to the detriment of the overall level of biodiversity supported by these natural resources. Some lakes have been down 10 years, and a few have been down 40 or 50 years. During the recent drought, the City of Tampa, which obtains water from the Hillsborough River, lacked adequate volumes of surface water from which to produce sufficient finished water to meet the demand of its customers. Not surprisingly, these supply problems are accompanied by record withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields. Withdrawals in May and June of this year were the highest monthly withdrawals on record--208 MGD and 175 MGD, respectively. If the drought continues and TBW continues to meet the demands of its customers, TBW's withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields will exceed the permitted 158 MGD, on a rolling 36-month average, by April 2001. Wellfield overpumping has stressed the groundwaters. Although surface waters respond to substantial rains in as little as a day or two, groundwater takes significantly longer to respond. The surficial water table is as much as 20 feet below ground level, and the Floridan Aquifer is even deeper. The surficial aquifer does not begin to respond to substantial rains for one week, and the Floridan Aquifer begins to respond in two to four weeks. The condition of the surficial and Floridan aquifers affects the Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass Canal, which are significantly recharged by the surficial and, sometimes, the Floridan Aquifer. The Floridan Aquifer is especially important to the Tampa Bypass Canal, whose rock bed has been breached. During dry periods, the two aquifers are the primary sources of recharge for these two surface waters. The Alafia River is more confined, but gets water from the Floridan Aquifer through two springs at the head of the river. TBW has already made substantial gains through conservation and has met the goal of nearly 10 MGD for 2000. Over the next 20 years, maximum potential gains are expected to be no more than 74-94 MGD. Conservation will continue to play an important role in securing adequate drinking water supplies in the Tampa Bay area, but conservation, even in conjunction with reclaimed water, will not suffice, especially when future population growth in the area is considered. TBW also manages wellfield production efficiently. Under its Optimized Regulatory Operations Plan, TBW collects and analyzes wellfield data to determine which wellfield to tap, notwithstanding specific limits set by wellfield, in order to minimize environmental damage. The consumptive use permits issued to TBW for the surface waters that will provide raw water to the SWTP restrict the amounts and timing of the removals. Additionally, a hydrobiological monitoring program requires the collection and analysis of data to safeguard against adverse effects in the rivers and, downstream, in the estuary. The contractual deadline for delivery of the SWTP is September 30, 2002. The timeframe for bringing online the SWTP necessarily relies on acceptance testing in the wet season, during which 60-65 percent of the annual rain occurs. The wet season extends from mid June to the end of September. Acceptance testing of the SWTP is imperative toward the end of this period because this is when the water quality of the surface waters bears the highest levels of the contaminants. Thus, if delays postpone beyond the wet season the point at which acceptance testing can take place, the postponement will effectively be until the next wet season and, possibly, the end of the next wet season. Permitting the Design, Build Process for the Surface Water Treatment Plant General The DB process envisioned by TBW would essentially break into phases the process by which TBW would obtain the necessary Public Drinking Water Treatment Construction Permit (Permit). The Permit initially would be based on "30 percent plans," which reflect about a 30 percent level of effort toward the overall design work or 30 percent completion of all of the design work (30 Percent Plans). Generally, 30 Percent Plans mark the end of the preliminary design phase. Plans reflecting 30, 60 and 90 percent levels of effort are customary in DBB processes, as these are the stages at which owners typically review design work. In 30 Percent Plans, some items are designed to 100 percent and other items are not designed at all. However, 30 Percent Plans provide reasonable assurance that the designed system is constructable. In essence, the Permit initially would be a conceptual permit for the entire SWTP coupled with a construction permit for those components for which the design is already complete on the 30 Percent Plans. Construction of each remaining component of the SWTP would await subsequent permit modifications authorizing construction of that component. As noted above, the May 18, 2000, cover letter anticipates another interim permit, or permit modification, covering specific components, and then the final permit, or permit modification, covering the entire SWTP. The DEP district office in Orlando has substantial experience with permitting DB water treatment projects. From 1996-98, the DEP Orlando office has permitted four such projects for the Orlando Utilities Commission and one such project for the City of Kissimmee. One of the Orlando Utilities Commission projects was to construct a completely new water treatment plant. Based on the experience of the DEP Orlando office, DB permitting, when based initially on 30 Percent Plans, shortens and simplifies the permitting process. DB permitting eliminates, or at least postpones, the presentation of elements, such as electrical and HVAC, that are irrelevant to the permitting process; the elimination of elements irrelevant to permitting from the initial designs helps the regulator find the elements that are relevant to the permitting process. Also, the experience of the DEP Orlando office is that the DB process results in no more permit modifications for change orders than are typical of a conventional DBB process. The DB-approval process used by the DEP Orlando office is modeled after the DEP-permitting process for wastewater treatment plants. DEP rules allow DB permitting of these plants, which are similar in construction to water treatment plants. In fact, DEP is preparing to adopt rules to allow DB permitting of water treatment plants. Because the DEP Orlando office did not issue variances from the rules that arguably preclude DB construction of water treatment plants, there is no precedent for the issuance of the variance sought in this case. However, the experience of the DEP Orlando office is that applicants do not present basic design changes after the initial submission, and DB permitting does not mean that regulatory objectives are sacrificed to the expediency sought by the applicant. The Present Case On April 11, 2000, Camp Dresser, on behalf of TBW, filed with the Health Department an Application for a Public Drinking Water Facility Construction Permit. The April 2000 drawings that accompanied the April 11, 2000, application are described above. The cover letter to the Health Department notes that, "upon conceptual approval of the project, individual components will be permitted through permit modifications based on submittals of complete drawings and specifications for each component." In this case, the availability of the Basis of Design meant that the 30 Percent Plans reflected more than a 30 percent level of effort or completion of the five-stage process of pretreatment, pH adjustment, ozone contactors, filtration, and storage in tanks. The engineer had already sized the facilities and defined all of the processes and elements of the SWTP. The April 2000 drawings, as supplemented by the Basis of Design, therefore presented a relatively detailed description of the scope, elements, and processes of the project. On May 18, 2000, Camp Dresser submitted to the Health Department more advanced drawings, which are dated May 18, 2000. The cover letter explains that the drawings are a complete set of Phase I drawings and specifications. The letter states that Camp Dresser intends to file complete drawings and specifications in three phases. Phase I, which is completed with the May 2000 drawings, consists of sitework, high rate flocculation and sedimentation, and ozone contact tanks. Phase II consists of biologically active granulated active carbon filters, clearwell, and gravity thickeners. Phase III consists of the remainder of the project. As of July 3, 2000, prior to the final hearing, the design for the SWTP had reached the 60 percent level of effort or completion. Although the SWTP described in the DBO Contract, Basis of Design, and May drawings is a relatively large, complex facility, it does not employ unproven technology. The standardization of design and regulatory review is facilitated by the use of the so-called Ten States' Standards, which are standards commonly used by the permitting authorities of numerous states, including Florida, to determine the capabilities of specified treatment processes in achieving specific water quality levels. Although the ACTIFLO technology is relatively new, it has been in use for at least five years. A pretreatment sedimentation barrier that reduces treatment time and thus tankage volume requirements, ACTIFLO is in use in a water treatment plant with a capacity of 60 MGD in Canada, which TBW's selection team members visited. ACTIFLO presently is being incorporated into a surface water treatment plant in Melbourne, Florida, where it must treat the nutrient-rich water of Lake Washington and the St. Johns River. The City of Tampa is adding ACTIFLO basins to its facilities. Also significant is the fact that ACTIFLO easily passed the pilot test on Lake Manatee. At present, 25 facilities using ACTIFLO are under design or construction in North America. As is consistent with the theory, the DBO process for designing, building, and operating the SWTP has demanded greater cooperation among the three entities that operate relatively independently in the DBB process. Pursuant to their obligations under the DBO Contract, Camp Dresser, Clark, and USFilter have coordinated, and likely will continue to coordinate, their efforts closely from design and construction, up to operation, to save time and money from the traditional DBB process, in which the design phase, construction phase, and operation phase are relatively independent of each other. The Variance In general, DEP has the authority to issue public drinking water treatment construction permits. The successful applicant obtains one permit--for construction and operation. There are no conceptual permits or separate operating permits. In Hillsborough County, as well as 10 other counties, DEP has delegated its responsibilities for issuing public drinking water treatment construction permits. In Hillsborough County, DEP has delegated this responsibility by an interagency agreement to the Health Department. Applying DEP rules to determine whether to issue a public drinking water construction permit, the Health Department defers to DEP for the issuance of variances from DEP rules. In typical permitting cases, the Health Department uses its own staff in processing the application and reaching a permitting decision. In a large case, such as this, the Health Department's lone professional engineer, who was hired in September 1999, can obtain considerable assistance from professional engineers within the Tampa Bay area and professional engineers employed by DEP. Perceiving a possible incompatibility between the DB process and the rules from which the variance is sought in this case, TBW initially filed a request for a variance with the Health Department. However, the Health Department declined to issue a variance to DEP rules and informed TBW that it had to file its request with DEP. Thus, on January 10, 2000, TBW filed a petition for a variance with DEP. On March 28, 2000, DEP issued a final order, pursuant to Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, granting the requested variance from Rule 62-555.520(4)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code (Variance). The Variance finds that the purpose of the underlying statutes would be met "because no component of the project would be permitted or constructed without review by the permitting authority of the complete plans and specifications for that portion of the project." The Variance finds that the DB approach will protect the public health, safety, and welfare in providing safe drinking water without exacerbating possible negative environmental impacts from the overuse of groundwater. The Variance relieves TBW of the necessity of complying with two subsections of the rule governing the contents of applications for a public drinking water construction permit. Rule 62-555.520(4)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit application form sets forth the minimum information which is to be supplied to the Department or the Approved County Health Department. Additional information may be required by the Department to clarify information submitted in the permit application or to demonstrate that the proposed level of treatment will effectively treat the contaminants present in the raw water. The information required by the application is as follows: * * * Prints of drawings of the work project which contain sufficient detail to clearly apprise the Department of the work to be undertaken. All prints shall be minimum of 18 x 24 inches and a maximum size of 36 x 42 inches. The scale of details contained shall be satisfactory for microfilm reproduction. (Reduced size photographic reproduction of drawings for submission may be authorized.) Complete specifications of the project necessary to supplement the prints submitted. The issuance of the Variance by DEP has met with approval, albeit cautious approval, by the Health Department. One Health Department witness was an Engineer III, who is 19-year employee of the Health Department and supervisor of four Environmental Specialists charged with reviewing construction plans for drinking water plants. He testified that he agreed with DEP's final order granting the Variance. The Engineer III and the other Health Department witness, its professional engineer, testified that the issuance of the initial permit would not influence the Health Department in deciding whether to issue permit modifications, except to ensure compatibility. Allowing TBW not to comply with Rule 62-555.520(4)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code, the Variance provides that the initial permit shall not authorize the construction of any component of the SWTP; each component may be constructed only after the submission of complete plans and specifications for that component and the issuance of a permit modification based on those complete plans and specifications. The Variance also provides that the permitting authority shall publish a notice of intent to issue a permit modification "if the permitting authority believes that the modifications are of a controversial nature, or that there is heightened public awareness of the project." Save Our Bays and Canals, Inc. The Verified Amended Petition On May 1, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition challenging the Variance. On June 29, 2000, Petitioner filed an amended petition challenging the Variance, and the Administrative Law Judge granted Petitioner leave to file an amended petition on July 3, 2000. At the start of the hearing, on July 7, 2000, Petitioner filed a verified amended petition, which was identical to the amended petition, except that, on July 6, 2000, Petitioner's president had verified the pleading "to the best of [his] knowledge, information and belief." The verified amended petition states that Petitioner has over 400 members. The verified amended petition alleges that a substantial number of Petitioner's members will consume the finished water produced by the SWTP and will use the surface waters supplying the SWTP for recreation. The verified amended petition states that the purpose of Petitioner is to save the bays, canals, and waterways of the Tampa Bay area and to ensure safe drinking water for its members and residents of the Tampa Bay area. The verified amended petition states that the Variance affects Petitioner because it would allow the issuance of the Permit and construction of initial phases of the SWTP prior to submittal, review, and approval of complete plans for the next and subsequent phases. The verified amended petition alleges that Petitioner incorporated to pool its resources to review applications, so as to ensure safe drinking water. The verified amended petition states that submittal and review of a complete set of drawings and specifications is necessary prior to construction of the SWTP to ensure the ability of the facility to comply with state drinking water standards. The verified amended petition states that review of all individual components of the SWTP is necessary to assure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare and the compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Addressing specifically the 30 Percent Plans, the verified amended petition objects to the absence of a list of items to be included in the 30 Percent Plans. The verified amended petition alleges that this piecemeal approach to permitting will require Petitioner to request administrative hearings on each phase of permitting. The verified amended petition states that the Variance may have adverse environmental and safety impacts that cannot be evaluated fully without a submittal and review of the complete drawings and specifications. The verified amended petition states that the DBO approach is "self-created." The verified amended petition objects to the failure of TBW to obtain the Variance before issuing the RFP and instead using the DBO Contract as a basis for claiming hardship so as to qualify for the Variance. The verified amended petition states that the number of variances issued for similar 30 Percent Plans threatens to create a situation in which the variance subsumes the rule requiring complete drawings and specifications. The verified amended petition objects to this form of unwritten policy that has not been published as a rule. The verified amended petition states that the phased permitting of the SWTP may create permitting momentum that discourages a rigorous application of the rules at a later stage. The verified amended petition states that the request for a variance is improper because it is for a variance from statutes, not rules. The verified amended petition states that Section 403.861(10), Florida Statutes, requires DEP or Health Department approval of "complete plans and specifications prior to the installation, operation, alteration, or extension of any public water system." The verified amended petition states that "installation" means construction. The verified amended petition states that Section 403.861(5), Florida Statutes, prohibits the issuance of a public drinking water treatment construction permit "until the water system has been determined to have the required capabilities . . .." The verified amended petition states that the assurances of USFilter are insufficient to satisfy this requirement. The verified amended petition states that Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, which authorizes the variance procedure used in this case, does not authorize variances for compliance with federal law. The verified amended petition states that TBW must obtain a federal variance in order to obtain the Variance. The verified amended petition states that the 30 Percent Plans omit information required for permitting, such as the listing of a certified operator, monitoring and recordkeeping programs, and various financial elements, such as the posting of a bond and creation of reserves to demonstrate financial soundness. The verified amended petition states that TBW's substantial hardship is based on contract deadlines that are entirely self-created and, thus, insufficient to warrant a variance. The verified amended petition notes that the environmental damage cited as a basis for granting the Variance "was caused by years of overpumping by . . . TBW . . .." Also, the verified amended petition states that member governments of TBW continue to approve new development, which increases the demand for drinking water, because TBW and its member governments have failed to exploit fully the potential for conservation and reclaimed water. Similarly, the verified amended petition states that SWFWMD helped create the hardship by renewing the permits for additional withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields. The verified amended petition states that the DBO process will not necessarily save time and money and is not a recognized exception to the general requirement that an applicant must submit complete drawings and specifications prior to permitting. The verified amended petition states that 30 Percent Plans do not provide sufficient detail to know what the contractor is promising to build, and it would be faster to correct any mistakes prior to the start of construction, rather than after the start of construction. Standing Petitioner was an unincorporated association from its formation in early October 1999 through February 3, 2000, when it was incorporated as a Florida not-for-profit corporation. Originally named Save Our Bays and Canals Association, the unincorporated association was formed by members of the Apollo Beach Civic Association who were concerned about the environmental impact upon their bays and canals of intensive utility and industrial land uses in close proximity to their homes. Apollo Beach is an unincorporated area along the southeast shore of Tampa Bay, just south of the mouth of the Alafia River. The land uses with which the unincorporated association has been concerned in its brief existence include a sulfur plant, the TECO Big Bend plant, a proposed National Gypsum plant, a proposed concrete plant, the proposed Desal Plant, and, now the proposed SWTP. The Apollo Beach area is very close to the proposed site of the Desal Plant, but is about 17 miles south southeast from the proposed site of the SWTP. Petitioner and its members are primarily concerned with the Desal Plant, not the SWTP. However, Petitioner and its members express concern with the SWTP. The concerns are that DB permitting of the SWTP will jeopardize the production of safe drinking water and will result in greater costs to TBW customers, who will eventually bear the financial burden of costly reworking of a hastily designed and constructed project. Standing analysis is simplified by the elimination of the issue of whether the verification of the amended petition confers standing. The claims of Petitioner in this case do not rise to the level of an attempt to prevent an activity, conduct, or product to be permitted from impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the air, water, or other natural resources of the State. First, finished drinking water is not a natural resource of the State. Although a resource, finished drinking water is not natural. Although of lower water quality, raw water is a natural resource. The potable water leaving the SWTP is a manufactured resource. Second, even if finished drinking water were a natural resource, the issuance of the Variance does not have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring a natural resource. The Variance excuses compliance with two rules requiring complete drawings and specifications. Even assuming that the SWTP would impair, pollute, or otherwise injure natural resources, the Variance would not have such an effect because the act of granting the Variance is distinct from the act of granting the Permit itself. Thus, facts regarding the circumstances under which Petitioner's president verified the amended petition are irrelevant for the purpose of determining standing. Petitioner's standing is a function of the characteristics of the corporation and its members. At the corporate level, the articles of incorporation state that the "specific and primary purposes for which this corporation is formed are to operate for the public education and advancement of the water quality of Tampa Bay, its tributaries, its estuaries and its canals and for other charitable purposes, by the distribution of its funds for such purposes." There is some indication in the record of an attempt, after filing the petition commencing this proceeding, to amend the articles of incorporation to state, among Petitioner's purposes, the protection of drinking water. The record does not contain the written articles of incorporation, as amended, or amended articles of incorporation after February 3, 2000. However, for the purpose of this recommended order, the Administrative Law Judge shall assume that such an amendment was made at some point after the filing of the petition and before the final hearing. At the membership level, the water to be produced by the SWTP will be distributed primarily to customers in Pasco and Pinellas counties, St. Petersburg, and the Northwest Service Area of Hillsborough County, not to Apollo Beach, which is in southern Hillsborough County. Nearly all of Petitioner's members reside in Apollo Beach or other nearby communities, which also will not be served by the SWTP. Although an insubstantial number of Petitioner's members will consume finished water from the SWTP in their homes, a substantial number will consume finished water from the SWTP at their places of work or schools and where they shop or dine out. Drinking water is ubiquitous, and the mixture of functional land uses in Apollo Beach is not, so it is highly probable that members of Petitioner will travel the three-county area in connection with their employment, education, and recreation. Close analysis of the characteristics of Petitioner and its members reveals no basis for finding standing to challenge the Variance. Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner or any of its members have devoted themselves to the arcane task of resisting a perceived trend of state and local agencies to issue series of permits in response to DB proposals--or, more colorfully, to engage in "piecemeal permitting." About the only interest that Petitioner can legitimately claim in DB permitting is that multiple points of entry, at each permit and permit modification, will result in additional expense. If Petitioner has standing to contest even the permitting of the SWTP, Petitioner must petition each time for an administrative hearing, conduct discovery, and participate in the final hearing. However, this seems, at most, like a tenuous interest, which suffers also from the speculation that later stages of the DB permitting process will continue to present new issues not raised in the challenge of the Permit initially approved. Turning to the members themselves, their consumption of drinking water produced by the SWTP is no basis for standing either because the attenuated relationship between the Variance, which excuses compliance with two rules concerning the contents of applications, and the safety of drinking water or the additional costs that could arise from hasty designing, constructing, or permitting. Although it is conceivable that a record could have been made that the DB permitting proposed in this case would likely result in incomplete, incompetent permitting review, so as to jeopardize the public health if the permit were to issue, the record in this case does not support such a contention. To the contrary, the record establishes that the DB permitting is at least as likely as DBB permitting to provide the regulatory oversight necessary to assure the design and construction of a successful public drinking water treatment plant Lacking a substantial nexus in the record between the DB permitting authorized by the Variance and the quality of the drinking water that, if the Health Department issues the Permit, would likely be produced by the SWTP and likelihood of success of the overall construction project, the members of Petitioner likewise lack standing to challenge the Variance. Ultimate Findings of Fact Petitioner and its members lack standing to challenge the Variance. TBW faces a substantial hardship if not given the Variance. The legal and financial consequences of a failure to meet the phased-in withdrawal reductions are real and substantial. The environmental damage caused by overpumping the 11 Wellfields underscores the urgency of developing alternative sources of raw water for production into finished drinking water. The rule from which TBW seeks the Variance is derived from the statute discussed in the Conclusions of Law. The underlying purpose of this statute is the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The Variance serves the underlying purposes in two respects. First, the 30 Percent Plans contain sufficient detail to allow permitting to proceed without jeopardizing the objective of the rules to ensure that the USFilter team designs and constructs a water treatment plant that is in full compliance with all federal and state law. Second, the Variance provides that the USFilter team shall construct no component of the SWTP until it has been permitted, either initially or by a permit modification. Petitioner's Liability for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Petitioner has a Technical Committee on which Petitioner relies for examination of technical aspects of matters that are of general concern to Petitioner. This committee obtained a copy of the Variance and, after examination and discussion, developed a position in opposition to DEP's stated intent to grant the Variance. The Chair of Petitioner's Technical Committee, who has a bachelor of science degree in chemistry and is an industrial hygienist, drafted a letter reflecting the opinion of the committee in opposition to the Variance. Petitioner's attorney then converted this letter into the petition that commenced this proceeding. At all times, the Board of Directors of Petitioner approved the actions of the Technical Committee and Petitioner's attorney, including the filing of the petition. When Petitioner's president verified the amended petition, he reasonably relied on the advice of counsel concerning the substance of the assertions, and the advice of counsel was based on the work of the Technical Committee. Petitioner's president also reasonably relied on the work of the Technical Committee when he verified the amended petition. Although DB permitting has been available for the design and construction of wastewater treatment plants for an undetermined period of time, DB permitting for the design and construction of public drinking water plants is a new concept. The concept is so new that the DEP Orlando office mistakenly issued at least 2 DB permits for public drinking water plants without requiring the applicant to obtain a variance from the two rules that prevent DB permitting for such facilities. The concept is so new that the key Health Department employees have expressed concern over personnel demands from this new means of permitting, although they have also expressed at least lukewarm support for the Variance. The record portrays the employees of the Health Department as hard-working and competent, but over-burdened. The DB permitting obviously places significant responsibilities upon the Health Department, especially as it familiarizes itself with DP permitting. Although the availability of professional support from other sources, including DEP, ultimately resolves this issue, the situation of the Health Department also is relevant in assessing Petitioner's liability for attorneys' fees and costs. Two or three aspects of the drawings were deficient, according to Petitioner's professional engineer, whose testimony has been admitted despite the unreasonably restricted opportunity presented for cross-examination by his contractually driven refusal to identify past clients or jobs. Although none of these items seems likely to jeopardize a successful construction project, these were design points on which well-informed professionals could reasonably differ. Although the issue of "improper purpose" presents a closer question than the substantive issues discussed above, there is inadequate subjective or objective evidence in the record supporting TBW's claim for attorneys' fees and costs on this ground. Ultimately, the novelty of DB permitting of drinking water treatment plants precludes a finding of improper purpose. All available facts drive this determination, and, at this point in time, the relative uniqueness of DB permitting of drinking water treatment plants to DEP, the Health Department, and Petitioner and its members provides the necessary margin to preclude a finding of improper purpose.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Variance and denying the request of Tampa Bay Water for attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 24th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ralf G. Brookes, Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761 J. Frazier Carraway Thomas A. Lash Salem, Saxon & Nielson, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3200 Tampa, Florida 33601 Cynthia K. Christen Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William S. Bilenky General Counsel Jack R. Pepper, Jr. Associate General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether Respondent Sarasota County Public Utilities Department (Sarasota County) has provided reasonable assurances pursuant to Rule 17- 555.530(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, that its proposed water treatment plant will comply with each applicable water quality standard contained in Part III, Chapter 17-550, Florida Administrative Code. Whether Respondent Sarasota County has provided reasonable assurance pursuant to Rule 17-555.530(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that its proposed water treatment plant meets adequate engineering design complying with the applicable engineering principles established in Rules 17-555.310 through 17-555.160, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: STIPULATED FACTS Sarasota County Utilities Department is a department established by Sarasota County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and operates a public utility department which is charged with meeting, among other things, potable water needs of the residents of Sarasota County. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, HRS was responsible for receiving applications and issuing permits for the construction of water treatment plants and the accompanying well field. Petitioner, Charles P. Page, is a resident of Sarasota County and resides at 259 Glen Oak Road, Venice, Florida. Sarasota County filed an Application for a Water Treatment Plant Construction Permit with HRS seeking to construct a well water collection system and a 12 mgd - electrodialysis treatment plant having an auxiliary power system to provide power for the well field and water treatment plant. Sarasota County has previously obtained a water use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) #208836.00, restricting Sarasota County to feed water for the water treatment plant to 7,303,000.00 gallons average daily withdrawal and 9,625,000.00 gallons peak monthly withdrawal. Sarasota County has received permits for the eleven (11) production wells from HRS. It was the duty of HRS to review the plans and specifications and all supporting documentation to assure that they address and meet every requirement listed in Rule 17-555, Florida Administrative Code, for the issuance of a construction permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permit No. PATS No. 204307 & WC No. 1591-91-036 to Respondent Sarasota County, as set forth in the Notice of Intent To Issue dated February 20, 1992, provided that the grant of the subject permit shall include the general and specific conditions in the Intent To Issue with the further recommendation that the third required specific condition found on page 1 of the Specific Conditions be modified as follows: Construction of the electrodialysis reversal water treatment plant covered by this permit shall not begin prior to the issuance of a permit as required by State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the EDR concentrate discharge facility. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2002 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statute, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 22(47); 23(48); 24(19-20) 29(49); 38(5); 39(19); 42-43(19,20); and 51(49). 2. Proposed finding(s) of fact 2,3,5,6,7,11,14,15,16,18, 19,20,21,25,26,30,31,35,40,45,46,47,49,and 50 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding or the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order. Proposed finding(s) of fact 4,8,9,10,12,13,17,27,28,and 41 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed finding(s) of fact 32,33,34,36,37, and 48 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 44 is rejected as not being the "opinion" of the Hearing Officer. The transcript will show that the Hearing Officer was only restating the testimony of Judith Richtar. But see Finding of Fact 49. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Sarasota County The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified if the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1 - 20(1) - 20, respectively); 21(27); 22 - 26(22 - 26, respectively); 27(28); 28(29); 29(31); and 30 - 44(32 - 46, respectively). For proposed findings of fact 45 through 65 see Findings of Fact 51 and 52. Proposed findings of fact 66 through 68 are unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation adopted Sarasota County's proposed findings of fact 1 through 44, 63 and 64, and 66 with modification. Therefore, the rulings on the Department's proposed findings of fact would be the same as the previous rulings on Sarasota County's proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Wheeler Pitzer, Esquire 546 47th Street Sarasota, FL 34234 William A. Dooley, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, et al. 2070 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, FL 33237 Joseph W. Landers, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 W. College Avenue, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the portion of Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) Application Number 97106 seeking an allocation of 499,000 gallons per day (gpd) of groundwater for commercial/industrial uses (supply bulk water to bottling plants) meets the conditions for issuance as established in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-2.301, and the Applicant’s Handbook, Consumptive Uses of Water.1 The County does not oppose or contest the portion of the CUP application authorizing use of 6.0 million gpd of surface water for limerock mining operations.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County operates a water supply utility that supplies water for a variety of uses, including providing untreated water, in bulk, for bottling purposes. The County is currently engaged in a long-range planning effort designed to assess water supply demands and sources to supply those demands in the County over the next 50 years. The County also has completed a study of the two major springs in the County (Rainbow Springs and Silver Springs), and the County’s Board of County Commissioners is in the process of enacting certain recommendations contained in the study. The well for the proposed CUP allocation is located on approximately 160 acres in northern Marion County. Hastings and Greene's father owned the property from 1978 until the latter's death. In 1993, the latter's interest was transferred to Greene and two brothers, who now hold title to the property along with Hastings. The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and is charged with the duty to prevent harm to water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The District has implemented Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in part, through the adoption of Rule Chapters 40C-2 and 40C-20, and the Applicant’s Handbook, Consumptive Uses of Water. Historic Uses of Water on the Mine Site Since the 1980s, the property where the proposed withdrawals will occur has been used for mining of limerock and has been known as the “Black Sink Mine." A ten-inch diameter well has been located on the Black Sink Mine property for 35 years. The well was originally used to provide water to augment water levels in canals in and around the Black Sink Mine property. Later the well was used to irrigate watermelons grown on the property before the mining operation began. The limerock mining operation at Black Sink Mine uses approximately 6 million gpd of surface water. The mine pit at the site is divided by an earthen berm that separates a larger, previously mined area from a smaller area where active mining is occurring. Surface water is pumped from the actively mined portion of the pit to the larger, previously mined portion of the pit, to enable mining of the limerock material to be conducted at levels below the water table. Dewatering is necessary in order to remove the limerock. A majority of the property is mined to a depth of 55 feet below land surface. The limerock material extracted from the site is transported by trucks from the site, approximately 100 trucks per day, to various sites across North Florida. The Need for the Proposed Use of Groundwater If mining of limerock continues at the current pace, the limerock material at the Black Sink Mine will be exhausted within a year. Recognizing that the productive use of the property for limerock mining was nearing an end, Greene and Hastings began exploring other potential uses for the property, including use of the existing well on the property for production of bottled water. To explore the feasibility of producing water for bottling from the existing well, in 2004 Greene and Hastings engaged an engineering firm with expertise in water resources to conduct a hydrogeologic study of the mine property and well. The results of the study, showing water of sufficient quality and quantity for production of bottled water, motivated Greene and Hastings to submit the CUP application which was the subject of the hearing. The study also determined that water withdrawn from the well could be marketed as spring water. Greene and Hastings also determined through market research that the demand for bottled water has increased at the rate of ten percent per year for the last 4-5 years and that Florida bottlers were interested in purchasing water from the well on the mine site in bulk for bottling. In order to provide reasonable assurance that the water use proposed by Greene and Hastings is in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, Greene and Hastings must show that the amount to be used is consistent with what would typically be required for the activity being supplied; that the water will be used efficiently with loss or waste minimized; and that there is a demonstrated need for the water proposed for allocation. To demonstrate a need for the 499,000 gpd of groundwater requested in the application for an allocation of 499,000 gpd of groundwater, Greene and Hastings provided letters from two businesses engaged in bottling of water stating an intent to purchase specific quantities of water produced from the Greene and Hastings well should the CUP be granted. One of the letters of intent came from a bottler in Jacksonville, Florida, stating its intention to initially purchase 100,000 gpd of Greene and Hastings’s water. The other was from a bottler in Stuart, Florida, dated January 9, 2006, stating its intention to purchase 125,000 gpd of water from Greene and Hastings within “the next 12-24 months.” Based on these letters Greene and Hastings initially requested an allocation of 200,000 gpd of groundwater for the first year of the permit. Prior to completion of the CUP application, Greene and Hastings learned that because the Stuart bottler’s facility was located outside the geographic boundaries of the District, to transport water from the Black Sink Mine to the Stuart facility would require additional data and information related to inter- district transfers of groundwater. Greene and Hastings elected to reduce the requested allocation for the first year of the permit to 100,000 gpd, relying on the letter from the Jacksonville bottler. Based on the current market demand for bottled water, and based on the fact that there are other bottlers of water within the boundaries of the District purchasing water for bottling, it is reasonable to conclude that Greene and Hastings can sell 499,000 gpd of water from the well on the Black Sink Mine property by the end of the fifth year of the proposed CUP. These facts support the conclusion that there is a need for the amount of water requested by Greene and Hastings. In addition, the permit is conditioned to require a compliance review at five-year intervals during the term of the permit. Should Greene and Hastings not be successful in selling the full 499,000 gpd allocated by the fifth year of the permit, the District has the ability as part of the five-year compliance review to modify the permit to reduce the allocation based on the amount of water actually used for bottled water. Efficiency of the Proposed Use of Water The production of water in bulk for shipment to a bottler is a highly efficient use of water. There is very little if any water lost in the withdrawal and loading of the water; almost all the water goes to the end product. The evidence establishes that the use proposed by Greene and Hastings is an efficient use of water. Potential Impacts from the Proposed Groundwater Allocation The source of the groundwater proposed for use by Greene and Hastings is the Floridan aquifer. Because there is no confining layer in the vicinity of the Black Sink Mine that would retard movement of water between the Upper Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer, both the Upper Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer essentially behave as one unit. Thus, any drawdown in the surficial aquifer associated with groundwater withdrawals at this location will be the same as the related drawdown in the Upper Floridan aquifer as a result of groundwater withdrawals. The Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the amount of groundwater requested by Greene and Hastings in the application. To assess the level of drawdown expected to occur in both the Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer as a consequence of the proposed groundwater withdrawals, Greene and Hastings engaged a consultant, Andreyev Engineering, Inc., to run a groundwater model to simulate the proposed withdrawal and predict the anticipated drawdown. The groundwater model selected for use for this application was the North Central Florida Regional Groundwater Flow Model, a model developed for the District by the University of Florida for use in Marion County and surrounding areas. This model is an accepted and reliable tool for predicting aquifer drawdown associated with groundwater withdrawals at the location of the withdrawals proposed in this application and is used extensively by the District in its CUP program. To simulate the drawdown associated with the withdrawal of 499,000 gpd from the Florida aquifer, Greene and Hastings’s consultant inserted a pumping well in the model grid where the Black Sink Mine is located. The model then simulated pumping from the well at 499,000 gpd. The model results are graphically depicted on maps showing drawdown contours overlain on the Black Sink Mine Site, illustrating the level of drawdown in the aquifer and the distance the level of drawdown extends out from the well site. The model predicts a drawdown of 0.03 feet in the Floridan and surficial aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the well on the Black Sink Mine property, and a drawdown of 0.02 feet in the Floridan and surficial aquifers extending out to a distance of approximately 5,000 feet from the well, less than 1/3 of an inch of drawdown. The model results represent a reasonable estimation of the drawdown that will occur as a consequence of withdrawal of 499,000 gpd of groundwater at the Black Sink Mine as proposed in the application. The impact of the 0.02-0.03 foot drawdown predicted by the model was variously characterized by the experts who testified at the final hearing as “not practically measurable,” an “insignificant impact,” “very small,” or “de minimus.” The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause significant saline water intrusion, nor will it further aggravate any existing saline water intrusion problems. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not induce significant saline water intrusion to such an extent as to be inconsistent with the public interest. Because the predicted drawdown is so small, it will not interfere with any existing legal uses of water. Neither will the predicted drawdown cause serious harm to the quality of the source of the water proposed for use by Greene and Hastings. With regard to the issue of interference with existing legal users, the County argued that the District should have considered whether there is sufficient groundwater available to meet all projected needs for water in the County during the 20- year term of the permit, as well as the additional cost County citizens will need to bear to secure alternative water supplies as a result of any future shortfalls in available groundwater. The County projects, based on planning estimates, that use of groundwater to supply all anticipated uses of water in the County will be limited within 20-30 years from the present. Such “limits” would not become an issue until after the Greene and Hastings permit expires. Thereafter, water users in the County will have to rely on alternative water sources, conservation, reuse of reclaimed water, and surface water. The anticipated growth in demand in the County’s planning estimates includes anticipated growth in the commercial/industrial category of uses. The County’s estimated limits on groundwater use will occur whether or not the CUP requested by Greene and Hastings is approved. The District does not base its permitting decisions on a pending CUP application on the possibility that the source of water may become limited at some future time for water uses not presently permitted, provided the application meets all permitting criteria. The District allocates water for recognized beneficial uses of water, such as commercial/industrial uses, as long as the water is available and the application meets District criteria. The District allocates water as long as an allocation does not cause harm to the resource. Based on these facts, the proposed use of water by Greene and Hastings will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. No Evidence of Economic or Environmental Harm Because the predicted drawdown associated with the proposed use of water is so small, and because no impacts are anticipated on any surrounding properties or water uses, Greene and Hastings have provided reasonable assurance that any economic harm caused by the proposed use has been reduced to an acceptable amount. For purposes of determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that any environmental harm caused by a proposed use of water is reduced to an acceptable amount, the District examines modeling results showing the level of drawdown predicted for the use and also examines the resources in and around the site of a withdrawal to determine the likely impact of the drawdown predicted for the withdrawal on those resources. The District’s environmental scientists examined the Black Sink Mine site and the surrounding landscape and determined that, based on the characteristics of the landscape in and around the site of the proposed withdrawal and based on the negligible drawdown impact predicted for the proposed water use in both the Floridan and surficial aquifers, there will be no environmental harm resulting from the allocation of groundwater contained in the CUP. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause damage to crops, wetlands, or other types of vegetation. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause the water table to be lowered so that stages or vegetation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by Greene and Hastings. The CUP will not use water that the District has reserved pursuant to Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40C-2.301(4). No Impact on Established Minimum Flows or Levels No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established by the District pursuant to Rule Chapter 40C-8 for any of the water bodies in Marion County that may be affected by the proposed water use. The closest water body for which the District has established a minimum flow is the St. Johns River at the State Road 44 bridge located more than 50 miles from the Black Sink Mine property. The closest water body for which the District has established a minimum level is Star Lake in Northwest Putnam County, more than nine miles from the mine site. Because of the distance of these water bodies from the withdrawal site and because of the negligible drawdown expected to be caused by the proposed use of water, the use will not cause an established minimum flow or level to be exceeded during the term of the permit. Other Reasonable-Beneficial Use Considerations All available conservation measures that are economically, environmentally, and technically feasible are proposed for implementation in the application by Greene and Hastings for the uses proposed by them. Greene and Hastings submitted to the District, as part of the application, a conservation plan that complies with the requirements of A.H. Section 10.3(e). Reclaimed water, as defined in the District’s rules, is not currently available to be used in place of the water proposed for use by Greene and Hastings in the application. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings in the application will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards in receiving waters of the state. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings in the application will not cause or contribute to flood damage. The Use is Consistent With the Public Interest With regard to the determination of whether reasonable assurance was provided that the proposed use is consistent with the public interest, the County contends that: 1) Greene and Hastings must show that any necessary approvals required by the County’s Comprehensive Plan and/or its LDRs for use of the site for producing bottled water have been obtained; 2) that the District did not properly consider the effect of existence of lawn watering restrictions affecting citizens in the County in evaluating the application; and 3) that the District should have considered the amount of money the applicant may stand to gain from the use of the water requested in the application. In examining whether an application is consistent with the public interest, the District considers whether a particular use of water is going to be beneficial or detrimental to the people of the area and to water resources within the state. In this inquiry, the District considers whether the use of water is efficient, whether there is a need for the water requested, and whether the use is for a legitimate purpose; and the inquiry focuses on the impact of the use on water resources and existing legal users. Sale of water for bottling for human consumption is recognized by the District as a legitimate, beneficial economic enterprise. Use of water for human consumption is among the highest and best uses permitted by the District. For reasons outlined above in the Recommended Order, there are no detrimental impacts that will result from this use of water. The District does not consider whether local government approvals have been obtained prior to issuance of a CUP for purposes of determining whether the application is consistent with the public interest. Neither does the District consider impacts related to local roads from trucks transporting the water or other impacts not related to water resources. No such requirements are included in the District’s adopted permitting criteria. There are no water shortage orders in effect in the District at present. In evaluating a CUP application, the District considers whether its permitting criteria will be met during periods of normal weather as well as during periods of drought. Withdrawals authorized in CUPs can be restricted by order of the District during periods of water shortage, such as droughts. Thus, the possibility of a water shortage order being entered in the County in the future, or the fact that such orders may have been in effect there in the past, does not mean the application is not consistent with the public interest. The District critically examines the efficiency of all water uses for purposes of enacting its regulatory requirements regarding CUPs and in evaluating CUP applications. The District has adopted restrictions on landscape irrigation (which apply to all such users throughout the District’s jurisdiction, not just in Marion County) limiting landscape irrigation to no more than two days per week. The limitations on landscape irrigation exist because this type of use has been determined to be a highly inefficient, wasteful use of water without such restrictions. By contrast, the use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings is a highly efficient use of water, resulting in little or no loss or waste of water. The District does not consider the level of financial gain or benefit an applicant will derive from a permitted use of water for purposes of determining whether the proposed use is consistent with the public interest. Most, if not all permitted users of water derive some level of economic benefit from the water they use, and the District’s rule criteria do not provide standards for evaluating such gain or that otherwise limit the amount of such gain. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the use of water proposed in the application is consistent with the public interest. Groundwater is the Lowest Quality Source for this Use The County contends that groundwater is not the lowest quality source of water available for the use proposed by Greene and Hastings, in that surface water from the mine pit on the site could be treated and used for bottling in place of groundwater. From the testimony, it is clear that Greene and Hastings’s ability to market water for bottling from the Black Sink Mine is dependent on such water being capable of being labeled as spring water, and on such water being delivered without having gone through any treatment processes. The testimony also establishes that because of the connection between the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan aquifer at the site, using surface water instead of groundwater to supply the proposed use would result in little if any reduction in impacts to the Floridan aquifer. More importantly, because the application proposes use of water for direct human consumption, the District’s rules do not require use of a lower quality source of water. For the foregoing reasons, groundwater is the lowest quality source of water suitable for use for bottled water for human consumption. The District’s Noticing Was Adequate and Appropriate The District provided notice of its receipt of the Greene and Hastings CUP application by publishing notice in the Ocala Star-Banner, a newspaper of general circulation in Marion County, on January 25, 2005, with an amended notice being published on February 16, 2005, and also by letters to the County dated January 20, 2005, and February 10, 2005. In each notice, the location of the proposed use was identified by section, township, and range. The County responded to the notices by sending a letter of objection to the application dated February 14, 2005. Thus, the County received sufficient information regarding the location of the proposed use to enable it to prepare and file a letter of objection to the application, and suffered no prejudice as a consequence of the notice. The District provided personal notice of its intent to issue a CUP to Greene and Hastings by letter dated April 5, 2006. In this notice, the location of the proposed use was identified by section, township, and range. The County responded by filing petitions that have resulted in this proceeding. Thus, the County received sufficient notice of the location of the use addressed in the District’s intent to issue to enable it to initiate administrative proceedings regarding the permit, and suffered no prejudice as a consequence of the notice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter an order granting CUP No. 97106 to Greene and Hastings with the conditions recommended in the District’s Technical Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th of January, 2007.
The Issue Whether Bay County has demonstrated its entitlement to the Permit?
Findings Of Fact The Ecologically Diverse Florida Panhandle With its high diversity of species and richness in endemic plants, the Florida Panhandle has been identified as one of six continental "biodiversity hot spots" north of Mexico. It has more species of frogs and snakes, for example, than any other equivalently-sized area in the United States and Canada and has botanical species that do not exist anywhere else in the Coastal Plain, one of the three floristic provinces of the North Atlantic American Region. The biodiversity stems from a number of factors. The Panhandle was not glaciated during the Pleistocene Period. Several major river systems that originate in the southern Appalachian Mountains terminate on the Panhandle's Gulf Coast. Its temperate climate includes relatively high rainfall. These factors promote or produce plentiful sources of surface and groundwater that encourage botanical and zoological life and, in turn, a diverse ecology. When compared to the rest of Florida, the Panhandle is relatively free from man-made impacts to its water resources. Until recently, the population growth rate lagged behind much of the state. Despite a rapid increase in the population in the late 1990s into the early part of the twenty-first century, it remains much less densely populated than areas in the I-4 Corridor and coastal peninsular Florida to the south. The Panhandle can be divided into physiographic areas of geological variation that are highly endemic; a substantial number of plant and animal species found in these areas are found nowhere else in the world. One of these areas is of central concern to this case. Located in southern Washington County and northern Bay County, it is known as the Sand Hill Lakes Area. The Sand Hill Lakes Area The Sand Hill Lakes Area (the "Area") is characterized by unusual geology that produces extraordinary ecological value. With few exceptions (see findings related to Dr. Keppner's flora and fauna inventories on the NTC/Knight Property below), the Area has not been extensively studied. The data on biological communities and water levels that exist, sparse as it is, has been obtained from historic aerials dating to 1941. The aerials are of some use in analyzing lakes and surface waters whose source is the Surficial Aquifer, but they are of limited value otherwise. They are not of use in determining the level in the Surficial Aquifer. Nor are they of assistance in determining river height when the banks of the river are covered by hardwood forest canopy. The resolution of the aerials is insufficient to show details of the various ecosystems. They do not show pitcher plants, for example, that exist at the site of hillside seepage bogs common in the Area. An aspect of the Area that the aerials do reveal is its many karst features on the surface of the land. Karst lakes and sinkholes dominate the Area and are a component of its highly unusual geology which is part of a larger system: the Dougherty Karst Plain. The Dougherty Karst Plain is characterized by numerous karst features: springs, caverns, sinkhole lakes, and sinkholes. Sinkholes In Florida, there are three types of sinkholes: cover subsidence, cover collapse, and "rock" or "cavern" collapse. Of the three, cover subsidence sinkholes are the most common in the state. Cover subsidence sinkholes form as the result of processes that occur on the surface. A cover subsidence sinkhole is usually a shallow pan typically not more than a few feet deep. Found throughout Central and South Florida, they are the most common type of sinkholes in most of peninsular Florida. In contrast, the other two major types of sinkholes (cover collapse and cavern collapse) occur as the result of processes below the surface that cause collapse of surface materials into the substrata. Both types of "collapse" sinkholes are found in the Area, but cover collapse is the more common. Cavern collapse sinkholes are relatively rare. Typical of the Area, cover subsidence sinkholes are not found on the NTC/Knight Property. The NTC/Knight Property The majority of the NTC/Knight Property is in Washington County, but the property straddles the county line so that a smaller part of it is in northern Bay County. All of the NTC/Knight Property is within the Area. The District recognizes that the NTC/Knight Property contains natural resources of extraordinary quality as does the Area generally. Over the three years that preceded the hearing, Dr. Keppner, an NTC/Knight expert, conducted extensive inventories of the flora and fauna on NTC/Knight Property. Dr. Keppner's inventory showed the NTC/Knight Property supports more than 500 species of vascular plants (flora with a system of tubes within the stem, phloem, and the xylem that exchange materials between the roots and leaves) and 300 species of animals. Among them are at least 28 vascular plants and six animals listed as imperiled (threatened or endangered) by state or federal agencies. At least 22 of the imperiled species of vascular plants and eight of the imperiled species of animals are located within an area expected to be affected by the Wellfield for which Bay County seeks the permit modification. For example, at Big Blue Lake alone where impacts were predicted by NTC/Knight experts to take place, the following imperiled plant species are found: Smoothbark, St. John's Wort, Kral's Yelloweyed Grass, Quilwort Yelloweyed Grass, Threadleaf Sundew, Panhandle Meadowbeauty, and Crystal Lake Nailwort. In addition to the Keppner inventory, NTC/Knight commissioned other studies to determine the nature of the sinkholes and whether they are connected to the Floridan Aquifer. NTC/Knight's experts determined that the property contains cover collapse and a few cavern collapse sinkholes that connect to the Floridan Aquifer. Despite evidence to the contrary submitted by the District and Bay County, the NTC/Knight determinations are accepted as facts for a number of reasons, including the lineup of the sinkholes and sinkhole lakes along identified photo-lineaments and the distribution of them in patterns that are not random. A District study using a dye test, moreover, confirmed conduit flow exists in the Area just east of the NTC/Knight Property. With regard to the distribution of the sinkholes and sinkhole lakes on the NTC/Knight Property, Dr. Sam Upchurch used the term "String of Pearls" to describe multiple sinkholes that exist along the edges of several lakes on the property. When sinkholes closer to the center of a lake are clogged or plugged with sediment and debris, the lakes continue to leak around the plugs which causes new sinkholes to form along the edge of the plugs. Examples of the "String of Pearls" formation on the edges of existing lakes are found at White Western and Big Blue Lakes on the NTC/Knight Property and at Crystal Lake nearby in Washington County. The multiple sinkholes bordering the edge of Big Blue Lake are examples of cover collapse sinkholes that, in geological terms, are relatively young as evidenced by their steep sides. In a karst area such as the Area, there is preferential flow in the conduits because of the difference of efficiency of transmission of water flowing through a porous medium of rock compared to that flowing though a conduit. Absent pumping in the Wellfield, the underlying aquifers are relatively stable. If the requested pumping does not take place, it is likely the stability will remain for a substantial period of time. It is not known with precision what will happen in the long term to the karst environment should pumping occur at the Wellfield at the rate the District proposes. When pumping occurs, however, water in the Area affected by the Wellfield will move toward the Wellfield. "[A]s it does[,] you may get some turbulent flow or vorticity in the water." Tr. 1391, (emphasis supplied). At some point, a change in the potentiometric surface and loss of buoyancy will most likely occur. This leads to concerns for Dr. Upchurch from two perspectives: One . . . is that if there is a[n affected] sinkhole lake [on the surface,] it may induce downward flow . . . the other . . . is that if it breaks the plug it may either create a new sinkhole or create a substantial drop in the level of water in the lake . . . which drains periodically, not necessarily because of a wellfield, but because that plug breaks. Id. In the first instance, lake levels could be reduced significantly. In the second, a new sinkhole could be created or the water level could drop dramatically as occurred at Lake Jackson in Tallahassee. Sand Hill Lakes Wetlands The Area contains a number of wetland communities. These include hillside seepage bogs, steepheads, sphagnum bogs, littoral seepage slopes around certain Sand Hill Lakes, temporary ponds, and creeks and streams in forested wetlands. A number of these wetlands occur on the NTC/Knight Property within the zone of influence in the Surficial Aquifer predicted by NTC/Knight's experts employing a model known as the "HGL Model." The wetland systems on the NTC/Knight Property are diverse, by type, plant species composition, and richness. This remarkable diversity led the District to recognize that the NTC/Knight Property contains lakes of nearly pristine quality, interconnected karst features, and endemic steephead ravines, all of which are regionally significant resources of extraordinary quality. The Area's wetlands also include many streams, among them Pine Log Creek, the majority of which is located on the NTC/Knight Property. Significant recharge to the Floridan Aquifer occurs on NTC/Knight Property. To the west, north, and east of the NTC/Knight Property are major concentrations of Floridan Aquifer springs that are crucial to the quality and character of regional surface water systems, including the Choctawhatchee River, Holmes Creek, and Econfina Creek systems. All of these surficial systems are dependent on the groundwater resources of the Area. The Area's Hillside Seepage Bogs Hillside seepage bogs are marsh-like wetland usually located on gentle slopes of the sides of valleys. They form when the Surficial Aquifer intercepts the sloping landscape allowing water to seep onto the sloped surface. The plant communities in the bogs are dominated by a great number and variety of herbaceous plants that prefer full sun. Among them are carnivorous plants. These unusual plants include the Trumpet and White-Topped pitcher plants as well as other varieties of pitcher plants. Inundation or saturation for extended periods of time is necessary for pitcher plants and most of the rest of the plant communities found in the bogs to thrive and to fend off invasion by undesirable species. Hillside seepage bogs are valued because they are among the most species-rich communities in the world. A reduction in water levels in the bogs below the root zone of associated plants will kill the plant communities that live in them and pose a threat to the continued existence of the bogs. Hillside seepage bogs were once abundant in pre- settlement Florida, but their expanse has been greatly reduced. They are now estimated to only occupy between one and five percent of their original range. On NTC/Knight Property, they have been spared to a significant degree. Numerous hillside seepage bogs continue to exist on the NTC/Knight Property primarily along the margin of Botheration Creek and its tributaries. The Area's Steepheads Steepheads are unique wetland systems. Found around the globe, they are usually regarded as a rarity. More than 50 percent of the steepheads that exist in the world are in a narrow latitudinal band that extends from Santa Rosa County in the west to Leon County in the east, a major section of the Florida Panhandle. Steepheads occur in deep sandy soils where water originating in the Surficial Aquifer carries away sand and cuts into sandy soils. The seepage emerges as a "headwater" to create a stream that conveys the water from the steephead into a river, or in some rare circumstances, into a karst lake. Over time, flow of the seepage waters results in deep, amphitheater- shaped ravines with steep valley side walls. Steepheads are important to the ecologies of the areas in which they occur. They provide habitat for a number of Florida endemic animals and plants believed to be relics of once-abundant species. Water that emerges from a steephead is perennial. Because the steep slopes of the steephead have not been disturbed over a long period of time, the water remains at a relatively constant temperature, no matter the season. Sampling of aquatic invertebrates at the Russ Pond and Tiller Mill Steepheads on the NTC/Knight Property found 41 and 33 distinct taxa, respectively, to inhabit the steepheads. Among them were a number of long-lived taxa. Their presence is consistent with the hallmark of a steephead: perennial flow of water at a relatively constant temperature. Most of the known steepheads flow into streams or rivers. Between six and ten within the Area, however, flow into Sand Hill Lakes. They have no direct connection to any surface drainage basin, thereby adding to their uniqueness. The level in the Surficial Aquifer has a direct impact on where and to what extent seepage flows from the sidewalls of a steephead. The Area's Sphagnum Bogs Sphagnum moss grows in many locations within the landscape and requires moisture. Where there is a large amount of sphagnum moss, it can form a unique community known as a sphagnum bog that is capable of supporting unique plant and animal populations. In the Area, these sphagnum bogs form along the valley sidewalls of steephead ravines and are fed by Surficial Aquifer seepage from the sidewall of the ravine. These sphagnum bogs support unique plant and animal communities, including a salamander discovered by Dr. Means that is new to science and so far only known to exist in sphagnum bogs in the Florida Panhandle. The Area's Sinkhole Lakes and their Littoral Seepage Slopes Sand Hill Lakes are nutrient poor, or "oligotrophic," receiving most of their nutrient inputs through exchange with the plant and animal communities on the adjacent littoral shelves during periods of high water levels. Fluctuating water levels in the Sand Hill Lakes allow a littoral zone with many different micro-habitats. Areas closest to the lakes are inundated regularly, but higher areas of the littoral zone are generally dry and inundated only every ten or 20 years -- just often enough to prevent encroachment of trees. In a few instances, portions of the littoral zones are inundated by seepage from the Surficial Aquifer. Above the normal low water of the Sand Hill Lakes, the littoral shelf occurs along a low gradient. As the littoral shelf transitions into the lake bottom and toward the deeper parts of the lake, there is an inflection point, where the gradient of the lake bottom becomes much steeper than the littoral shelf. If lake water levels fall below that natural inflection point, gully erosion will occur. The flow of water will be changed along the littoral shelf from seepage sheet flow over a wide expanse to water flowing down gullies in a concentrated stream. This change in flow will result in a loss of area needed by certain seepage dependent plants and animals as well as increased sedimentation from erosion. Big Blue Lake is unique because it boasts the largest known littoral zone seepage area of any Sand Hill Lake. The seepage zone along Big Blue Lake supports a number of rare plant species, including the Thread-Leaf Sundew, Smoothed Barked St. Johns Wort, and Crystal Lake Nailwort. The Area's Temporary Ponds Temporary ponds are small isolated water bodies that generally have no surface water inlet or outlet. Typically very shallow, they are sometimes wet and sometimes dry. Temporary ponds can range from basins that have continuous water for three to five years, to basins that have standing water for a month or two, every two to four years. These conditions limit their occupation by fish and, therefore, provide ideal conditions for amphibian reproduction which only occurs when water levels are maintained long enough to complete a reproductive cycle. In the Area, temporary ponds are a direct expression of the Surficial Aquifer and contain no known restrictive layer that might cause water to be "perched" above the Surficial Aquifer. Temporary ponds are critical to the viability of amphibian populations and support high amphibian biodiversity. A given pond can contain between five and eight species of salamander, and between 12 and 15 species of frogs. There has been a decline recently in the population of frogs and other amphibians that depend upon temporary ponds. The decline is due in part to ditching and other anthropogenic activities that have altered the hydrology of temporary ponds. Temporary ponds have a higher likelihood of being harmed by a drawdown than larger, connected wetlands systems. Lowered Surficial Aquifer water levels would lower water levels in temporary ponds and, thereby, threaten amphibian reproduction. Creeks/Streams in Forested Wetlands Streams are classified on the basis of the consistency of flowing water, including perennial (always flowing), intermittent (flowing part of the year), and ephemeral (flowing only occasionally during rain events). The type of stream flow is important because movement of water is essential to support aquatic systems in stream habitats. The NTC/Knight Property includes a number of stream systems, including Botheration Creek and Pine Log Creek. Botheration Creek is fed by groundwater discharge and originates, in large part, on the NTC/Knight Property. Botheration Creek flows from east to west until it intersects Pine Log Creek on the southwest part of the NTC/Knight Property. Botheration Creek provides Pine Log Creek with approximately 89 percent of Pine Log Creek's flow. From the confluence, Pine Log Creek flows south and west into the Pine Log State Forest and eventually joins the Choctawhatchee River. Botheration Creek contains high quality water and a diverse mix of aquatic invertebrates and fish. Sampling at a stage recorder located approximately two miles west of the eastern boundary of the NTC/Knight Property ("BCS-01") identified 46 taxa of macroinvertebrates, including six long- lived taxa, and mussels. The water level in Botheration Creek at BCS-01 was measured to be between 0.1 and 0.32 feet by four measurements taken from October 2010 to July 2011. Nonetheless, the presence of long-lived taxa and mussels indicates that, at BCS-01, Botheration Creek is a perennial stream. Carbon export from streams provides nutrients that feed the stream system. Headwater streams like Botheration Creek and its tributaries are essential to carbon export. For carbon export to occur, a stream must have out-of-bank flood events regularly to promote nutrient exchange with the flood plain. Bay County and its Water Supply Prior to 1961, the County obtained its public water supply from wellfields located near downtown Panama City. The wellfields drew from the Floridan Aquifer. An assessment of the pre-1961 groundwater pumping appears in a District Water Supply Assessment released in June 1998. In summary, it found that near Panama City, the potentiometric surface was substantially depressed by the pumping. Due to the threat of saltwater intrusion, the Deer Point Lake Reservoir (the "Reservoir") was constructed as an alternate water supply. A local paper mill, the city of Panama City, and Tyndall Air Force Base, all began to obtain public supply water from the Reservoir. Six years after the construction of the Reservoir, the Floridan Aquifer's water levels had rebounded to pre-pumping levels. See NTC/Knight Ex. 93 at 69. The authorization for the Reservoir began in the 1950's when the Florida Legislature passed a series of laws that granted Bay County authority to create a saltwater barrier dam in North Bay, an arm of the St. Andrews Bay saltwater estuary. The laws also allowed Panama City to develop and operate a surface freshwater reservoir to supply water for public use. The Deer Point Lake Dam (the "Dam") was built in 1961 from metal sheet piling installed across a portion of North Bay. The Dam created the Reservoir. The watershed of the Reservoir includes portions of Jackson, Calhoun, Washington, and Bay Counties and covers approximately 438 square miles. The Reservoir receives freshwater inflow from several tributaries, including Econfina Creek, Big Cedar Creek, Bear Creek/Little Bear Creek, and Bayou George Creek, totaling about 900 cubic feet per second ("cfs") or approximately 582 MGD. The volume of inflow would increase substantially, at least two-fold, during a 100-year storm event. The Dam is made of concrete and steel. Above it is a bridge and two-lane county road roughly 11.5 feet above sea level. The bridge is tied to the Dam by pylons. The top of the Dam is 4.5 feet above sea level, leaving a distance between the Dam and the bridge bottom of about seven feet. There is an additional structure above the Dam that contains gates, which swing open from the force of water on the Reservoir's side of the Dam. Capable of releasing approximately 550 MGD of freshwater into the saltwater bay, the gates keep the level of the Reservoir at about five feet above sea level. The height of the Dam and the gate structure leaves a gap between the bottom of the bridge deck and the top of the structure of "somewhere between 12 and 14 inches, a little better than a foot." Tr. 140. If storm surge from the Gulf of Mexico and St. Andrew's Bay were to top the Dam and the gate structure, the gap would allow saltwater to enter the Reservoir. The gates and the Dam structure are not designed to address storm surge. The Dam is approximately four feet thick and roughly 1,450 feet long. The 12-to-14 inch gap extends across the length of the Dam. With normal reservoir levels, the volume of water it contains is approximately 32,000-acre-feet or roughly 10.4 billion gallons. Bay County needs to drawdown the lake level for fish and wildlife purposes, the control of aquatic growth, and weed control. In winter, FWS prescribes a 45-day period of time to draw down the lake to expose the banks to kill vegetation. The last time the lake was drawn down by the County, the water level dropped approximately three feet, from five feet above sea level to two feet above sea level. This process took approximately six days and 16 hours, or approximately 53 hours/foot. Repair of the Dam and its Maintenance The Dam has been repaired three times. The last repair was following Hurricane Opal which hit the Florida Panhandle in the fall of 1995. During Hurricane Opal, "saltwater . . . entered . . . the [R]eservoir . . . [t]hat took 20-some days to flush out . . . ." Tr. 135. No evidence was presented regarding the Dam's vulnerability from the perspective of structural integrity during normal or emergency conditions. Other than the inference drawn from Mr. Lackemacher's testimony that Hurricane Opal damaged the Dam in 1995, no evidence was presented to suggest that the Dam's structure is vulnerable to damage caused by a storm surge, wave effect or other conditions caused by a storm of any magnitude. After the last of the three repairs, Bay County implemented a detailed maintenance program. Based upon the latest inspection reports, the Dam is in good condition and structurally sound. No work other than routine inspection and maintenance is currently planned. The 1991 Agreement and the WTP Bay County's current withdrawal of water from the Reservoir is based on a 1991 agreement between Bay County and the District (the "1991 Agreement"). See Joint Ex. Vol. II, Tab K. The 1991 Agreement allows Bay County after the year 2010 to withdraw 98 MGD (annual average) with a maximum daily withdrawal of 107 MGD. The 1991 Agreement, still in effect, authorizes Bay County to withdraw enough water from the Reservoir to meet its needs through 2040. Water for public supply is withdrawn from the Reservoir by a water utility pump station (the "Pump Station") located a short distance from the Dam in Williams Bayou. The water is piped to the water utility's treatment plant (the "Water Treatment Plant") five miles away. The Water Treatment Plant treats 60 MGD. Following treatment, the water is distributed to Bay County's wholesale and retail customers. The Reservoir water available to Bay County utilities is more than adequate to fulfill the water consumption demands of Bay County's system through a 20-year permit horizon. The transmission line between the Pump Station and the Water Treatment Plant has fittings that were designed to allow transmission of groundwater withdrawn from groundwater wells to be located along the transmission line to the Water Treatment Plant to provide a backup supply for the Reservoir. Bay County's Current Use of Potable Water The amount of water consumed by Bay County utility customers has declined over the last five years. Bay County's current use of water, based upon the average of the 13 months prior to the hearing, was 24.5 MGD, an amount that is only 25 percent of the water allocation authorized by the 1991 Agreement. There are approximately 560,000 linear feet of main transmission lines in Bay County with small service lines accounting for another several hundred thousand linear feet. Bay County furnishes water directly to approximately 6,000 retail customers in areas known as North Bay, Bay County, and the former Cedar Grove area, which is now part of Bay County. Wholesale customers include Panama City Beach, Panama City, Mexico Beach, Callaway, Parker, Springfield, and parts of Lynn Haven. The County also furnishes potable water to Tyndall Air Force Base. Lynn Haven does have some water supply wells; however, Bay County still supplements this water supply by approximately 30 percent. No other cities serviced by Bay County produce their own water. Bay County has a population of approximately 165,000- 170,000 permanent residents, which includes residents of the cities. The Bay County area experiences seasonal tourism. From spring break to July 4th, the population can grow to more than 300,000. The users of Bay County's drinking water supplies include hospitals, Tyndall Air Force Base, and the Naval Support Activity of Panama City ("NSA"). The County has 178 doctor's offices, 56 dental offices, 29 schools, 21 fire departments, 12 walk-in-clinics, six nursing and rehabilitation homes, six major employers, three colleges and universities, and two major hospitals, all which are provided drinking water by Bay County. Panama City Beach is the community which has the highest water use. Panama City Beach's average daily use is approximately 12 MGD. The peak day of usage for all of Bay County's customers over the 13 months prior to the hearing was 40 MGD. Bay County sells water to community water utility systems referred to as a "consecutive system." They include Panama City Beach, Panama City, and Mexico Beach. Bay County's request for 30 MGD contemplates provision of water for all essential and non-essential water uses occurring within the consecutive system. Bay County and the consecutive systems are subject to the District's regulations regarding emergency water use restrictions which typically restrict the non-essential use of water during water shortage emergencies. Hurricanes, Train Wrecks, and Post-9/11 America At the District's recommendation, Bay County has been considering a backup potable water source since the mid-1980's. Bay County's main concern is that it has inadequate alternatives to the Reservoir should it be contaminated. Contamination to date has been minimal. In the period of time after the 1961 creation of the Reservoir to the present, the Dam and the Reservoir have suffered no major damage or impacts from a tropical storm. No tropical storm since 1961 has disrupted Bay County's ability to provide potable water. Even Hurricane Opal in 1995 did not disrupt the water supply. Recent hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico, however, has aroused the County's fears. Should a storm of sufficient magnitude make landfall in proximity to the Dam, there is potential for saltwater contamination of the Reservoir from storm surge or loss of impounded freshwater due to damage to the Dam. Mr. Lackemacher, assistant director of the Bay County Utility Department and manager of the water and wastewater divisions of the department, has experience with other hurricanes in Palm Beach, Florida, and Hurricane Hugo in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, during which water utilities suffered disruption of their distribution systems. The experience bolsters his concern about the damage a storm could cause Bay County's source of public water supply. Bay County's intake structure at Williams Bayou is approximately one mile away from the Dam. The location of the Pump Station puts it at risk for damage from a strong storm or hurricane. There is a rail line near the Reservoir. It runs along Highway 231 and over creeks that flow into the Reservoir, including the Econfina Creek. The rail line is known as "Bayline." Bayline's most frequent customers are the paper mill and the Port of Panama City. Not a passenger line, Bayline is used for the transport of industrial and chemical supplies. In 1978, a train derailment occurred on tracks adjacent to creeks that feed the Reservoir. The derailment led to a chlorine gas leak into the atmosphere. There was no proof offered at hearing of contamination of the Reservoir. There has never been a spill that resulted in a hazardous chemical or pollutant being introduced into the Reservoir. Bay County has not imposed restrictions on the type of vehicles that are allowed to use, or the material that may pass over, the county road on the bridge above the Dam. Nonetheless, in addition to saltwater contamination, Bay County also bases the need for an alternative water source on the possibility of a discharge into the Reservoir of toxic substances from a future train derailment. Bay County is also concerned about contamination of the Reservoir from a terrorist attack. In short, Bay County is concerned about "anything that could affect the water quality and water in Deer Point Lake." Tr. 184. The concerns led Bay County to file its application for the Wellfield on lands currently owned by the St. Joe Company. Consisting of ten wells spaced over an area of approximately ten square miles, the Wellfield would have a capacity of 30 MGD. Bay County's application was preceded by the development of the District's Region III Regional Water Supply Plan and efforts to acquire funding. Funding for the Wellfield and the Region III Regional Water Supply Plan Shortly after the commencement of the planning for the Wellfield, the District, in May 2007, authorized the use of funds from the State's Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund ("WPSTF"). The WPSTF is intended for development of alternative water supplies. In cooperation with the District, Bay County began drilling a test well followed by analyses to evaluate the water for potable suitability. In October of the same year, the District passed a resolution to request the Department of Environmental Protection to release $500,000 from the WPSTF to the District for local utilities in Bay and Escambia Counties for "Water Resource Development." NTC/Knight Ex. 195, p. 2. The amount was to be used "to provide funding for implementation of alternative water supply development and water resource developments projects pursuant to sections 403.890 and 373.1961, F.S." Id., p. 1. In February 2008, the District began a process to develop a regional water supply plan for Bay County. If the Wellfield were designated in the applicable regional water supply plan as "nontraditional for a water supply planning region," then it would meet the definition of "alternative water supplies" found in section 373.019(1), Florida Statutes. "In evaluating an application for consumptive use of water which proposes the use of an alternative water supply project as described in the regional water supply plan," the District is mandated "to presume that the alternative water supply is consistent with the public interest " § 373.223(5). Whether the Wellfield is to be presumed to be in the public interest depends on whether the application proposes the use of an alternative water supply project as described in the District's Region III Water (Bay County) Water Supply Plan adopted in 2008. The 2008 RWSP Pursuant to the process commenced in February, the District in August 2008 produced the Region III (Bay County) Regional Water Supply Plan (the "2008 RWSP"). In a section entitled "Identification of Alternative Water Supply Development Projects," the 2008 RWSP provides the following: "All of the water supply development projects identified in Table 4 are interrelated and considered alternative, nontraditional water supply development projects." NTC/Knight Ex. 187 at 14. Table 4 of the 2008 RWSP does not specifically identify the Wellfield. It identifies three projects in general terms. The first of the three (the only one that arguably covers the Wellfield) shows "Bay County Utilities" as the sole entity under the heading "Responsible Entities." Id. at 13. The project is: "Inland Ground Water Source Development and Water Supply Source Protection." Id. Under the heading, "Purpose/Objective," the Table states for the first project, "Develop inland alternative water supply sources to meet future demands and abate risks of salt water intrusion and extreme drought." Id. The Table shows "Estimated Quantity (MGD)" to be "10.0." Id. (In July 2008, the District's executive director informed Bay County that the Wellfield could produce 10 MGD.) The "Time Frame" is listed as 2008-12, and the "Estimated Funding" is "$5,200,000 WPSPTF" and "$7,800,000 Local, NWFWMD." Id. While not specifically identified in the 2008 RWSP, Table 4's project description supports a finding that the Wellfield is, in fact, one of the inland alternative water supply sources. The 2008 RWSP, therefore, designates the Wellfield as a "nontraditional" water supply source for Region III.4/ (The Wellfield also, therefore, meets the definition of "[a]lternative water supplies" in section 373.019(1). The demonstration of a prima facie case by Bay County and the District, however, make the applicability of the presumption a moot point. See Conclusions of Law, below.) Water Supply Assessments and Re-evaluations Development of a regional water supply plan by the governing board of each water management district is mandated "where [the governing board] determines that existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future reasonable-beneficial uses and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems for the planning period." § 373.709(1), Fla. Stat. (the "Regional Water Supply Planning Statute"). The District determined in its 1998 District Water Supply Assessment ("WSA") for Region III (Bay County) that the existing and reasonably anticipated water sources are adequate to meet the requirements of existing legal users and reasonably anticipated future water supply needs of the region through the year 2020, while sustaining the water resource and related natural systems. See NTC/Knight 93 at 79. In 2003, Ron Bartel, the director of the District's Resource Management Division, issued a memorandum to the Governing Board (the "2003 Re-evaluation Memorandum"), the subject of which is "Regional Water Supply Planning Re- evaluation." NTC/Knight 95 (page stamped 42). The 2003 Re-evaluation Memorandum sets out the following with regard to when a "water supply plan" is needed: The primary test we have used for making a determination that a water supply plan was "not needed" for each region is that projected consumptive use demands for water from major water users do not exceed water available from traditional sources without having adverse impacts on water resources and related natural systems. Similarly, regional water supply planning is initiated "where it is determined that sources of water are not adequate for the planning period (20) years to supply water for all existing and reasonable-beneficial uses and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems." Id. With regard to the need for a Water Supply Plan for Bay County the 2003 Re-evaluation Memorandum states: [I]n Bay County (Region III), sufficient quantities have been allocated for surface water withdrawal from Deer Point Lake Reservoir through the District's consumptive use permitting program extending through the year 2040. In this area, the District is also scheduled to complete a minimum flow and level determination for the lake by the year 2006. This determination will be useful for deciding if additional water supply planning is needed before the permit expires in 2040. Id. (page stamped 43). The 2008 RWSP's designation of the Wellfield is justified in the minutes of the Governing Board meeting at which the 2008 RWSP's approval took place: While the reservoir has largely replaced the use of coastal public supply wells historically impacted by saltwater intrusion, there remain challenges within the region that make development and implementation of a Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) appropriate. Development of alternative water supplies would diversify public supply sources and help drought-proof the region through establishment of facility interconnections. Development of alternative supplies would also minimize vulnerability associated with salt water potentially flowing into the reservoir during major hurricane events. Id., p. 3 of 4. The adoption of the 2008 RWSP was followed in December 2008 by the District's 2008 Water Supply Assessment Update. The update is consistent with the earlier determinations of the adequacy of the Reservoir as a water supply source for the foreseeable future (in the case of the update, through 2030). The update also voices the concern about water quality impacts from storm surge. The update concludes with the following: In Region III, the existing and reasonably anticipated surface water resources are adequate to meet the requirements of existing and reasonably anticipated future average demands and demands for a 1-in-10 year drought through 2030, while sustaining water resources and related natural systems. However, the major concern for potential water quality impacts is that resulting from hurricane storm surge. A Regional Water Supply Plan (NWFWMD 2008) has recently been prepared for Region III to address concerns associated with existing surface water systems. NTC/Knight Ex. 101, p. 3-41. The Parties Washington County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Washington County is located directly north of Bay County and the Wellfield and within one mile of some of the proposed wells. Washington County includes thousands of wetlands and open water systems. Because of the hydro-geologic system in the area of the Wellfield, if there are wetland, Surficial Aquifer, and surface water impacts from the withdrawal under the Permit, it is likely that impacts will occur in Washington County. Washington County has a substantial interest in protection, preservation, and conservation of its natural resources, including lakes, springs, and wetlands, and the flora and fauna that depend on these water resources, especially endangered flora and fauna. Washington County has a substantial interest in the protection of all water resources in Washington County because of the close relationship between surface waters, groundwater, and the potable water supply used by Washington County residents. NTC/Knight is the owner of approximately 55,000 acres of land located in northern Bay County and southern Washington County. The NTC/Knight Property includes thousands of acres of wetlands and open waters, including Sand Hill Lakes, steepheads, hillside seepage bogs, sphagnum bogs, littoral seepage slopes around certain Sand Hill Lakes, temporary ponds, and forested wetlands. A large portion of the NTC/Knight Property is directly adjacent to the Wellfield and within the HGL Model projected drawdown contour. Based on the projected amount of drawdown from pumping at the proposed average rate of 5 MGD, the 0.5 projected drawdown contour predicted by the HGL Modeling Report (see Finding of Fact 121, below) extends over thousands of acres of the property. NTC/Knight has a substantial interest in the protection of the surface and groundwater directly on, under, and adjacent to its property. The water supports the numerous ecosystems of extraordinary value located on the property. James Murfee and Lee Lapensohn are individuals, who reside in Bay County on property fronting on and beneath Tank Pond approximately five miles from the Wellfield. Petitioners Murfee and Lapensohn have a well which extends into the Intermediate Aquifer. The Murfee and Lapensohn properties are within the HGL Model projected drawdown contour. Petitioners Murfee and Lapensohn have a substantial interest in the protection of their drinking water supply well and the surface waters directly on and adjacent to their properties. Bay County, the applicant, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The District is a water management district created by section 373.069(1). It has the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. See § 373.069(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Section 120.569(2)(p), Florida Statutes Section 120.569(2)(p), in pertinent part, provides: For any proceeding arising under chapter 373, chapter 378, or chapter 403, if a nonapplicant petitions as a third party to challenge an agency’s issuance of a license, permit, or conceptual approval, the order of presentation in the proceeding is for the permit applicant to present a prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the license, permit, or conceptual approval, followed by the agency. This demonstration may be made by entering into evidence the application and relevant material submitted to the agency in support of the application, and the agency’s staff report or notice of intent to approve the permit, license, or conceptual approval. Subsequent to the presentation of the applicant’s prima facie case and any direct evidence submitted by the agency, the petitioner initiating the action challenging the issuance of the license, permit, or conceptual approval has the burden of ultimate persuasion and has the burden of going forward to prove the case in opposition to the license, permit, or conceptual approval through the presentation of competent and substantial evidence. The permit applicant and agency may on rebuttal present any evidence relevant to demonstrating that the application meets the conditions for issuance. Paragraph (p) was added to section 120.569(2) in the 2011 Session of the Florida Legislature. Accordingly, the final hearing commenced with the Bay County and the District's presentation of its prima facie case by submitting the application, supporting documentation, and the District's approval of the application. Respondents also presented the testimony of four witnesses in the hearing's first phase. Phase I of the Final Hearing: Bay County's Application, Supporting Documents, the District's Approval and Supporting Testimony The Application File At the final hearing, Bay County and the District offered the "application file," marked as Joint Exhibit Binder Volumes I-IV (the "Application File") in the hearing's first phase. It was admitted into evidence. A document entitled "Alternate Water Supply Report - Bay County Water Division" dated May 20, 2008 (the "Hatch Mott MacDonald Report") is contained in the Application File. See Joint Ex. Vol. I, Tab B. The Hatch Mott MacDonald Report is a preliminary evaluation of a wellfield with 22 wells, an "initial phase . . . [of] five (5) wells producing 5 MGD and the final phase . . . [of] 17 wells, producing 25 MGD." Id. at 1. The evaluation includes the gathering of information, a recommendation for the best method of treatment, an analysis of whether individual well sites or a centralized site would be superior, a hydraulic model and analysis, and the potential construction and operation costs. The report concludes in its Executive Summary: HMM's preliminary results, based upon water analysis of Well No. 1, indicate that only disinfection will be required for potable water treatment. Additionally, the hydraulic analysis indicated that the wells are capable of providing the initial 5 MGD and future 25 MGD to the proposed connection point along Highway 388 without re-pumping. Adequate storage for fire protection should be considered at current and future service areas. The use of chlorine gas at each well site during the initial phase had the lowest present worth of $16,770,270; that is, the smallest amount of funds needed today to build, operate, and maintain the system. The use of chlorine gas at each well in the final phase had a present worth of $41,245,118, only slightly more than the present worth of $40,834,245 for on-site Id. generation of disinfectant at three (3) central facilities. The Application File contains a response to a District request for additional information (the "2009 RAI Response") submitted by the Bay County Services Utility Director and received by the District in September 2009. See Joint Ex. Vol. II, Tab K. The 2009 RAI Response contains the 1991 Agreement and numerous other documents. Among them is a report prepared by HydroGeoLogic, Inc. ("HGL") entitled "Groundwater Model Development for the Assessment of a New Wellfield in Bay County, Florida" dated September 2009 (the "2009 HGL Modeling Report"). The report predicts impacts that would be created to the surrounding aquifers as a result of the Wellfield pumping, but recommends that additional data be obtained. The Application File contains the District's Notice dated March 25, 2010. See Joint Ex. Vol. III, Tab B. Attached to the Notice is a draft of the Permit and a staff report from the District recommending approval with conditions. Condition 11 of the Permit's standard conditions obligates Bay County to mitigate any significant adverse impacts caused by withdrawals and reserves the right to the District to curtail permitted withdrawal rates "if the withdrawal causes significant adverse impact on the resource and legal uses of water, or adjacent land use, which existed at the time of the permit application." Joint Ex. Vol. III, Tab B, p. 3 of 17. Attachment A to the Permit requires conditions in addition to the standard conditions contained in the body of the Permit. Paragraph 12 of Attachment A, for example, requires that Bay County implement and maintain a water and conservation efficiency program with a number of goals. Attachment B to the Permit requires a monitoring and evaluation program and wetland monitoring of adjacent properties to determine if the pumping causes adverse impacts to wetland areas, including habitat and species utilization. The Application File contains a revised modeling report also entitled "Groundwater Model Development for the Assessment of a New Wellfield in Bay County, Florida" (the "2011 Revised HGL Modeling Report" or the "HGL Model Report"). See Joint Ex. Vol. III, Tab P. The 2011 Revised HGL Modeling Report predicts impacts of the pumping of the Wellfield on the Upper Floridan Aquifer and the Surficial Aquifer. The HGL Model is based on an adaptation of an original model first developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and then further adapted by HGL. The adapted model is known as MODFLOW-SURFACT. The MODFLOW-SURFACT Model has been used in excess of 600 applications and is used worldwide. The HGL Model predicted impact from pumping when wellfield pumping achieves a "steady state." Steady state impact is achieved after 10-12 years of constant pumping. The impact and the area of impact is depicted on Figure 5.1b(1) of the 2011 Revised HGL Modeling Report. The predicted drawdown of the Surficial Aquifer is predicted to be six inches (0.5 ft) within the areas indicated. The Application File shows that the permit was revised twice. Ultimately, a Second Revised Notice of Proposed Agency Action dated July 22, 2011, was issued by the District. Attached to the Second Revised NOPAA is the District's Permit. See Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U. A revised Staff Report from the District dated July 18, 2011, is also included in Volume IV of the joint exhibits. See id., Tab Q. The Permit as supported by the staff report allows an average daily withdrawal of 5 MGD, a maximum daily withdrawal of 30 MGD for no more than 60 days per year (with a maximum of 52 consecutive days), and a maximum monthly amount of 775 million gallons. See Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U. The Permit also includes the LTEMP jointly prepared by the Applicant and the District. See id., Attachment B. The Permit requires Bay County to "mitigate any significant adverse impact caused by withdrawals . . . on the resource and legal water withdrawals and uses, and on adjacent land use, which existed at the time of the permit application." Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab R, p. 3 of 11. If the District receives notice of an impact from the existing legal user, it contacts the utility. "Within 72 hours [the utility has] a well contractor out there and they have determined what the problem is." Tr. 615. There are no time requirements for the resolution of the impact or any other resolution procedures in the Permit. Definitions of Emergency and Maintenance Amounts The Permit does not include a definition of when the Reservoir may be considered to be unavailable as a public water supply. That determination is left to Bay County. The Permit does not set a withdrawal limit lower than the limits detailed above for maintenance of the Wellfield. There is one set of withdrawal limits. They apply irrespective of the purpose of the withdrawals, that is, whether for backup in an emergency, maintenance, or some other purpose that falls under Public Supply or Industrial Use. Conditions and Monitoring Requirements Bay County is required to mitigate any significant adverse impacts on resources and legal water withdrawals and uses caused by the County's withdrawal from the Wellfield. In addition, the District reserves the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates if Bay County's withdrawal causes adverse impacts on local resources and legal uses of water in existence at the time of the permit application. In the event of a declared water shortage, the Permit requires Bay County to make water withdrawal reductions ordered by the District. In addition, the District may alter, modify, or deactivate all or parts of the Permit. Attachment A to the Permit, states: The Permittee shall not exceed total, combined groundwater and surface water (authorized in Individual Water Use Permit No. 19910142) withdrawals of an average daily withdrawal of 98,000,000 gallons, a maximum daily withdrawal of 107,000,000 gallons and a maximum monthly withdrawal of 2,487,750,000 gallons. Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U, p. 4 of 11. The inclusion of "surface water" in the condition covers withdrawals from the Reservoir. The combination of actual withdrawals from the Wellfield and actual withdrawals from the Reservoir, therefore, means that Bay County may not exceed the limitations of the withdrawals authorized by the 1991 Agreement. Attachment A to the Permit further explains how Bay County must mitigate harm caused by groundwater withdrawals. The Permittee, within seven days of determination or notification by the District that the authorized groundwater withdrawal is causing harm to the resources, shall cease or reduce, as directed by the District, its pumping activity. The Permittee shall retain the services of a qualified, licensed professional to investigate allegations of interference with an existing, legal groundwater use. The Permittee shall ensure their chosen contractor investigates the alleged interference within 72 hours of the allegation being made. If it is determined that the use of a well has been impaired as a result of the Permittee's operation, the Permittee shall undertake the required mitigation or some other arrangement mutually agreeable to the Permittee and the affected party. The Permittee shall be responsible for the payment of services rendered by the licensed water well contractor and/or professional geologist. The Permittee, within 30 days of any allegation of interference, shall submit a report to the District including the date of the allegation, the name and contact information of the party making the allegation, the result of the investigation made and any mitigation action undertaken. Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U, Attachment A, p. 4 of 11. Bay County is also required, within two years from the Permit's issuance, to submit to the District for review and approval a contingency plan to mitigate potential impacts. The County must wait one full year prior to commencing withdrawal of groundwater for production purposes. During the one-year period, the County must complete groundwater, surface water, and wetland monitoring. The requirements of the mandatory monitoring are found in Attachment B of the Permit, LTEMP. See Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U, Attachment B. The LTEMP "is designed to track trends in ecological and hydrological conditions caused by naturally occurring fluctuations in rainfall, which may affect ground and surface water hydrologic conditions; and to identify potential effects caused by wellfield pumping." Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U, Attachment B at 1. If a substantive deviation occurs from predictions made by the HGL Modeling, or if any other hydrologic or ecologic changes due to the withdrawals are observed at monitoring sites, the District is required to review and, in consultation with Bay County, appropriately revise the LTEMP as necessary with the aim that the monitoring will assure that the conditions for issuance of the Permit are being met. Testimony in Support of the Application In addition to the documentary evidence offered in the first phase of the proceeding, Bay County and the District presented the testimony of several witnesses. These witnesses testified as to background and the 2008 RWSP, the vulnerability of the Reservoir to saltwater contamination from storm surge, and the basis for the District's decision. Vulnerability to Storm Surge There is a one percent chance every year of a 100- year storm event. Flood Insurance Rates Maps ("FIRMS") show that the 100-year water level (the level of storm surge in a 100-year storm event) at the Dam will reach 11 feet NAVD, two feet above the top of the gate structure above the Dam. The Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") and the National Weather Service ("NWS") have developed the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes ("SLOSH") model, which estimates storm surge depths resulting from historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes. A Florida Department of Emergency Management's SLOSH model of the Panama City area shows maximum surge levels for Storm Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, in NAVD feet as 3.3, 5.8, 10.8, 14.1, and 18.1, respectively. The SLOSH model, in all likelihood, is a low estimation. It is reasonable to expect surge levels in a Category 3 hurricane that passes directly over the Dam, for example, to be higher than 10.8 feet NAVD predicted by the SLOSH model at the Dam. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ("NOAA") database, 43 tropical storms and hurricanes have passed within 200 miles of the Reservoir between 1970 and 2010 and 20 have come within 100 miles. None have made landfall closer than 40 miles away from the Dam. Of the 20 storms passing within 100 miles of the Reservoir, four have reached Category 3 strength or higher: Eloise, Elena, Opal, and Dennis. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan made landfall over 100 miles to the west of the Dam and raised water levels near the Dam to nearly five feet NAVD. The following year, Hurricane Dennis made landfall 76 miles to the west of the Dam. Dennis produced a surge level of nearly four feet NAVD near the Dam. "Hurricane Eloise (1975) made landfall 40 miles west of Panama City and produced water levels 15 ft above normal at Panama City ([citation omitted]). However, the storm passed through the area quickly and does not appear to have significantly affected the dam." Bay County Ex. 1, p. 3 of 9. Hurricane Opal made landfall 86 miles west of Panama City Beach and produced water levels of about 8.3 feet NAVD near the Dam. The storm surge did not overtop the gate structure above the Dam, but the gates were jammed by debris. "[C]hloride levels rose above 50 ppm at the intake pumps and two to three times above normal background levels of 8 to 10 ppm 'almost one mile up-reservoir.'" Id. The levels of chloride were "still well within drinking water limits," tr. 434, of 250 parts-per- million (ppm). Hurricane Katrina made landfall in 2005 more than 200 miles west of the Reservoir with storm surges higher than 20 feet. Katrina produced surge levels of five feet above normal tide levels in Bay County. The rate and amount of saltwater that would enter the Reservoir depends on the height of the storm surge above the Dam. The 100-year surge levels could remain above the top of the Dam for three or more hours. Such an event would introduce approximately 56,200,000 cubic feet or 1,290 acre-feet of saltwater into the Reservoir, even if the Dam were to remain intact (undamaged) and the tide gates remain closed. The salinity levels bay-side of the dam are generally 23,000 to 33,000 ppm. It is reasonable to expect that in the event of a 100-year storm event, much of the storm surge would come directly from the Gulf of Mexico, which has higher salinity levels. With the Dam intact, the introduction of 1,290 acre- feet of saltwater at 33,000 ppm would raise the average chloride concentration in the Reservoir to at least 800 ppm, more than three times the maximum drinking water chloride level of 250 ppm. Assuming the Dam remained intact during a 100-year storm event, freshwater added over time to the lake from the streams and aquifer will dilute the elevated lake chloride level and restore the lake water to a level fit for human consumption. The USGS has measured stream flow at Deer Point Lake and estimated the lake receives an average of 600 million gallons of freshwater per day or 900 cfs. Post-Opal rates were estimated at 1,500 cfs by the District. Given the estimated volume of saltwater introduced to the lake, at an inflow rate equal to the estimated post- hurricane freshwater inflow rate, Bay County's expert, Dr. Miller, estimated it would take at least two weeks to reduce salinity in the lake to drinkable levels. The inflow rate, however, is not certain. Dr. Miller estimated it is reasonable to expect that it could take anywhere from two weeks to two months for the lake to recover from the saltwater intrusion depending on the variation in the inflow rate. Nonetheless, Dr. Miller assumed that the saltwater from storm surge entering the Reservoir would mix in a uniform matter. There would be "quite a bit of mixing in a storm," tr. 485, of saltwater topping the Dam and freshwater in the Dam. But there would also be stratification due to the sinking of denser saltwater and the rising in the water column of freshwater. The above estimations assume the bridge and Dam remain intact during a major storm. The Dam and tide gates act as a solid barrier, protecting the lake from saltwater in the bay. If rainfall rises in the lake prior to a surge, the tide gates would open to release water, becoming vulnerable to damage or jamming by debris as occurred during Hurricane Opal. In the event of storm surge bringing saltwater into the Reservoir, the opening of the tide gates will assist the Reservoir in reaching chloride levels below 250 ppm provided the tide gates operate properly. Dr. Janicki, an NTC/Knight expert, used the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code hydrodynamic model ("EFDC Model") to simulate the effects of control structures and water withdrawals on the Reservoir. Taking into consideration the factors Dr. Janicki considered relevant, he predicted that chloride levels, in the event of storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane overtopping the Dam, would only exceed 250 ppm, the drinking water standard, for approximately 3.4 days. Dr. Janicki's prediction, however, was flawed. He added too little saltwater to the lake in the event of contamination from storm surge. He assumed that saltwater would be flushed too soon from the Reservoir following contamination. He did not account for the effects of waves in his model. His model was not in accord with data for Hurricane Opal and the chloride levels near the Dam taken by Bay County after Opal. If the bridge and Dam were severely damaged, more saltwater could enter the lake. With severe damage to the Dam, the Reservoir would be exposed to normal tides. Restoration would not begin until the Dam and bridge had been fully repaired. If an event were catastrophic, the Reservoir could be offline for a lengthy period of time. The Basis for the District's Decision Bay County's reliance on the Reservoir for water for the majority of the population led the District in the mid-1980s to encourage the County to obtain a backup supply. After the District turned down several requests for withdrawals of up to 30 MGD for every day of the year, the District ultimately approved what is reflected in the Permit. The justification for the permitted withdrawal is as a backup supply in the event the Reservoir becomes unavailable and for maintenance of the system and recoupment of its cost. With regard to maintenance, the District attempted to obtain information from Bay County as to appropriate withdrawal limitations. The attempts were abandoned. Despite repeated requests by the District, Bay County did not provide the amount of water needed to be withdrawn for maintenance since it did not have "infrastructure specifics," tr. 552, needed to provide the District with a numeric limit. In contrast to the amount needed for maintenance, the District found Bay County to have demonstrated that it needs 30 MGD when the Reservoir is offline and that it is reasonable for the County to need 30 MGD up to 60 days per year. The District determined that the Bay County's application met the requirements for the issuance of a consumptive use permit found in section 373.221(1)(a)-(c). In determining whether approval of the application is in the public interest, the District did not presume that it is in the public interest on the basis of the designation in the 2008 RWSP of an inland groundwater source as an alternative water supply. The District determined that it is in the public's interest for Bay County to have a reliable and safe water supply source as a backup to the Reservoir irrespective of the statutory presumption. Nonetheless, the District maintains in this proceeding that the presumption applies. The District also applied the 18 criteria test for finding a reasonable-beneficial use found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.410(a)-(r) and determined that the application should be approved. Petitioners' Case in Opposition Washington County (Petitioner in Case No. 10-2983), NTC/Knight (Petitioner in Case No. 10-2984), and Messrs. Murfee and Lapensohn (Petitioners in Case No. 10-10100) filed individual petitions for formal administrative hearing. Although not identical, the petitions share the similarity that, in essence, each alleges that Bay County failed to establish that the proposed use of water meets the statutory and rule criteria for obtaining a permit for the consumptive use of water. For example, among the many issues listed under the heading "Disputed Issues of Material Fact and Law" in Washington County's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing is "[w]hether Bay County has provided reasonable assurance that its proposed use of water is a reasonable-beneficial use as defined in section 373.019, Florida Statutes." See p. 5 of the Washington County petition. In like fashion, the Washington County petition and the other two petitions allege that the issues are whether Bay County provided reasonable assurance that it meets the other statutory criteria in section 373.223, and the applicable rule criteria that must be met by an applicant in order for the District to issue a permit for the consumptive use of water. The Petitioners' cases focused on five topics: 1) the limitations of the HGL Model; 2) the likelihood of impacts to wetlands and the failure of the monitoring plan to provide reasonable assurance that the District's monitoring under the plan will succeed in detecting harm to wetlands caused by the withdrawals; 3) the reasonable-beneficial nature of the proposed use of the permit, including the vulnerability of the Reservoir; 4) interference with presently existing legal users; and 5) the feasibility of alternative sources. Bay County and the District offered evidence on rebuttal to meet the Petitioners' cases. Surrebuttal was conducted by Petitioners. Modeling Groundwater models "represent what is happening in very complex physical systems." Tr. 1495. Typically, the data used by models is not sufficient to obtain a completely accurate representation. The models depend on specific data points such as information from boreholes or water level measurements that do not reveal everything that is occurring in the complex system and, therefore, are not enough to support completely accurate model predictions. As explained by Dr. Guvanasen, Bay County and the District's expert, in order to reach a representation of the entire system when the data available from boreholes and measurements is insufficient, which is typically the case, the modeler must "extrapolate a lot of information and use other knowledge of other events." Id. The "knowledge of other events" that the HGL Model used included Dr. Scott's knowledge of the karst environment in the Panhandle of Florida, the mapping of Bay and Washington County geology by the Florida Geological Society, and Dr. Upchurch's knowledge of karst topography. The HGL results of the available data and the extrapolations were placed into a mathematical model (the HGL Model) that considered the withdrawals at issue to determine the response of the system to the additional stress of the withdrawals. Mathematical models like the HGL Model lead to "non- unique solutions" in which "no model . . . is exactly 100 percent correct . . . ." Tr. 1635. Modeling results, therefore, are subject to changes as additional data is collected that demand a better representation than the model provided prior to the data's collection and analysis. HGL Modeling for this case provides examples of non- unique solutions. HGL "built a model twice . . . and got two different sets of answers." Tr. 1633. Besides the recommendation that more data be obtained after the first HGL Model results, the model was not satisfactorily calibrated and the model was recalibrated for the Revised HGL Modeling results. Mr. Davis, NTC/Knight's expert, conducted additional modeling work (the "Davis Modeling"). Using the HGL Model and additional data concerning the NTC/Knight Property, Mr. Davis found drawdowns would occur over a similar but greater area than shown in the 2011 Revised HGL Modeling Report. (Compare NTC/Knight Ex. 31 at 2 to Joint Ex. Vol. III, Tab P, Figure 51b(1).) The Davis Modeling drawdowns, moreover, ranged up to 0.8 feet, 60 percent more than the 0.5 feet determined by the second HGL Modeling results. In the area of Big Blue Lake, for example, the drawdown contours produced by the Davis Model were either 0.6 feet or 0.7 feet, 20 to 40 percent more than the 0.5 feet produced by the second HGL Modeling results. See NTC/Knight Ex. 31 at 2. Asked to rank the modeling results between the first HGL Model run, the second HGL Model run, and his own results, Mr. Davis was unable to say which was better because of the sparseness of the data. Mr. Davis opined that he could conduct another "dozen more model runs," but without additional data he would be "hard pressed" to be able to say which run was more accurate. Tr. 1633. In Mr. Davis' opinion there remain significant uncertainties that cannot be resolved without more data. Inadequate data "precludes . . . reasonable assurance as to exactly where the impacts will travel and exactly what the magnitude of those impacts will be . . . ." Tr. 1637. Ecological Impacts Bruce A. Pruitt, Ph.D., was accepted as an expert in hydrology, soil science, fluvial geomorphology, and wetland sciences. Dr. Pruitt mapped the soil types on the NTC/Knight Property using the Natural Resource Conservation Service ("NRCS") Web Soil Survey and tested soil types by hand-auguring in wetland areas. He characterized the various soil-types on the property by drainage class (relative wetness of the soil under natural conditions) and hydraulic conductivity (permeability). Dr. Pruitt ranked the vulnerability of wetlands within the zone of drawdown predicted by the HGL Model as "very high," "high," or "moderate." The categories were based on the presence of threatened and endangered species, Florida Natural Area Inventor ("FNAI") habitat designation, and the hydrology of the wetland. He assumed that if the water level in the Surficial Aquifer were to be drawn down by 0.3 feet or 0.4 feet then the water level in the seepage bogs at Botheration Creek would be drawn down by the same amount. Wetlands with a vulnerability classification of "very high" will suffer an adverse impact at a drawdown level of 0.2 feet; those at "high" at 0.3 feet and those at "moderate" at 0.5 feet in times of drought. Dr. Pruitt calculated wetland acreage by type using the Florida Cover Classification System. He assigned vulnerability rating for the wetlands within the Surficial Aquifer drawdown contours generated by the HGL Model. Based on Dr. Pruitt's calculations, a total of approximately 4,200 acres of wetlands are likely to be harmed by the predicted drawdown. A majority of these wetlands are located in Washington County. Based on Dr. Pruitt's analysis, it is likely that the NTC/Knight Property contains 1,981 acres of "very highly" vulnerable wetlands; 1,895 acres of "highly" vulnerable wetlands; and 390 acres of "moderately" vulnerable wetlands, which are likely to be harmed by the drawdown in times of drought. In reaching his opinion about the quantification of acres of wetlands likely to be harmed, Dr. Pruitt applied the Florida Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method ("UMAM"). UMAM was designed to address compensatory mitigation in dredge and fill cases. It was not designed for consumptive water use cases. In contrast and damaging to its case of reasonable assurance that natural systems will not be significantly affected, the District did not conduct an analysis to determine loss of wetland function resulting from operation under the Permit. Nor did it determine how much drawdown the affected wetlands could tolerate before they were harmed. Rather than conducting such an analysis, the District chose to rely on implementation of the LTEMP to cure any harm that might be down by drawdown to the Surficial Aquifer. The District and Bay County's wetland scientists opined that there might be a less permeable restrictive layer maintaining water levels above the Surficial Aquifer on the NTC/Knight Property. Dr. Pruitt acknowledged that the NTC/Knight Property had scattered clay layers beneath the surface. It is possible, therefore, that some of the wetland areas he identified as subject to harm have restrictive features under them which would hold water and resist dehydration. In his hand-auguring, however, Dr. Pruitt found no evidence of a less permeable layer. The auguring only went to a depth of three feet and would have to go to a depth of two meters to be definitive. Furthermore, Dr. Pruitt found no evidence of a less permeable layer from well drillings. The District and Bay County did not prove that there is, in fact, such a restrictive layer. NTC/Knight collected water-level data from shallow hand-augured wells and stage recorders at the Botheration Creek Hillside Seepage Bog. The data demonstrate that the water level in the shallow, hand-augured wells at the Botheration Creek Bog is a direct reflection of the level of the Surficial Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer at the Botheration Creek Bog was approximately 95.5 feet NAVD, over 35 feet higher than at Big Blue Lake and the highest measured level south of Big Blue Lake. The Botheration Creek Hillside Seepage Bog is located between the 0.3 and 0.4 foot Surficial Aquifer drawdown contours predicted by the HGL Model. Based on the HGL Model, the District and Bay County's experts estimated the Surficial Aquifer drawdown at this bog would be 0.39 feet. During the approximately one year of NTC/Knight's water-level recording, a drawdown of 0.39 feet would have reduced the frequency and duration of inundation at this bog significantly. For example, an analysis of the approximately one year of data collected by NTC/Knight shows that at the intermediate water-level recorder location in the bog, one 29-day period of inundation would have been reduced to just nine days and that further down gradient in the bog, none of the five instances when the bog was inundated would have occurred. This is consistent with Dr. Pruitt's vulnerability assessment, which finds that the vulnerability of the hillside seepage bogs to drawdown is "very high," that is, these systems are likely to be harmed in times of drought at drawdown levels in the Surficial Aquifer of 0.2 feet or greater. A drawdown of 0.3-0.4 feet in the Surficial Aquifer at the hillside seepage bog along Botheration Creek increases the likelihood that the hillside seepage bogs along Botheration Creek will be lost in times of drought. The littoral shelves of Sand Hill Lakes typically occur along a low gradient above the normal low water level of the lakes. The existence of the shelf promotes seepage sheet flow along a wide expanse. The drawdown will change the flow from seepage sheet flow to concentrated stream flow within gullies. The erosion and increased sedimentation produced by the greater force of the water in the gullies will cause a loss of area needed by certain seepage dependent plants and animals. If Big Blue Lake were to be drawn down by the 0.71 feet predicted by Mr. Davis, the location of the seepage would move down 0.71 feet vertically and an estimated 24.5 feet horizontally. The result would be a reduction in the littoral shelf conducive to seepage-dependent plant communities by approximately nine acres. The impact would likely be significant since the seepage zone is in an area of "very high" vulnerability according to Dr. Pruitt. Between October 2010 and July 2011, NTC/Knight took four measurements of water level at "BCS-01," a stage recorder in Botheration Creek. The measurements showed the water level in the creek at that point to be 0.1 to 0.32 feet. NTC/Knight also sampled for taxa of macroinvertebrates in the reach of the creek. NTC/Knight identified 46 taxa, including mussels and six long-lived taxa. The presence of the long-lived taxa and mussels indicate that the reach of the creek in the vicinity of the stage recorder should be considered to be a perennial stream. Botheration Creek is high-quality water and, as shown by NTC/Knight's sampling, it contains a diverse mix of aquatic invertebrates and fish. A drop in the level of Botheration Creek of 0.2 feet predicted by the HGL Model would have caused the creek to go dry at BCA-01 during three of the four dates on which the water level was measured. Such a drop would convert the reach of the creek in the vicinity of the stage recorder from a perennial to an intermittent stream and would eliminate the reach's viability for long-lived taxa. Similarly, upstream reaches that are intermittent would become ephemeral (streams that flow only during periods of high rainfall). If the Wellfield becomes fully operational as allowed by the Permit, there will be a reduction in the Surficial Aquifer at Botheration Creek of between 0.2 and 0.3 feet. The reduction in the aquifer will reduce flow in Botheration Creek, reduce the volume downstream, including in Pine Log Creek, and reduce out-of-bank flood frequency and duration. The result will be a reduction in nutrients delivered downstream and to the floodplain to the detriment of plants and animal life that depend on them. Additionally, other reaches of the creek that have perennial flow will be converted to intermittent streams and reaches that are intermittent will become ephemeral. The result will be the elimination of plant and animal species currently living in these portions of the creek. The impact of the HGL Model predicted drawdown to steepheads depends on the individual steephead and the drawdown contour at its location and the amount of rainfall. Four steepheads on the NTC/Knight Property could suffer impacts similar to the impact at Russ Steephead to which Dr. Pruitt assigned a high probability of impact. Russ Steephead is located on the NTC/Knight Property above Russ Pond. NTC/Knight installed Surficial Aquifer wells at Russ Steephead between the HGL Model's predicted 0.5 and 0.6 foot Surficial Aquifer drawdown contours. NTC/Knight also installed a stage recorder just downstream from the steephead. During drought, NTC/Knight observed a loss of flow from the sidewall seepage areas and in the Russ Steephead Stream. If the Surficial Aquifer at Russ Pond were to be drawn down by 0.5-0.6 feet, the sidewalls of the Russ Steephead Stream and the stream itself would lose flow in times of drought. The loss of flow would lead to oxidation and loss of organic materials in the stream channel and flood plain, resulting in soil subsidence. If the water level at the terminus of the Russ Steephead Stream were drawn down, headward down cutting in the stream channel would be induced. In such a case, in the words of Dr. Pruitt, "there is a high probability that if drawdown occurs and . . . over a long period of time," the process will make the steephead "look more like a gully . . . ." Tr. 2120. The drawdown will also reduce the frequency and duration of inundation of the sphagnum bogs in the four steepheads likely to be affected by the drawdown. The bogs and the associated animals that depend upon them would be lost. Dr. Means identified a number of temporary ponds within HGL's predicted drawdown of the Surficial Aquifer. Nine were between the 0.3 and 0.6 foot drawdown contour, and two were between the 0.6 and 0.7 foot drawdown contours. These ponds and plant and animal communities dependent upon them would likely be harmed by the drawdowns. Mr. Cantrell offered testimony to rebut the Petitioners' case on wetland impacts. His testimony was based on an evaluation of aerial photography, site visits to the Wellfield, and a one-day trip to the NTC/Knight Property. It is Mr. Cantrell's opinion that if the NTC/Knight Property were to drain, it would be because of a surface water drainage system, such as ditching, not because of drawdown in the Surficial Aquifer caused by operation of the Wellfield. Mr. Cantrell's opinion is that because the Area has been subjected to a wide range of fluctuations in water levels and the wetland systems have survived, operation of the Wellfield will not have significant impacts. Mr. Cantrell's opinion, however, overlooks the effect of constant drawdown during times of severe drought. That wetlands have survived severe drought in the past does not mean they will survive severe drought conditions exacerbated by drawdown caused by operation of the Wellfield. Monitoring Special condition 19 of the Permit requires Bay County to implement the LTEMP after the Permit is issued. The LTEMP requires Bay County to establish a monitoring network, but does not provide the location of any particular monitoring site. Sites identified in the LTEMP are recommended, but the ability to use a particular site is dependent on field verification of suitability and authorization by the landowner. Over half the area designated in the LTEMP from the HGL Model's projected 0.5 foot drawdown in the Surficial Aquifer is located on the NTC/Knight Property. It will be necessary, therefore, to include sites on the NTC/Knight Property in the ultimate environmental monitoring network. The LTEMP's recommended sites do not include monitoring of some of the most susceptible wetland systems: temporary ponds, the Botheration Creek hillside seepage bogs, and the perennial headwaters of Botheration Creek. Without this monitoring, the LTEMP will be unable to detect whether these systems are harmed by withdrawals. The Permit and LTEMP require no more than one-year of baseline data to be collected prior to initiation of water withdrawals. The proposed monitoring time is inadequate to create a sufficient record for use in determining whether a reduction in water levels is attributable to water withdrawals or natural phenomena, such as drought. Baseline monitoring should be conducted for a sufficient duration to ensure that a full range of wet and dry years is captured. The LTEMP describes the types of data that are to be collected. A missing component is sampling for frogs, salamanders, and other amphibians that are sensitive to changes in hydrologic regimes and which depend upon infrequent periods of inundation in order to breed. This type of faunal sampling is particularly important in the temporary ponds and seepage environments. Without sampling for the presence of these species, the LTEMP will be unable to determine whether these populations have been harmed by withdrawals. The LTEMP includes a number of "triggers," that if tripped, require the preparation of an auxiliary report. A number of these triggers make reference to changes in water levels at the level of "significant deviation," an undefined term. More importantly, the LTEMP fails to require any statistical analysis. Without it, the LTEMP will be inadequate to establish whether a reduction in water levels is caused by water withdrawals or another cause. Similarly, other triggers lack sufficient detail to determine when they are tripped, such as those that refer to downward movement of plants. Finally, even if one of these triggers is tripped and an auxiliary report is prepared, nothing in the Permit or LTEMP sets forth the circumstances under which withdrawals would need to be curtailed and by what amount. The purpose of the LTEMP is to determine whether withdrawals are causing harm to the wetlands within the vicinity of the Wellfield. The LTEMP fails to provide reasonable assurance that it will succeed in achieving its purpose. Reasonable-Beneficial Use Use if the Reservoir is Unavailable In the event of Reservoir unavailability, Bay County is likely to need much less than 30 MGD. The need is likely to fall between 7.42 MGD and 9.71 MGD for the current population. In 2013, the need is likely to fall between 9.40 MGD and 12.29 MGD. See NTC/Knight Ex. 5, p. 4 of 4. The Permit, however, does not limit Bay County to emergency or backup use. While Bay County might voluntarily limit withdrawals to emergency use or backup supply, it has unfettered discretion to determine what constitutes an emergency or the necessity for a backup supply. The Permit is also not restricted to essential uses. Authorization of 30 MGD provides more than Bay County's current average daily demand for potable water. If the Permit restricted the use to essential uses, the authorization would be far less than 30 MDG. The District commissioned King Engineering to assist in development of a "Coastal Water Systems Interconnect Project" (the "Interconnect Project"). On average, the utilities subject to the Interconnect Project estimated that 42 percent of the average daily demand is dedicated to essential uses with the remaining 58 percent going to non-essential uses. Consistent with the estimate, the Project set a target of 50 percent of average daily demand to be allowed for use in an emergency. None of the information from the Interconnect Project, however, was used by the District in setting the limits of withdrawal in the Permit. b. Daily Use Bay County claims the 5 MGD annual average allocation under the Permit is needed for several reasons, principally the maintenance of pumps. Bay County's justification for 5 MGD is found in testimony from Mr. Lackemacher and a document he authored entitled, "Confidential Draft for Internal Use Only 5 MGD Pumping Rate" (the "Lackemacher Confidential Draft"), admitted as Bay County Ex. 24. Mr. Lackemacher's testimony follows: A. The fact is that there are no absolute knowns when we're talking about what needs to be. Q. What do you mean? A. Well, here we have a document [Bay County Ex. 24] where I talk about rationalization for 5 million gallons a day, why we would need it, mechanical reasons, financial reasons, regulatory reasons. I always felt that it was very difficult to justify a number. I don't know. We haven't designed the system. We haven't got all of the wells in. We don't know what their specific yields are. There's unknowns here. So do we need 2 million gallons a day or 5 million gallons a day? I don't know. I don't know that. But here is the rationalization for 5 million if that's in fact what we need. We may very well find out that we don't need 5 million gallons a day. Q. Is that because you don't know the precise locations of the well and how they're going to be piped and distributed? A. That's absolutely true. Q. Well, did you in this report, Exhibit 24, did you make some reasonable assumptions? A. I based it on some of the values as you discussed or as I pointed out earlier from Hatch Mott MacDonald's preliminary design. * * * Q. And do you feel confident that your analysis supported that in the area of 5 million gallons a day is what would be needed to operate the wellfield? A. Yes. And that's why the paper was generated that [is] a justification for 5 million gallons a day, here's what we think we would need. Tr. 209-10. The Lackemacher Confidential Draft is a one-page, written justification for the 5 MGD. Based on the Hatch Mott McDonald Report, see tr. 210, it considers regulatory, mechanical and financial factors. It is not supported, however, by engineering analysis. Any financial analysis found in the Hatch Mott McDonald Report, moreover, is far from complete. The factors taken into consideration are recited in the most general of terms. For example, of four such factors, the document lists the second as: "All water pumps are designed to run - turning pumps on and off is not the best situation for the overall electrical efficiency or the mechanicals of a pump." Bay County Ex. 24. Consistent with Mr. Lackemacher's testimony, the document concludes that the amount of water needed to run each well is unknown. The financial justification is based on costs shown in the Hatch Mott MacDonald Report for construction and operation of 22 wells, ten more wells than are contained in the Wellfield and without any analysis of revenue to recoup the costs. The financial justification is a bare conclusion on the part of Mr. Lackemacher: We cannot afford to operate a well field at a financial loss, based on this fact alone we would have to pump a minimum of 4.49 MGD. Combined with the fact that we don't know what volumes of water have to be turned over to ensure water quality 5 MGD seems quite reasonable. Bay County Ex. 24. The Lackemacher Confidential Draft is dated May 17, 2011. It was not part of Bay County's Application nor was it submitted to the District prior to the decision to issue the Permit. Although the District attempted to obtain information from Bay County about what was needed for maintenance, Bay County did not provide it. As Mr. Gowans testified, "[t]hen I finally told staff, [s]top asking, we're not going to get the numbers . . . ." Tr. 552. The District performed no analysis to determine the minimum amount of water needed to maintain the Wellfield. In contrast, NTC/Knight and Washington County presented the testimony of Phillip Waller, an engineer accepted as an expert in the design and construction of potable water systems, including groundwater wells, surface water, and transmission and distribution of drinking water. Mr. Waller testified that if the wells were connected to a central treatment system, there would not be the need to flush the pipeline for disinfection prior to use of the well in an emergency. Only 2.4 million gallons per year or 6,500 gallons per day would be needed to maintain optimum operating conditions, an amount far less than 5 MGD. Mr. Waller's experience when groundwater is used as a backup, moreover, is that they are operated periodically. While prudent to periodically operate backup wells especially in advance of hurricane season, vertical pumps in wells, unlike horizontal pumps, do not have a need for frequent operation because of even force distribution. They certainly do not need to be continuously operated. "In fact, wells routinely are idle for months at a time." Tr. 1123. Interference with Existing Legal Users In its Revised Staff Report dated July 18, 2011, the District wrote: Nearby Users: Under the most intensive pumping activity, drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer is predicted to be approximately 15 feet in the vicinity of the nearest private wells. Water level declines of this magnitude may cause water levels to fall below the level of the pump intake in some privately-owned wells. Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab Q, p. 4. The District's high estimate of the number of wells used by existing legal users that might suffer impacts approaches 900. The exact number or whether any existing legal users would be likely to suffer impacts was not proven. Alternatives Groundwater wells, if installed and attached to the fitting in the existing transmission line that delivers water from the Pump Station to the Water Treatment Plant, could serve as backup to the Reservoir. Bay County did not conduct a study of whether groundwater in the area of the transmission line was adequate to serve as an alternative. Mr. Waller, on behalf of NTC/Knight and Washington County, on the other hand, testified that the transmission line could support ten wells with a capacity of 10 MGD and could be constructed at a cost of $12 million, far less than the Wellfield. The area of the transmission line is in an area identified by the District as acceptable for the creation of potable water wells. The area does not present a significant risk of saltwater intrusion if not used continuously. The water meets the drinking water requirements for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health. The existing transmission line alternative is located near the existing raw water supply line which minimizes the need for additional piping. There is sufficient length along the existing raw water pipeline to accommodate ten wells. The existing transmission line alternative, therefore, has significant potential to succeed as a water supply backup to the Reservoir. NTC/Knight and Washington County, through Mr. Waller, also proposed another alternative: an intake at Bayou George. Near Highway 231, the main pipeline from the intake would run along public right-of-way. North of the existing intake in Williams Bayou and three miles north of the Dam, the proposed intake would be less susceptible to contamination from storm surge. Neither Bay County nor the District presented a thorough analysis of any alternative to the Wellfield. In contrast, NTC/Knight and Washington County presented the testimony of Mr. Waller that there are two alternatives that could be constructed at much less cost than the Wellfield and that have significant potential of providing backup supply.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order that denies the application of Bay County for the individual water use permit at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 26th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation established in 2010 whose only members are Erika and Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt. In 2010, Petitioner purchased parcel 2009-16- 0015 in a tax deed sale. The parcel consists primarily of the submerged lands within the marina basin adjacent to the project area. Petitioner contends that the tax deed accords it ownership of the western most 130 feet of the existing ditch and that the County is not authorized to do work on that property. The City and County dispute this claim and it is now being litigated in circuit court. The City claims ownership or control of all of the project area to be addressed under the permit. The City authorized the County to apply for and construct the improvements authorized by the permit pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the County for consolidation of stormwater management responsibilities. The District is the agency charged with the responsibility of controlling water resources within its geographic boundaries and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated in rule division 40D. The County submitted the application pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the City and will construct, operate, and maintain the project if the permit is issued. The Project U.S. Highway 41, also known as Tamiami Trail, travels through downtown Sarasota. During rainy months, between Fruitville Road and Second Street, U.S. Highway 41 experiences frequent roadway flooding. At the area where U.S. Highway 41 floods and between the Quay development to the north and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the south, is a stormwater ditch that drains west into a marina basin or bayou adjoining Sarasota Bay. However, it does not directly discharge into Sarasota Bay. The ditch is an upland cut drainage ditch approximately 650 feet in length and has been in existence for decades. The ditch is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the County for the surrounding communities. Contaminants in the stormwater system are addressed under this permit. The ditch provides the only outfall for an approximately 46-acre heavily urbanized drainage basin for which stormwater is collected through the stormwater system. The stormwater is discharged into the drainage ditch through a double concrete box culvert under U.S. Highway 41 and is ultimately conveyed to a marina basin adjoining Sarasota Bay. The ditch is located in what was originally platted as the right-of-way for Eighth Street (now known as Second Street) on the Central Broadway subdivision plat within the City. Pursuant to an earlier exemption determination by the District, in 2004 the County conducted maintenance dredging on the easterly portion of the drainage ditch in an effort to remove the sediments and vegetation that had built up in the ditch over the years and reduced its flow. Since that time, the ditch has again filled in as a result of the significant amounts of sedimentation from stormwater flows entering and settling in the ditch and significant amounts of vegetation. Also, flooding on U.S. Highway 41 has become more frequent. In its current condition, the ditch is approximately eight to 12 feet wide and eight to 12 inches deep, is poorly drained due to the sedimentation and heavily overgrown mangroves and nuisance vegetation, and is tidally influenced. Accumulated sediments in the ditch are approximately four feet thick at the eastern end and become thinner at the western end of the ditch. In August 2009, staff from the City, County, District, and Florida Department of Transportation met at the site of the ditch to conduct a pre-application meeting and discuss possible ways of addressing flooding problems at this location. Aside from the ditch improvements being proposed by the County, the only other remedy is to pipe the ditch, which is cost-prohibitive and would defeat the County's goal of keeping as much desirable vegetation in place as possible. To address flooding and maintenance concerns, on September 8, 2011, the County submitted an ERP application to the District to seek authorization to dredge and undertake ditch improvements. The application identifies the ditch as being within City right-of-way. Included with the application was a letter from the City authorizing the County to apply for the ERP on behalf of the City pursuant to their interlocal stormwater agreement. At the time the application was filed, the County Property Appraiser's Office Geographic Information Systems tax parcel map showed the ditch and dredge area as being within the City right-of-way. The proposed project consists of reconstruction of the ditch with a defined channel to be lined with rip rap and geotextile fabric and the addition of two sediment sump boxes. Some of the mangroves and nuisance vegetation will be removed as necessary to construct the ditch improvements. Mangroves will be preserved where not impacted by construction. The Property Dispute Petitioner claims ownership of the western 130 feet of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. As noted above, at the time the permit application was submitted, official property records showed the existing ditch as located within City right-of-way. Therefore, the County and District had no reason to doubt City ownership or control of the ditch area. A recently filed circuit court action seeks to determine ownership of a portion of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions involving the titles and boundaries or right of possession of real property. District rules permit applicants to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the proposed project area in order to conduct the activities to be permitted. An applicant with eminent domain authority that does not have ownership or control for all property necessary for the proposed project may rely on its eminent domain authority to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. The permit will be conditioned to prohibit construction until all ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project is acquired by the permittee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.301(1)(j); BOR § 2.0. The proposed permit contains Specific Condition No. 8 which enforces this requirement. Reasonable assurance of sufficient ownership or legal control of the project area is provided by virtue of the City's and County's eminent domain authority and the fact that the proposed permit prohibits construction until the permittee acquires all necessary ownership or other legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. Notice Requirements Petitioner contends the permit should be denied because it did not receive notice of the application pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). That rule provides that when the applicant is an entity with the power of eminent domain that does not have current ownership or control of the entire project area as described in the application, the applicant shall provide the property owner(s) identified in the application with so-called eminent domain noticing, which consists of (a) written notice of District receipt of the application, and (b) written notice of agency action on the application. Persons entitled to eminent domain noticing are owners of property located within the proposed project area as identified in the county property appraiser's records within 30 days prior to the filing of the application. The purpose of the District's eminent domain noticing provision is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to owners of property subject to being condemned or otherwise acquired by the applicant for part of the project area. As originally submitted, the application proposed some activities extending approximately ten feet into the marina basin and beyond the claimed City right-of-way. The permit application did not indicate City ownership or control of submerged lands within the marina basin. Consequently, in its request for additional information (RAI), the District advised that pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b), eminent domain notices to affected landowners would be required for any proposed easements over offsite property. As part of the application process, a seagrass study was prepared which showed seagrasses and oyster beds growing in the marina basin just beyond the end of the ditch, where some construction activity was proposed. Because seagrasses were observed growing at the end of the ditch, the County responded to the RAI by scaling back the project to confine activities to the City's right-of-way. With the change in project area, offsite easements were no longer necessary for the project. Thus, the project no longer required eminent domain noticing pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). The County and District acknowledge that Petitioner did not receive eminent domain notices. Although not provided notice, Petitioner nevertheless became aware of the permit application during the course of its own application process with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for an ERP to construct a 4,760-square foot, ten-slip docking facility on its adjacent submerged lands in the marina basin. The lack of notice has not prevented Petitioner from challenging the project or has otherwise prejudiced it. Having received actual notice of the permit, Petitioner filed a timely objection and request for hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends that while it does not oppose the ditch dredging, it would have wanted an opportunity to suggest a re-design of the ditch to include a dingy dock and kayak launching facility. Although it has known of the project since at least May 21, 2012, when it filed its first petition, and probably several months earlier, Petitioner has not provided the County or District with any alternative designs to maximize the potential for recreational use of the drainage canal. There is no requirement for ERP applicants to provide alternative designs to maximize potential public recreational uses. Requiring the County to do so would impose requirements that go beyond the conditions for permit issuance. ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, a permit applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to water quality, water quantity, and other environmental resources. For activities proposed in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters, reasonable assurance must also be provided that such activities are not contrary to the public interest and do not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The conditions for issuance of an ERP are set forth in rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302. The standards and criteria in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has met the conditions for issuance in those two rules. The parties have stipulated that the project either complies with the following conditions for issuance or that they are not applicable: 40D-4.301(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), (j), and (k) and 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. Also, rule 40D-4.302(1)(c) and (d), which concerns projects located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to certain shellfish harvesting waters or which involve vertical seawalls, is not applicable to this matter. Based on the parties' Stipulation, at issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands (40D-4.301(1)(a)); will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by wetlands and other surface waters (40D-4.301(1)(d)); will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that applicable state water quality standards will be violated (40D-4.301(1)(e)); and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (40D-4.301(1)(f)). Petitioner also contends that the County has failed to give reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts, as required by rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) and (b). Water Quantity Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance be provided that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Existing and post-construction flows were modeled by the County using the accepted Inter-Connected Pond Routing model. Drainage calculations demonstrate that for the 25-year storm, the flood stage will be reduced by 1.94 feet, and for the 100-year storm event, by 1.75 feet, which will provide flood relief. Modeling results demonstrate a reduction in flood stages not just for U.S. Highway 41 but for other adjoining properties. The evidence establishes that while the project is not designed to eliminate all potential flooding, flooding during normal events will be reduced. Specifically, no adverse water quantity impacts were demonstrated with respect to Petitioner's adjacent submerged lands. Improvements proposed to the ditch will increase its storage capacity and allow water to flow more efficiently. By increasing the storage and hydraulic efficiency of the ditch without generating any additional runoff volume, the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts and will have no adverse water quantity impacts on the receiving waters. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, including adjacent submerged lands owned by Petitioner. Impact on Value of Functions Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that project activities "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District." The existing ditch provides limited ecological functions for fish and wildlife, as it contains significant levels of exotics and nuisance vegetation that provide little in the way of habitat. The removal of the nuisance vegetation, improved water circulation, and decreased sediments will be an improvement. The proposed ditch reconstruction and replanting with other vegetation will provide a more suitable habitat for younger life stages of fish such as sea trout, red fish, and hog chokers, which are species typically found in tidally influenced drainage systems. Overall, the proposed project will result in an improved habitat available for fish and wildlife. The project will retain as many of the existing mangroves as possible, thereby retaining the ecology of the mangrove wetlands. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions being provided to fish and wildlife and will actually improve the ecological functions provided by the ditch. Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that the proposed ditch alterations will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. The parties have stipulated that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in rule chapters 62-522 and 62-550. Petitioner contends, however, that reasonable assurance has not been provided concerning possible impacts relating to surface water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, the anti- degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, or the groundwater permitting and monitoring requirements of rule chapter 62-522. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the activities will adversely affect the groundwater protection provisions of rule chapter 62-522. The proposed ditch alterations do not involve activities relating to these state water quality standards. Under BOR section 3.2.4, reasonable assurance must be provided for the short term and the long term that water quality standards are not violated. As to potential construction or short-term impacts, the proposed construction work involves the removal of sediments accumulated in the ditch, reconstruction of the ditch to be wider and deeper and within a more defined course, the addition of rip rap and geotextile fabric on the ditch bottom, and replanting of the ditch banks with salt- tolerant grasses and other vegetation to provide soil stabilization and erosion control. The proposed permit addresses the potential for turbidity during construction activities to cause short-term water quality violations by authorizing a temporary mixing zone and by requiring the installation of turbidity barriers and ongoing turbidity monitoring during construction. To further minimize the potential for any water quality violation during construction activities, construction methods will include the use of cofferdams or similar techniques to provide a barrier between the open water of the marina basin and the work being constructed within the ditch, which will be undertaken in segments starting at the eastern outfall at U.S. Highway 41. These provisions adequately address the potential for any short- term water quality impacts and are consistent with BOR provisions relating to short-term water quality. As to possible long-term water quality impacts, the evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not add any additional pollutants or new pollutant source to the receiving waters and will not cause or contribute to any violation of water quality standards. To the contrary, by removing existing stormwater sediments, which are known to contain pollutants, controlling sedimentation through collection of sediments in sediment sumps, and armoring the ditch channel to prevent erosion, water quality is expected to improve. The proposed sediment sumps to be added as a best management practice are appropriately sized to handle the approximately 5,600 pounds of sediments that accumulate annually in the ditch, as determined by annual pollutant load calculations provided by the County. The sumps will be located most efficiently at the outfall where the ditch begins. Preventing sediments from entering the receiving waters is one of the best things that can be done to improve water quality in nearby Sarasota Bay. Improvements in water quality are also expected to occur as a result of the addition of rip rap that will dissipate the flow energy, thereby allowing any remaining sediments to settle down, and the geotextile fabric that will keep soil in place and not allow it to float up. The sodding and replanting of the ditch embankments will also prevent side erosion from occurring, which erosion could add sediments in the ditch. Once constructed, the ditch will be regularly maintained by the County, with sediments to be cleaned out of the sump on a quarterly schedule. Any sediments settling on the rip rap and on plant vegetation would be cleaned out as needed, as determined by regular inspections. Petitioner contends that reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, and the anti-degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, will not be violated by the proposed activities. Its expert opined that the impact of the proposed activity on state water quality standards cannot be determined because no sampling of the receiving water was conducted, the permit does not require compliance monitoring, and the existing ditch sediments were not sufficiently analyzed. The evidence establishes that it can be reasonably presumed, without compliance monitoring or sampling, that the water flowing from the 46-acre urbanized watershed served by the ditch contains sediments and other pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. Most of the expected pollutants are contained within, or settle into the sediments that are deposited into, the ditch. By removing sediments through the use of adequately sized sediment sumps, slowing the water down to allow suspended solids to settle out within the ditch, adding geotextile fabric and rip rap covering the ditch bottom, establishing vegetation on the ditch sidebanks to prevent erosion, and implementing periodic maintenance through vacuum removal of collected sediments, the proposed activities will remove pollutants from the water flowing into the ditch and discharging into the marina basin and ultimately entering Sarasota Bay. Thus, it is reasonable to expect without sampling or monitoring that the proposed activities will improve water quality. In addition to identifying the positive benefits of the proposed activities, the evidence established that the proposed activities will not add a pollutant source to the receiving waters. This was not credibly disputed by Petitioner. Because the project does not generate pollutants, the proposed activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. There is no reason to require pre-construction or baseline sampling to compare with post- construction sampling, as no pollutants will be generated. The removal of sediments and ongoing ditch maintenance will result in an improvement in water quality. Therefore, it can be reasonably assured without requiring sampling or monitoring that the activities will not result in any violations of state water quality standards. Secondary Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f) and BOR section 3.2.7 require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. As originally proposed, the project included activities extending beyond the end of the ditch and into the marina basin, where seagrasses and oyster beds are present. By avoiding impacts to these resources, the project also avoids any secondary impacts to manatees that may frequent Sarasota Bay. Turbidity control measures to be used during construction will also avoid secondary impacts to these resources. Petitioner provided no evidence that secondary impacts would occur as a result of the project. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not result in any secondary impacts to the water resources. Public Interest Test Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that activities to be located in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, as determined by balancing certain criteria, or if such activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the activity will be clearly in the public interest. The proposed activities are not located within Sarasota Bay, a designated OFW. Petitioner provided no evidence that the proposed activities would significantly degrade that body of water. Therefore, the County need only demonstrate that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. The parties have stipulated that rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)6., which governs historical and archaeological resources, is not applicable to this matter. The remaining criteria at issue are whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values of marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The evidence establishes that the project will reduce flooding during normal stages and remove sediments. By reducing the potential for roadway flooding and improving water quality through sediment reduction, the project will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others. Efforts were made to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters in the design of the project. Proposed activities will involve the removal of some of the existing mangroves. Based upon an analysis conducted pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Manual, the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will result in a functional loss score of 0.08. Unavoidable wetland and other surface water impacts anticipated from the project will be appropriately mitigated through the use of a 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA). The evidence demonstrates that the project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to conservation of fish and wildlife, including any endangered or threatened species, or their habitats and will actually result in an improvement in wetland and other surface water functions and habitat. The evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water and will not cause erosion or shoaling. The ditch reconstruction will prevent the possibility of shoaling at the downstream end of the ditch adjoining Petitioner's submerged lands by increasing the width of the ditch, slowing the water down, removing sedimentation along the ditch bottom, and reducing erosion through the planting of salt-tolerant sod and other vegetation along the ditch side banks. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. No adverse impacts are expected to occur with respect to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed activity. By removing sediments, the project will provide an improvement to fishing and recreational activities in the marina basin and Sarasota Bay. Petitioner raised concerns regarding the amount of floatable material that will be discharged from the ditch as a result of removal of mangroves. As provided in the permit plans, significant portions of the mangroves will remain undisturbed. Under current conditions, the ditch and mangroves do not prevent or trap all trash and floatables entering the ditch. On-site observations of existing conditions confirmed there is not a large amount of trash and floatables currently being retained by existing mangroves. Any temporarily retained floatables within the ditch area ultimately float out to Sarasota Bay with the tide. The evidence establishes that even with the removal of some mangroves, the project is not expected to result in an easier flow or increased amount of floatables entering the marina basin. Finally, because the project activities do not add floatable materials to the ditch, requiring the County to implement design changes to remove floatables would exceed what is necessary to meet the conditions for permit issuance. Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the levels of fecal coliform and the possibility of illicit connections to the stormwater collection outfalls to the ditch. The ditch is part of a MS4 permit that is regulated pursuant to NPDES Permit No. FLS000004 issued to the County. The NPDES permit governs stormwater discharges within the unincorporated portions of the County, the municipalities within the County, and that part of Longboat Key that is in Manatee County. The primary function of the MS4 permit is to address issues of water quality as they relate to stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit requirements would be the appropriate regulatory framework to address elevated fecal coliform, illicit connections, or other water quality concerns in the stormwater emanating from the drainage basin served by the ditch, and not the ERP regulatory program. Having weighed and balanced the six applicable criteria, and based upon the evidence presented, the County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on wetlands and other surface waters, as further described in BOR sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.8.2. BOR section 3.2.8 provides that if an applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, then the regulated activity is considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts upon wetlands will be provided through the use of the 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek ROMA. The evidence establishes that the proposed mitigation fully offsets the impacts and is within the same drainage basin as the proposed impacts. No adverse cumulative impacts will occur with the project. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence of adverse cumulative impacts. Impaired Receiving Waters Petitioner contends that the project does not comply with the requirements of rule 40D-4.301(2) and related BOR section 3.2.4.5, which are applicable when existing ambient water quality does not meet state water quality standards. Rule 40D-4.301(2) provides that if an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant shall meet the requirements of BOR section 3.2.4.5 and related sections cited in that provision. Together, these provisions require that where existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant must demonstrate that for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards, the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If it does contribute to the existing violation, mitigation measures will be required that result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for the parameter that does not meet standards. The marina basin that is the receiving waters for the ditch has been identified by DEP as impaired due to levels of mercury in fish tissue. The evidence demonstrates that the project will not contribute to this water quality violation. Although not required to implement mitigation measures that will cause a net improvement of the levels of mercury in fish tissue, the evidence establishes that to the extent existing sediments contain mercury deposits, removal of the sediments reduce a source of mercury that can be ingested by fish in the receiving waters. Water Quality Certification Petitioner contends that Specific Condition No. 9 of the proposed permit, which expressly waives certification of compliance with state water quality standards, is contrary to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, and inconsistent with the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j). As explained by unrefuted testimony of the District, the water quality certification provisions of Section 401 allow states an opportunity to address the water resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States unless the affected state has granted or waived Section 401 certification. A state may grant, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification allows the federal permit or license to be issued. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiving certification allows the permit or license to be issued without state comment. Pursuant to rule 40D-4.101(4), an application for an ERP shall also constitute an application for certification of compliance with state water quality standards where necessary pursuant to Section 401. Issuance of the permit constitutes certification of compliance with water quality standards unless the permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provision of section 373.414(1), or the permit specifically states otherwise. By letter dated February 2, 1998, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, DEP has delegated to the state's five water management districts the authority to issue, deny, or waive water quality certifications under Section 401. DEP has also established categories of activities for which water quality certification will be considered waived. Under the DEP delegation, water management districts may waive water quality certification for four situations, one of which is when the permit or authorization expressly so provides. This is still current DEP direction. The types of permitting decisions which constitute the granting of water quality certification and the types of activities for which water quality certification could be considered waived are also addressed in the current Operating Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DEP, and the five water management districts. According to both DEP guidance and the water management district agreement with the USACE, water quality certification will be considered waived when the permit or authorization expressly so states. The District most often expressly waives water quality certification for permits issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions and for projects that discharge into impaired waters. Proposed Specific Condition No. 9 of the permit expressly waives water quality certification due to the fact that the receiving waters are listed by DEP as impaired. Conditioning of the permit in this manner is consistent with DEP guidance and District practice under these circumstances. Although water quality certification for federal permitting review purposes is waived, the project must still comply with water quality requirements by demonstrating that the proposed activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards or if the activities contribute to an existing violation, that a net benefit is provided. The evidence establishes that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards and is not expected to contribute to the receiving water impairment of elevated mercury levels in fish tissue. While not required, the project is nevertheless expected to have a positive benefit on overall water quality and likely will reduce mercury levels in fish tissue by removing the sediments that contain metals such as mercury. The District's waiver of water quality certification is consistent with Section 401, the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j), and applicable regulatory practices for Clean Water Act water quality certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and what, reasonable mitigative conditions are necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment, prior to issuing Petitioner's default permit.
Findings Of Fact Application and Default Petitioner's application is to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing 650 foot-long man-made canal of the same width and depth, normal (perpendicular) to old Central and South Florida Flood Control (now SFWMD) Rim Canal (the L-48 Borrow Canal), which is along the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Petitioner's initial, incomplete application filed in DEP's Port St. Lucie office on August 31, 2000, included: the proposed project's location by County, section, township, and range; its legal description; a sketch of its general location and surrounding landmarks; a SFWMD letter verifying conformity with the requirements of a "No Notice General Permit for Activities in Uplands" of a drawing for a proposed pond expansion (to a size less than half an acre), "which will provide borrow material necessary for a house pad and access drive"; a description of water control Structure 127, together with its purpose, operation, and flood discharge characteristics, which were said to describe water levels in Buckhead Ridge, the name of the subdivision where the project was proposed; two virtually identical copies of a boundary survey for Petitioner's property (one with legal description circled) showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet; two more virtually identical copies of the boundary survey at the same scale showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, and the proposed canal extension and house locations; and a copy of a 1996 aerial photograph of Petitioner's property and existing canal, and vicinity. The application did not describe a proposed method or any other details of construction, include any water quality information, or include a water quality monitoring plan. On September 15, 2000, Petitioner filed an additional page of the application form with DEP's Punta Gorda office. The page added the information: "Digging to be done with trac-hoe." No other specifics of the proposed construction method were included. What happened after the filing of the application is described in Tuten I and Tuten II, which are the law of the case. However, those opinions do not explain the delay between Tuten I and the issuance of DEP's proposed ERP with conditions approximately two years later. The evidence presented at the final hearing explained only that counsel of record for DEP promptly asked district staff to draft a proposed default ERP with conditions that "would probably track the RAI that had been sent out prior to the default." DEP's district staff promptly complied and forwarded the draft to DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee, which did not provide any legal advice as to the draft ERP for almost two years. There was no further explanation for the delay. As reflected in Tuten II and in the Preliminary Statement, it was DEP's position that the proper procedure to follow after its default was to issue a proposed ERP with conditions and that it would be Petitioner's burden to request an administrative hearing to contest any conditions and to prove Petitioner's entitlement to a default ERP with conditions other than those in DEP's proposed ERP. DEP's Proposed General Conditions The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit include general conditions taken from SFWMD's Rule 40E-4.381, which are appropriate, as indicated in the Preliminary Statement and Conclusions of Law, and as conceded by Petitioner's expert. While the Rule 40E-4.381 general conditions are appropriate, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that some of the general permit conditions contained in Rule 62-4.160, as well as Rule 62-4.070(7) (providing that "issuance of a permit does not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of Chapter 403, F.S., or Department rules"), are more appropriate general conditions to attach to Petitioner's default ERP, even if technically inapplicable, because the Chapter 62 Rules govern the operation of a permitted project (whereas the former govern the construction of a permitted project) and are "more protective of the environment." Actually, all of the rules contain general conditions that govern both construction and operation phases of an ERP, and all are "protective of the environment." There is no reason to add general conditions taken from Rules 62-4.160 and 62-4.070(7) to the applicable general conditions contained in Rule 40E-4.381. DEP's Proposed Specific Conditions (i) In General The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit also include specific conditions which essentially require that Petitioner provide the information in the RAI sent in December 2000, together with additional specific conditions thought necessary to protect the environment in light of the lack of detail in the application without the answers to the RAI. Some DEP's proposed specific conditions are designed to ascertain whether the application would provide reasonable assurance that permitting criteria would be met. (They make the requested information subject to DEP "approval" based on whether reasonable assurance is provided.) In general, those specific conditions no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. (Looked at another way, inclusion of those specific conditions effectively would un-do the default, in direct contradiction of the court's opinion Tuten I and Tuten II.) See Conclusion of Law 52, infra. On the other hand, some of the RAI information was designed to ascertain the proposed method and other details of construction. Pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," DEP also wants broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed broad specific conditions. He takes the position that it was incumbent on DEP in this proceeding to use discovery procedures to ascertain Petitioner's intended method of construction and tailor specific conditions to the method of construction revealed through discovery. At the same time, Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed specific conditions requiring RAI-type information, including the details of his proposed construction method. Notwithstanding the positions Petitioner has taken in this case, his expert testified that Petitioner intends to use a steel wall inserted between the water and upland at the end of the existing canal, phased excavation from the upland side, and removal of the steel wall in the final phase of construction. Assuming that method of construction, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner, and which generally prohibit pollution of the environment, are adequate. Even if the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner would be adequate for the method of construction Petitioner now says he will use, Petitioner's application does not in fact commit to a method of construction. All Petitioner's application says is that he intends to dig with a trac-hoe. Without a binding commitment to a method of construction, it was appropriate for DEP to take the position that specific conditions were necessary to ascertain the method of construction Petitioner would use and, pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," and to impose broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. In his PRO, Petitioner committed to use the construction method described by his expert during the hearing, as follows: Excavation of any spoil shall be done by means of a mechanical trac-hoe; Prior to the excavation of any soil, Petitioner shall first install an isolating wall, such as interlocking sheet pile, between the existing man-made canal, and the proposed canal extension; The mechanical excavation shall be done in such a manner such that the excavated soil is not deposited in wetlands or in areas where it might be reasonably contemplated to re-enter the waters of the State of Florida; After the proposed canal extension is excavated to its project limits in the foregoing manner, the side slopes of the canal extension shall be allowed to revegetate prior to removal of the isolating wall. With a condition imposing this method of construction, fewer and narrower specific conditions will be necessary. ii. Seriatim Discussion DEP's proposed Specific Condition 1 requires a perpetual conservation easement prohibiting docking and mooring of water craft on all portions of Petitioner's property within the canal extension in order to "address cumulative impacts." But DEP did not prove that the proposed conservation easement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, DEP did not prove that there would be any cumulative impacts, much less unacceptable cumulative impacts, from Petitioner's project. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b); and BOR § 4.2.8. Second, even if unacceptable cumulative impacts were proven, those could be addressed in other permit cases (assuming no DEP default in those proceedings), since the concept of cumulative impacts essentially requires an applicant to share acceptable cumulative impacts with other similar permittees, applicants, and foreseeable future applicants. See Broward County v. Weiss, et al., DOAH Case No. 01-3373, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298, at ¶¶54-58 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002). As Petitioner points out, the easement further described in Specific Condition 1 appears to be overly broad for its stated purpose in that it would cover "the legal description of the entire property affected by this permit and shown on the attached project drawings," which could be interpreted to include not just the canal extension but the entire extended canal, or even the entirety of Petitioner's 6.6 acres of property. Indeed, the latter might have been the actual intention, since DEP's witness testified that Specific Condition 1 also was intended to address impacts from fertilizer runoff and septic tank leaching from new homes built along the canal. Although some of those impacts (as well as future construction of additional homes and docks) actually are secondary impacts, not cumulative impacts, it is possible that they can be addressed in DEP or SFWMD proceedings on future applications, as well as in Department of Health proceedings on septic tank installations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 2 requires that: spoil material from the dredging to be "used for the sole purpose of constructing a single-family fill pad" on Petitioner's property under a pending permit; spoil "be placed in a manner so as not to affect wetlands or other surface waters"; and the "spoil disposal location shall be shown in the drawings required by Specific Condition #4 below." DEP did not prove that the first requirement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, it is unreasonable since Petitioner already has built the referenced single-family fill pad and a home on top of it. Second, the reason DEP's witness gave for this requirement was that, under an operating agreement with SFWMD (which was officially recognized), DEP only has jurisdiction to take action on single-family uses (which he defined to include duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes) but not on larger multi-family and certain other projects. However, the operating agreement on jurisdiction is not a reason to place Specific Condition 1 on the use of spoil material on Petitioner's default permit. SFWMD can regulate, in permitting proceedings under its jurisdiction, the placement of fill material for multi- family construction or other projects not under DEP jurisdiction. In addition, under the operating agreement, jurisdiction can be "swapped" by written agreement in cases where deviation from the operating agreement would result in more efficient and effective regulation. The second two requirements under Specific Condition 2 are reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 3 requires disclosure of all pending and issued permits for the property from SFWMD, Glades County, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). DEP did not prove that this is reasonable or reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP probably has all such permits and can easily obtain any it does not have. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 4 requires fully dimensional plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the property and area to be dredged, before and after dredging, including a north arrow and the water depths in and adjacent to the dredge area. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this part of the condition is to provide hydrographic information normally provided in an application (or required in an RAI) so that DEP's hydrographic engineer can ascertain flushing characteristics, which are pertinent primarily to the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and to heavy metals from boat use. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding flushing characteristics, combined with other specific conditions, is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. See Finding 27, infra. In addition, the plan view and cross-sectional drawings required by Specific Condition 4 are to include the location of navigational obstructions in the immediate area, any roads, ditches, or utility lines that abut the property; any encumbrances, and any associated structures. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this information is to determine whether Petitioner has provided reasonable assurance that the "public interest" test under Rule 40E-4.302 is met, and make sure that management, placement, and disposal of spoil material do not infringe on property rights or block culverts and cause flooding. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding the location of culverts to assure that management of spoil does not cause flooding is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. In addition to objecting to having to provide RAI information as a "default permittee," Petitioner's expert asserted that the information requested in Specific Condition 4 would be provided as part of the "as-built" drawings required by General Condition 6. But General Condition 6 does not require "as-built" drawings. Rather, it requires an "as-built" certification that can be based on "as-built" drawings or on-site observation. Besides, the purpose of the "as-built" certification is to determine "if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications." Without the information requested in Specific Condition 4, there would only be vague and general permitted plans and specifications and hydrographic information. Finally as to Specific Condition 4, Petitioner objects to the requirement that the drawings be sealed by a registered professional engineer. However, Petitioner cites to General Condition 6, which requires that the "as-built" certification be given by a "registered professional" and cites Rule Form 62- 343.900(5), which makes it clear that "registered professional" in that context means a registered professional engineer. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 5 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that the canal extension will not violate water quality standards due to depth or configuration; that it will not cause a violation of water quality standards in receiving water bodies; and that it will be configured to prevent creation of debris traps or stagnant areas that could result in water quality violations. The reasonable assurance is to include hydrographic information or studies to document flushing time and an evaluation of the maximum desirable flushing time, taking several pertinent factors into consideration. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. In addition, Petitioner's expert testified without dispute that the information requested could take more than 180 days and cost approximately $20,000. However, it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be configured so as have the best practicable flushing characteristics. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 6 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that construction of the canal extension will meet all permit criteria set out in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302 and in BOR § 4.1.1. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 7 requires Petitioner to submit existing water quality information for DEP approval within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction. In this instance, DEP's approval would not be a determination on the provision of reasonable assurance but a determination as to the reliability of the water quality information, which is necessary to establish a baseline for assessing and monitoring the impact of the project. For that reason, the information is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. Petitioner's expert testified that the information could cost $2,000-$3,000 to produce (and more, if DEP rejects the information submitted, and more information is required). He also testified that water quality information already is available, including over 25 years worth of at least monthly information on all pertinent parameters except biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform, at a SFWMD monitoring station in the Rim Canal at Structure 127 (a lock and pump station at the Hoover Levee on Lake Okeechobee) approximately 8,000 feet away from Petitioner's canal. DEP did not prove that the SFWMD information would not serve the purpose of establishing baseline water quality for Petitioner's canal for all but the missing parameters. For that reason, only water quality information for the missing parameters is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment in this case. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 8 requires that, if the water quality information required by Specific Condition 7 shows any violations of state ambient water quality standards, Petitioner must submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, a plan to achieve net improvement for any parameters shown to be in violation, as required by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. See also BOR § and 4.2.4.2. Normally, if applicable, this information would be expected in an application or RAI response. Petitioner's expert testified that this condition would require Petitioner to help "fix Buckhead Ridge" (unfairly) and that it would cost lots of money. But Petitioner did not dispute that the law requires a plan for a "net improvement," which does not necessarily require a complete "fix" of water quality violations, if any. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of a net improvement plan. See Finding 9, supra. But a specific condition that Petitioner implement a plan to achieve net water quality improvement in the event of any water quality violations would be reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 9 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP's approval, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information on how Petitioner intends to prevent sediments and contaminants from being released into jurisdictional waters. DEP asserts that this specific condition asks for a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with various subsections of BOR § 4.2.4.1 that address short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be constructed using adequate turbidity barriers; stabilize newly created slopes or surfaces in or adjacent to wetlands and other surface waters to prevent erosion and turbidity; avoid propeller dredging and rutting from vehicular traffic; maintain construction equipment to ensure that oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are not released into wetlands and other surface waters; and prevent any other discharges during construction that will cause water quality violations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 10 requires Petitioner to submit, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information regarding Petitioner's plans for handling spoil from dredging, including "discharge details, locations retention plans, volumes, and data used to size the disposal cell(s)." It allows this information to be combined with the Specific Condition 2 submittal. It also requires spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP asserts that this specific condition (like Specific Condition 9) is necessary to comply with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition requiring spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 11 requires Petitioner to submit "as-built" drawings to DEP's Punta Gorda office with 30 days after completion of construction, "as required by General Condition #6." Petitioner's expert testified that this condition was unreasonable only because it duplicates General Condition 6 and two statutes. But General Condition 6 actually does not require "as-built" drawings, see Finding 9, supra, and it is not clear what statutes Petitioner's expert was referring to. For these reasons, and because it provides a filing location, Specific Condition 11 is reasonable and reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 12 requires Petitioner to "maintain the permitted canal free of all rafted debris by removal and property upland disposal." DEP asserts that this specific condition is necessary to comply with BOR § by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). Rafted debris, which may be of an organic or inorganic nature, can accumulate at the end of canals due to wind, waves, boats, or other forces. Such organic rafted debris may rot and, by creating a high biological oxygen demand, rob the water of dissolved oxygen. Petitioner's only expressed opposition to this condition is that the conservation easement in Specific Condition 3 might prevent compliance. While it is unclear how the easement would prevent compliance, the issue is eliminated if no conservation easement is required. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 13 requires Petitioner to use turbidity screens during construction for compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The turbidity screen requirements detailed in this specific condition are typical best management practices that contractors use and are a standard condition placed in permits of this nature by DEP. Petitioner contends that turbidity screens are unnecessary given his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient to cover DEP's concerns. However, as indicated, the application does not commit to a method of construction. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 13 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 14 requires Petitioner to "ensure that any discharge or release of pollutants during construction or alteration are not released into wetlands or other surface waters that will cause water quality standards to be violated." Again, this condition is intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). While this specific condition seems general and perhaps duplicates other conditions (which was Petitioner's only point of contention), DEP added it in an attempt to make sure the possible and not uncommon release of pollutants from construction equipment was addressed. As such, the condition is appropriate. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 15 provides details on the use of turbidity screens. Petitioner's primary points of contention are that turbidity screens are not needed for his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 15 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 16 requires Petitioner to used staked filter cloth to contain any turbid run- off and erosion from created slopes of the canal extension. This is the most common best management practice and is a standard condition for ERP permits dealing with side slopes that may affect water quality. Unstable slopes can result in chronic turbidity, which is detrimental to wildlife. Unstable slopes also can lead to upland runoff being deposited into the water along with debris and sediment. Such runoff can bring deleterious substances such as heavy metals and nutrient-loaded substances that might impact dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Petitioner's primary points of contention on Specific Condition 16 are that, like turbidity screens, staked filter cloth is not needed for Petitioner's intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. (Petitioner also questions why the condition gives Petitioner up to 72 hours from "attaining final grade" to stabilize side slopes, but the condition also requires side slope stabilization "as soon as possible," and the 72-hour outside limit seems reasonable.) As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition 13 and 15. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 16 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that staked filter cloth is not needed if he uses the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 17, 18, 19, and 20: details required long-term water quality monitoring and reporting [#17]; establishes sampling intervals and requires Petitioner to submit a "plan to remediate" if monitoring shows water quality violations or "a trend toward future violations of water quality standards directly related to the permitted canal" [#18]; allows "additional water quality treatment methods" to be required if water quality monitoring shows it to be necessary [#19]; and allows water quality monitoring requirements to be modified (which "may include reduction in frequency and parameters . . . or the release of the monitoring process"), "based on long term trends indicate that the permitted canal is not a source to create water quality violations [#20]." These conditions are intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.2 by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The evidence was that these specific conditions are standard for ERP permits where a constructed system may lead to water quality violations in the long term. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, conditions of this kind are not dependent on a post-construction finding of water quality standard violations (even though DEP defaulted on Petitioner's application). Besides contending that monitoring requirements in Specific Conditions 17 and 18 are unnecessary, Petitioner also contends that they are too extensive and not tailored to Petitioner's intended construction, but DEP proved their necessity, even assuming the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. Petitioner complains that Specific Condition 19 is vague and that Petitioner's ERP does not provide for "water quality treatment." But the present absence of post-construction water quality treatment should not preclude the possible future imposition of some kind of water quality treatment if monitoring shows it to be necessary. For this kind of condition, the absence of detail regarding the kind of treatment to be imposed is natural since it would depend on future events. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 21 merely requires that Petitioner's project comply with State water quality standards in Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530. Petitioner contends that this is duplicative and unnecessary. But it certainly is not unreasonable to be specific in this regard. No Improper Purpose As part of his request for attorney's fees under Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, Petitioner necessarily contends that DEP 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 litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity." Even assuming that DEP should be considered a "nonprevailing adverse party," Petitioner's evidence did not prove that DEP's participation was for an "improper purpose." To the contrary, DEP "participated" initially because Petitioner filed an application. DEP's denial of Petitioner's application was not proven to be "for an improper purpose" but rather for the purpose of attempting to protect the environment. The propriety of the denial was litigated in Tuten I, which made no finding that the denial was "for an improper purpose" and which ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." The two-year delay between Tuten I and Tuten II was not fully explained, but Tuten II also made no finding that the denial, or the delay, or DEP's proposed ERP with conditions were "for an improper purpose" and again ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." While DEP's views on the nature of the hearing to be conducted for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions" was rejected, it was not proven that DEP argued its views "for an improper purpose" or that its participation, once its views were rejected, was "for an improper purpose," as defined by statute. To the contrary, the evidence was that DEP participated in this proceeding in an attempt to place conditions on Petitioner's permit which DEP thought were necessary to protect the environment, many (although not all) of which are accepted in this Recommended Order. As Petitioner accepts and points out, it remains necessary for Petitioner to construct and operate his project in a manner that does not violate environmental statutes and rules. But without any water quality information or monitoring, DEP's enforcement of those laws and rules will be hamstrung.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Petitioner a default ERP, to expire five years from issuance, to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing man-made canal, as applied for, subject to: DEP's proposed General Conditions 1-19; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 4 and 11-21; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 2, 5, and 7-10, as modified by the Findings of Fact; and the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO (see Finding 14, supra. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are: whether the challengers have standing; and (2) whether Proposed Rule 40E-8.221(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The District is a government entity existing and operating pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a multi- purpose water management district. The District has the power and duty to adopt MFLs consistent with the provisions of part I of chapter 373. Sanibel is a barrier island sanctuary in Lee County and a duly-formed municipality with a population of more than 6,000. Sanibel is situated at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, within the Caloosahatchee's greater estuarine area. Sanibel is known primarily for its natural beauty, including clear blue waters, shell beaches, world-class sport fisheries, and wildlife refuges. That is why tourists come from around the globe to visit Sanibel, and why Sanibel's residents move and remain there. Sanibel actively participated in the rulemaking process for the Proposed Rule from its inception. Sanibel submitted two technical comment letters to the District during the development of the Proposed Rule. Sanibel's natural resources director, James Evans, attended numerous public and technical meetings associated with the development of the Proposed Rule, speaking on the record at each of the public meetings prior to the adoption hearing by the District's governing board. The Town, located on Estero Island in Lee County, is also a barrier island community and duly-formed municipality with a population of more than 6,000. The Town is situated just south of the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River and on the southeastern edge of the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. The Town is known primarily for its natural beauty, including clear blue waters, shell beaches, world-class sport fisheries, and wildlife refuges. Cape Coral is a duly-formed municipality in Lee County and is the largest city between Tampa and Miami, with a population in excess of 150,000. Cape Coral is bordered on the south by the Caloosahatchee River and has over 400 miles of navigable canals and waterways, all of which are within the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. In addition, Cape Coral has an assigned load reduction allocation under the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for the Caloosahatchee River Estuary (CRE) due to it being designated as impaired for dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Maintaining sufficient flow in the Caloosahatchee River would have a direct impact on Cape Coral's ability to meet its assigned load reduction allocation. In addition to living on or near the water, a substantial number of the residents of Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town engage in water-based recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, boating, kayaking, paddle boarding, bird watching, and nature observation in and around the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. Fort Myers is a duly-formed municipality in Lee County and has a population of approximately 80,000. Fort Myers is bordered by the CRE throughout its entire jurisdictional boundary. Fort Myers owns and maintains a yacht basin (Ft. Myers Yacht Basin), which includes a mooring field and an anchorage field in the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers presented testimony that commercial crabbing and recreational fishing have declined and that it has suffered economic harm due to water quality issues. Fort Myers owns the submerged land in the Caloosahatchee River from Marker 39 to Marker 58, and islands in the river. One such island will be used as a park for recreational activities such as canoeing, kayaking, and hiking for visitors to enjoy the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers also owns and operates piers and a public boat ramp within the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers' dock master has observed declines in seagrasses in the Caloosahatchee River during his 19-year career working at the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin. Fort Myers has adopted a Harbor Management Plan for the management of its mooring and anchorage fields in the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers has also been assigned a load reduction allocation under the BMAP for the CRE, and is responsible for a certain amount of pollution reduction over time. Bonita Springs is a municipality of more than 50,000 in Lee County. The borders of Bonita Springs include portions of Estero Bay, which, along with San Carlos Bay and the Caloosahatchee River, is part of the greater Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Bonita Springs includes wildlife refuges, such as the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Lovers Key State Park and Recreation Area. While Bonita Springs' strategic priorities include environmental protection and water quality, it does not have environmental staff or test water quality. Bonita Springs participates in Estero Bay Management and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP). Bonita Springs provides financial assistance to the Caloosahatchee Citizen Sea Grass Gardening Project. Concerns regarding harm to the CRE and tape grasses are shared by a significant number of residents in Bonita Springs and Estero, including injury to the quality of life and recreational uses such as swimming, boating, and kayaking in the waterways. Estero is a municipality of more than 30,000 in Lee County. Estero borders the eastern portion of Estero Bay. Estero includes wildlife refuges, such as Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Koreshan State Park. While Estero has environmental policies, it does not have environmental staff or test water quality. Estero makes financial contributions to CHNEP. Estero is concerned that the Proposed Rule will affect its water quality, which could affect its residents' quality of life. Estero believes it could be harmed by poor water quality because its residents are portable retirees who can move away, or tourists who can choose not to visit. Captiva Island is situated at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, within the Caloosahatchee's greater estuarine area. CCP is a Florida not-for-profit corporation representing property owners, businesses, and the community of Captiva Island. Captiva Island is part of unincorporated Lee County and is located north of Sanibel. CCP has 200 financial contributors comprised of property owners, businesses, and residents on Captiva Island. CCP's mission includes protection of clean off-shore water, diverse and healthy marine life, and robust native vegetation along with the protection of mangrove fringe and water quality. CCP works with Lee County on provisions of the County's comprehensive plan, which include the quality of adjacent waters. CCP relied on the expertise of James Evans, the director of natural resources for Sanibel, and on the Sanibel- Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF). CCP was advised that the Proposed Rule was not sufficient to protect the environment and Vallisneria americana (Vallisneria) or tape grass during the dry season. Caloosahatchee River and Estuary The watershed of the Caloosahatchee River covers approximately 861,058 acres. The watershed consists of four sub-watersheds, three of which are upstream of the S-79 structure. The Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed (estuarine system) is downstream of the S-79 structure. The S-79 structure captures all the upstream discharges of fresh water that go into the estuarine system through the S-79 structure. Major tidal tributaries of the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin are the Orange River and Telegraph Creek, which drain into the upper estuary downstream of the S-79 structure. Fresh water inflows from these and other tributaries also contribute fresh water into the estuarine system. The Caloosahatchee River was originally a natural watercourse running from its origin at Lake Flirt to San Carlos Bay. It is currently defined as the "surface waters that flow through the S-79 structure, combined with tributary contributions below S-79 that collectively flow southwest to San Carlos Bay." Fla. Admin. Code. R. 40E-8.021(2). Man-made alterations to the Caloosahatchee River began as early as 1884, but major alterations began in the 1930s with the authorization and construction of the C-43 Canal. The C-43 Canal runs 41.6 miles from Lake Okeechobee at Moore Haven, i.e., from the S-77 structure, to Olga, i.e., the S-79 structure. The C-43 Canal serves as a conveyance feature to drain water from the three sub-watersheds located upstream of the S-79 structure and convey regulatory discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee. In 1957, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) prepared a report focused on drainage, flood control, and navigation needs of the Caloosahatchee River Basin, and one recommendation was construction of the S-79 structure. The key objectives of the S-79 structure were to eliminate undesirable salinity in the lower Caloosahatchee River, prevent the rapid depletion of water supplies, and raise the prevailing dry weather water table levels. The S-79 structure was constructed in 1965. It is a lock and dam structure that is also known as the Franklin Lock and Dam. The S-79 structure captures all upstream fresh water discharges that go into the CRE. The S-79 structure demarcates the head of the CRE, which extends 26 miles downstream to Shell Point, where it empties into San Carlos Bay in the southern portion of the greater Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Most of this surface water flow takes a southerly route, flowing to the Gulf of Mexico under the Sanibel Causeway that crosses San Carlos Bay. When fresh water inflows are high, tidal action pushes some of this water back up into Matlacha Pass and Pine Island Sound. Additionally, some water exits to the south and flows into Estero Bay through Matanzas Pass. Salinity exhibits a strong gradient in the CRE. Changes in the watershed upstream of the S-79 structure have profoundly influenced the delivery of fresh water to the CRE. Runoff is now more variable with higher wet season flows and lower dry season discharges. Large volumes of fresh water during the wet season can flush salt water from the tidally-influenced sections of the water body, resulting in low salinity conditions throughout most of the CRE. In contrast, fresh water inflow at the S-79 structure can stop entirely during the dry season, especially during significant drought events. This results in saline intrusion that can extend upstream to the S-79 structure. Fluctuations of this magnitude at the head and mouth of the system cause mortality of organisms at both ends of the salinity gradient. Downstream of the S-79 structure, the CRE was significantly altered by multiple dredging activities, including the removal of extensive shoals and oyster bars. Seven automobile bridges, a railroad trestle, and the Sanibel Causeway were built between the 1880s and 1960s. A large canal network was built along the northern shoreline of the CRE in Cape Coral. To provide navigational access from the canal network to deeper water, multiple access channels were dredged within the CRE. Alterations to the delivery of fresh water combined with structural changes to the tidally-influenced sections of the water body have had lasting ecological consequences. These include the loss of extensive shoals and oyster bars, loss of a flourishing bay scallop fishery, and significant decline in seagrass cover in deeper areas. MFLs An MFL is the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area. The District's rules define significant harm as the "temporary loss of water resource functions, which results from a change in surface or ground water hydrology, that takes more than two years to recover, but which is considered less severe than serious harm." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-8.021(31). The rule further specifies that a water body's specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL are defined in the MFL technical support document. Id. MFLs are calculated using the best information available. The regulatory agency is required to consider changes and structural alterations to watersheds, and the constraints such changes or alterations placed on the hydrology of an affected watershed. Certain waterbodies may not serve their historical hydrologic functions and recovery of these waterbodies to historical hydrologic conditions may not be economically or technically feasible. Accordingly, the regulatory agencies may determine that setting an MFL for such a water body based on its historical condition is not appropriate. Caloosahatchee MFL For the CRE, MFL criteria were designed to protect the estuary from significant harm due to insufficient fresh water inflows and were not guidelines for restoration of estuarine functions to conditions that existed in the past. The MFL criteria consider three aspects of the flow in terms of potential significant harm to the estuary: (1) the magnitude of the flow or the volume of fresh water entering the estuary; (2) the duration of time that flows can be below the recommended level before causing significant harm; and (3) the return frequency, or the number of times the MFL can be violated over a number of years before it results in significant harm, recognizing that natural climatic variability will be expected to cause fresh water inflows to fall below recommended levels at some natural frequency. The CRE MFL initially adopted in 2001 was primarily based on the salinity tolerance of one valued ecosystem component (VEC). The VEC was Vallisneria americana or tape grass, a fresh water aquatic plant that tolerates low levels of salinity. A major assumption of this approach was that flow and salinity conditions that protect Vallisneria would also protect other key organisms in the estuary. The 2001 CRE MFL was based on a regression model for estimating the relationship between surface salinity measured at the Ft. Myers monitoring station located in the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin and discharge at the S-79 structure. Although the District monitors surface and bottom salinity at multiple stations in the CRE, the Ft. Myers monitoring station is located centrally in the CRE and at the historical downstream extent of the Vallisneria habitat. The Ft. Myers monitoring station also has the most comprehensive period of record of monitoring data available. The fixed data sondes that monitor surface and bottom salinity are located at 20 percent and 80 percent of total river depth measured at mean low water. The data sondes continuously measure temperature and specific conductivity and, depending on the manufacturer, contains programs that calculate salinity. Those calculations are based on standards recognized and used worldwide by estuarine, marine, and oceanographic scientists.1/ The regression model only implicitly included inflows from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed downstream of the S-79 structure. To address this, during the 2003 re-evaluation, a linear reservoir model of Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin inflows was developed. The regression model results showed that a total inflow from S-79 plus the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin of about 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) was required to produce a salinity of 10 at the Ft. Myers monitoring station. Thus, the 2001 CRE MFL of 300 cfs measured at the S-79 structure would produce a salinity of 10 at the Ft. Myers monitoring station only with additional inflow from the downstream Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub- watershed. However, that additional inflow estimate was highly uncertain. The conclusion was that actual flow measurements over a period of time were needed in order to perform more robust calibrations for the new models that were being developed. The Re-evaluation The District's re-evaluation effort began in 2010 after the Conservancy of Southwest Florida filed a petition requesting review of the Caloosahatchee MFL. At the time, the governing board denied the petition but directed staff to undertake additional research and monitoring to ensure a future revision would be supported by the best information available. The first step was to review the September 2000 Final Peer Review Report (PRR) for the initial adoption. The 2000 PRR identified several items the District should consider, including a hydrodynamic salinity model, a numerical population model for Vallisneria, quantification of habitat value for Vallisneria, and documentation of the effects of minimum flows on downstream estuarine biota. The 2000 PRR documented concerns that the current MFL was based solely on the salinity tolerance of Vallisneria and recommended using multiple indicator species. To address those recommendations, the District conducted studies to evaluate multiple ecological indicators, such as zooplankton, aquatic vegetation, oysters, benthic communities, and blue crabs, in the Caloosahatchee from the S-79 structure to beyond Shell Point. In addition, the District collected flow data from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed for at least five years to develop watershed, flow, and hydrodynamic models that could properly simulate inflows and salinity responses. When the initial research was complete in 2016, the District published the Draft Science Document containing 11 component studies. In September 2016, the District held a two- day Science Symposium to present the 11 component studies and gather public comment. In response to public comment, the District performed additional evaluations, modeling, and updated the component studies to produce a Draft Technical Document. A Peer Review Panel reviewed the Draft Technical Document, which included the Draft Science Document. The Peer Review Panel has over 150 years of combined relevant scientific experience. The Peer Review Panel toured the CRE by air and water. The District also held a Peer Review Session to engage the public and obtain feedback. The Peer Review Panel's 2017 report (PRP report) stated that the District had "crafted a well-executed and well- documented set of field and laboratory studies and modeling effort" to re-evaluate the CRE MFL. The PRP report supported the 11 component studies, the modeling, the evaluations, and the initial proposed rule language. The Final Technical Document published in January 2018 incorporated five different models and additional science, examining the entire watershed and the criteria itself. The Final Science Document was Appendix A to the Final Technical Document and contained the scientific research and analysis that was done for the 11 component studies, the modeling, and the additional scientific analyses performed in response to public and stakeholder input. The District initiated rule development in December 2017. Rule development workshops were held in February and June 2018 and a stakeholder technical meeting was held in May 2018. The District validated the comments after each workshop and meeting, and revised the proposed rule language. The District published its Notice of Proposed Rule on July 23, 2018.2/ At its September 13, 2018, meeting, the District's governing board held a public hearing on the Proposed Rule. The mayors of Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town publicly commented at the hearing. After considering public comments, the governing board adopted the Proposed Rule. The District documented and responded to each public comment, memorializing the information in the Final Technical Document. Later, after the rule workshops and May 2018 technical meeting, the District prepared and presented all of the updated information, including public comment, at the September 2018 adoption hearing. Thus, the District's re-evaluation process was open and transparent. The Re-evaluated Caloosahatchee MFL The science supporting the re-evaluation involved a comprehensive assessment of the effects of diminished dry season fresh water inflows on the CRE. The dry season was chosen for two reasons. First, because it is well-established that the upstream migration of salt combined with reduced fresh water inflow alters the health and productivity of estuarine habitats. Second, because the dry seasons are the times when the current MFL criteria are likely to be exceeded or violated. The 11 component studies targeted specific concerns regarding physical and ecological characteristics. Together they offered a holistic understanding of the negative effects of diminished fresh water inflow on estuarine ecology. The re-evaluated MFL criteria were developed using a resource-based approach. The approach combined the VEC approach and the habitat overlap concept. The habitat overlap approach is based on the idea that estuaries serve a nursery function and salinity determines the distribution of species within an estuary, including distribution during different life stages. The combined approach studied the minimum flow requirements of the various indicator species in terms of magnitude, duration, and return frequency, resulting in the following three aspects of the flow: (1) for magnitude, a 30-day moving average flow of 400 cfs measured at the S-79 structure; for duration, an MFL exceedance occurs during a 365-day period when the 30-day moving average flow at S-79 is below 400 cfs and the 30-day moving average salinity exceeds 10 at the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station; and (3) for return frequency, an MFL violation occurs when an exceedance occurs more than once in a five-year period. The magnitude component is based on the salinity requirements of Vallisneria, along with results from the 11 studies modeling salinity and considering the salinity requirements of the other VECs. The duration component is based mainly on the estimates of rate of loss of Vallisneria shoots when salinity rises above 10 and the recovery rate of the shoots when salinities fall back below 10. Return frequency was determined based on long-term rainfall records rather than flow measurements from the S-79 structure, which the PRP report felt was well justified. In addition to the component studies, the re-evaluated MFL criteria and existing recovery strategy were evaluated using a suite of hydrologic and ecological models simulating long-term fresh water inflow to the CRE associated with varying management options, the resulting salinity in the CRE, and the ecological response of indicator species that are sensitive to low fresh water inflows. Five models were utilized. Three models simulated fresh water inflows to the CRE: two for S-79 flows; and one for Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed flows. The other two models were a three-dimensional hydrodynamic salinity model and a Vallisneria model. Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed has a number of tributaries that drain fresh water into the CRE. The flow at several of the tributaries was monitored for a five-year period. The measured flow was used to calibrate a watershed model and conduct a long-term simulation. The results showed an average fresh water inflow for all seasons of approximately 430 cfs. The average fresh water inflow during the dry season was 245 cfs while the wet season average fresh water inflow was 613 cfs. Fresh water inflow from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub- watershed was approximately 20 percent of total fresh water inflow to the CRE while 80 percent was released through the S-79 structure. Petitioners' and Intervenors' Objections 400 cfs Is Too Low Sanibel relied on a memorandum prepared by Dr. David Tomasko (Tomasko report) concerning his company's review of the January 2018 Final Technical Document supporting the Proposed Rule. The Tomasko report, dated October 23, 2018, was in the form of a "technical memorandum" outlining "preliminary findings." The Tomasko report was admitted as a joint exhibit; however, Dr. Tomasko did not testify at the final hearing. The Tomasko report is hearsay that was not used to supplement or explain competent direct evidence. Although hearsay is admissible in this proceeding, it cannot be the sole basis for a finding of fact.3/ See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The District's expert witnesses, who testified at the final hearing, explained that ten of the 11 component studies identified average indicator flows at S-79 ranging from 237 to 545 cfs with standard deviations ranging from plus or minus 57 to plus or minus 774 cfs.4/ The District's experts performed three different evaluations of those flow results. They identified the mean of all the means, calculated the median of the means, and performed a probability density function. The flow results for each of the three evaluations were 381 cfs, 400 cfs, and 365 cfs, with standard deviations that ranged from plus or minus 277 cfs to plus or minus 706 cfs. The District's experts testified that the three flow results are indistinguishable from a statistical point of view. The District chose 400 cfs because it was the highest flow result, and, therefore, the most protective of the three. The Petitioners and Intervenors failed to present evidence that showed any deficiencies in the District's component studies, hydrologic, hydrodynamic, or statistical modeling, or analysis of compliance data. The preponderance of the evidence established that the District used the best available science to calculate the MFL criteria. The District did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it chose 400 cfs as the magnitude component of the MFL criteria. Inclusion of Salinity in the MFL Criteria The preponderance of the evidence also established that Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE. It supports essential ecological goods and services, is sensitive to salinity fluctuations at the ecosystem scale, and has value to a variety of stakeholders. The location of Vallisneria habitat in the upper CRE and its negative response to increased salinity made it an excellent candidate as an ecological indicator for fresh water inflow. A combination of field monitoring, mesocosm studies, and modeling results allowed the application of Vallisneria responses as a platform to quantify the effects of high salinity duration in the upper CRE. Component Study Eight reviewed the development and initial application of a simulation model for Vallisneria in the CRE. The Vallisneria model was used to evaluate the salinity conditions that led to net annual mortality, or, in other words, the duration of high salinity exposure that led to decreased Vallisneria shoots versus the duration of low salinity conditions required for recovery. Component Study Seven included an analysis of the relationship between the number of consecutive days where salinity at the Ft. Myers monitoring station was greater than 10 and the percentage of initial Vallisneria shoots remaining at the end of each high salinity period. To further evaluate the duration element associated with the MFL criteria, the field monitoring data contained in Component Study Seven was evaluated with the mesocosm and modeling results. All three sources were analyzed similarly to derive a combined curve showing high salinity exposure duration that is significantly harmful to Vallisneria. The model also provided information that was used to quantify the duration of low salinity conditions required for Vallisneria to recover a relative fraction of shoots after high salinity exposure. Merging the exposure and recovery evaluations facilitated a determination of the unfavorable salinity duration that could significantly harm Vallisneria habitat. With significant harm defined as the environmental harm from which two years are required to recover, the determination was that Vallisneria should experience no more than 55 consecutive days of salinity greater than 10. However, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the percentage loss of Vallisneria habitat after 55 days of high salinity exposure. In response, the District conducted further analysis of modeling results and revised the duration component to accept the stakeholder recommendation, now expressed in the Proposed Rule, of a 30-day moving average salinity greater than 10. The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that by expressing the MFL as a "flow plus salinity component" the Proposed Rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. However, the duration component is part of compliance and represents the duration of time that flows can be below the recommended level before causing significant harm to the indicator species Vallisneria. The MFL in the Proposed Rule is a 30-day moving average flow of 400 cfs measured at the S-79 structure. Flow is both measured and operationally controlled at the S-79 structure. However, as previously found, there are other sources of fresh water entering the CRE downstream of the S-79 structure. The District does not control and cannot control these downstream sources, which modeling reveals contribute approximately 20 percent of total fresh water inflow to the CRE. By including salinity, the District can account for fresh water inflows coming from the tidal basin when there are low or no flows at S-79 since the significant harm threshold in the CRE is directly related to salinity tolerance of the indicator species Vallisneria. The District's experts also testified that salinity can be used as a flow component because it is not affected by chemical or biological processes and is an indicator of how much fresh water is entering the system.5/ Salinity is included in the duration component of the MFL criteria and is an exceedance criterion because the science established that the salinity gradient is crucial to the overall health of the CRE. Including salinity in the duration component of the MFL criteria achieves the purpose of the statutory mandate to set MFLs that are designed to avoid significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. No Unit of Measurement for Salinity The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the Proposed Rule is vague because the language does not contain any units for salinity. The UNESCO calculation is the standard equation used by the estuarine and marine science community to convert specific conductivity and temperature data to salinity. The District's experts testified that the UNESCO calculation reports salinity as a ratio, which is a dimensionless number and has no units. The District uses the UNESCO calculation and performs the conversion in a spreadsheet that it maintains. In some instances, certain brands of data sondes are programmed to perform the calculation and provide the salinity number. The preponderance of the evidence established that use of the practical salinity unit (PSU) is not technically correct. PSU is a misnomer, a pseudo-unit equivalent to a unitless salinity number. The Petitioners' and Intervenors' expert witness, Dr. Anthony Janicki, conceded there is no difference between reporting salinity as unitless or as PSU. And although technically incorrect, he suggested that placing the word "practical" or putting "PSU" in the Proposed Rule would reduce confusion and vagueness. However, since the preponderance of the evidence established that use of PSU is not technically correct, the use of a pseudo-unit would actually cause confusion instead of reduce confusion. The Petitioners and Intervenors also argued that the Proposed Rule is vague because the language does not state that the method of measuring salinity is specific conductivity, or that the equation used to convert specific conductivity and temperature data to salinity is the standard developed by UNESCO. The Petitioners and Intervenors essentially argued that members of the public and those who may be regulated by the Proposed Rule are left to guess about the method or methods used to measure salinity. Because the Proposed Rule identifies and locates by latitude and longitude coordinates the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station as the location where salinity would be measured for compliance, the Proposed Rule language is not vague. The Proposed Rule is not vague because it does not describe the data sondes, what parameters are measured by the data sondes, and how those parameters are converted to a salinity number. Salinity Monitoring Location and Mean Low Water The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the Proposed Rule is vague for failing to define the phrase "20% of the total river depth at mean low water," and is arbitrary or capricious for failing to include more than one salinity monitoring station. Total river depth or the water column depth is a standardized measurement that is made from the surface down to the bottom of the river bed. Mean low water is commonly understood in the oceanographic and coastal sciences community as the average of all low tides over the time period defined as the national tidal datum epic. The District's expert witness, Dr. Cassondra Armstrong, testified that mean low water can be determined by using two documents prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), i.e., the NOAA tide charts and glossary. The District's expert witnesses testified that "20% of the total river depth at mean low water" is the location of the data sonde at the Ft. Myers monitoring station that measures surface salinity. This is also the depth at which Vallisneria is located in the CRE. Since, the Proposed Rule language simply identifies the location of the existing data sonde at the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station, the language is not vague. The preponderance of the evidence established that the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station has two salinity data sondes, the one at 20 percent of the total river depth and the other at 80 percent. The data sonde at 20 percent of the total river depth was identified in the Proposed Rule for the following reasons. First, this is the depth where Vallisneria grows and is representative of the salinity exposure for Vallisneria. Second, it guarantees the data sonde is always submerged and able to record data. Third, it has the most comprehensive period of record of monitoring data available. As previously found, Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE. The location of Vallisneria habitat in the upper CRE and its negative response to increased salinity made it an excellent candidate as an ecological indicator for fresh water inflow. Because the preponderance of the evidence established that Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE, the choice of the Ft. Myers monitoring station is not arbitrary or capricious. Water Resource Functions vs. Environmental Values The District's MFL rule specifies that a water body's specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL are defined in the MFL technical support document. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-8.021(31). The Final Technical Document identified the relevant water resource functions of the CRE as fish and wildlife habitats, estuarine resources, water supply, recreation, navigation, and flood control. The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the environmental values listed in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-40, also known as the Water Resource Implementation Rule, were not adequately addressed in the Final Technical Document. A proposed rule challenge is not the proper forum to determine whether a proposed rule is consistent with the Water Resource Implementation Rule. Such a determination is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Protection under section 373.114(2), Florida Statutes. Consistency of the District's Proposed Rule with the Water Resource Implementation Rule of the Department of Environmental Protection is not a basis in this proceeding for a finding that the Proposed Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Other Issues The Petitioners and Intervenors raised other issues during the hearing, although not specifically argued in their proposed final order. Since those issues were identified as disputed issues in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, they are addressed below. 1. Elimination of Single-day Exceedance Criterion During the rulemaking process, Sanibel and SCCF sent the District a letter requesting justification for eliminating the single-day exceedance salinity criterion in the current rule. The District staff evaluated the available Caloosahatchee River MFL compliance record, dating back to when the MFL was adopted in September 2001. The District maintains a historical record of MFL monitoring data and reviewed it to determine if the single-day exceedance salinity criterion was exceeded before the 30-day moving average criterion. The compliance record showed five exceedance events of the single-day salinity criterion have occurred. However, the compliance record also showed that the 30- day moving average salinity criterion had already been exceeded before the five events occurred. In other words, the single-day criterion was never exceeded before the 30-day moving average criterion. Based on this evaluation, the District eliminated the single-day exceedance salinity criterion because it did not provide any additional resource protection. The District's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. 2. Not Using the Latest Model Evaluation of recommended MFL criteria and a recovery strategy for the CRE were greatly aided by integration of a suite of hydrologic and ecological models simulating (1) long-term fresh water inflow associated with varying management options, (2) the resulting salinity in the estuary, and (3) ecological response of indicator species that are sensitive to low fresh water inflows. Five models were specifically utilized, including three models for simulations of fresh water inflows to the CRE, a three-dimensional hydrodynamic salinity model, and a Vallisneria model. The three models simulating fresh water inflows included (1) the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) to simulate fresh water discharges at S-79, which includes regional operations of Lake Okeechobee and incorporates Caloosahatchee River irrigation demands; (2) the C-43 Reservoir Model, which uses the SFWMM-simulated daily S-79 flow as input and simulates the management benefit of the C-43 Reservoir; and (3) the Watershed (WaSh) Model to simulate tidal tributary inflow from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed. The Caloosahatchee Hydrodynamic/Salinity Model was based on the Curvilinear Hydrodynamic Three-dimensional Model (CH3D) modeling framework with the functionality of simulating the spatial salinity structure across the entire estuary. The Vallisneria Model took the CH3D modeled salinity as input to simulate Vallisneria growth at critical locations in the estuary. The District did review the more recent Environmental Fluid Dynamic Code (EFDC) model developed for the Caloosahatchee Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and being used by the Department of Environmental Protection. The District's expert witness, Dr. Detong Sun, testified that until 2014, the hydrodynamic part of the EFDC model was not working well. He testified that in 2016, the District still had concerns and suggested the use of the District's continuous monitoring data from seven locations across the CRE rather than grab samples for model calibration. Dr. Sun's opinion was that the EFDC model has improved in recent years, but was still behind the CH3D model in terms of performance. The District's expert witness, Dr. Amanda Kahn, testified that the water quality component of the EFDC model was not appropriate for this re-evaluation because the MFL is about water quantity, not water quality. The water quality component of the EFDC model addresses nutrient loadings, not minimum flows. Dr. Kahn also testified that in setting MFL criteria for the CRE, salinity was not a water quality component. Salinity was used as a water quantity component because it does not change with biological processes and can be a measure of how much fresh water is coming into the system. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the District's decision not to use the EFDC model was not arbitrary or capricious. 3. Seasonality The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the District is required to set an MFL that varies by season. For the CRE, the District set MFL criteria that protect the system from low flow that would occur in either the wet or dry season. As previously found, the re-evaluation studies focused on the dry season for two reasons: first, because it is well-established that the upstream migration of salt combined with reduced fresh water inflow alters the health and productivity of estuarine habitats; and second, because the dry seasons are the times when the current MFL criteria are likely to be exceeded or violated. The MFL statute states that "when appropriate, [MFLs] may be calculated to reflect seasonal variations." § 373.042(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The preponderance of the evidence showed that for the CRE, it was not necessary to set an MFL that varied by season. Improper Purpose The Petitioners, Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town, did not participate in this proceeding primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. The Intervenors, Fort Myers, Estero, Bonita Springs, and CCP, did not participate in this proceeding primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Intervenors did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an individual who owns or operates a water system that provides piped water for human consumption to the Hardy House Diner in Washington county, Florida. The water system serves at least 35 persons daily at least 60 days out of the year. Respondent has owned or operated the water system since at least October 28, 1976. Respondent does not continually apply effective disinfectant measure to the water distributed to the customer of the Hardy House Diner, nor is Respondent's water system equipped with any disinfection equipment. Respondent's water system has a daily flow greater than 2,500 gallons per day, but less than 100,000 gallons per day. The operation, maintenance and supervision of the water system is not performed by a person who has passed an examination that entitles such a person to be a certified operator. Neither the Department nor the Washington County, Florida Health Department has received from Respondent reports which contained information about the operation and maintenance of the Respondent's water system. The water system's lack of disinfectant equipment and the absence of a certified operator for the system and Respondent's failure to file operation reports have existed continuously since "October, 1976. Representatives of the Department conducted a public water systems inspection of Respondent's water system on October 26, 1976. At that time, the system was found to be unsatisfactory in several categories, including general plant condition, existence of safety hazards, lack of chlorination, failure to submit regular reports, failure to submit monthly bacteriological samples, failure to perform chemical analysis of drinking water and failure to install a raw water tap between the pump and point of chlorination. A second inspection was performed on April 7, 1977, in which it was determined that Respondent still had not installed a chlorinations system, had failed to submit monthly operating reports had failed to employ a certified operator, had failed to submit monthly bacteriological samples, and had failed to perform annual chemical analysis of water disposed from the system. On December 7, 1977, a representative of the Department whose job responsibilities included inspecting public water systems was refused permission to enter and inspect the water system serving the Hardy house diner and its customer. The Department representative was refused entry after he had identified himself and made his purpose known to Respondent. The Department has incurred expenses of $117.58, including personnel time and travel expense, in the course of investigating Respondent's alleged violations.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, finding the Respondent to be in violation of the above-referenced statutes and regulations, and requiring Respondent to pay the state its reasonable costs and expenses, in the amount of $117.58 incurred in investigating and prosecuting this administrative proceeding. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1979, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 2230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Eugene Hardy 1005 Highway 90 West Chipley, Florida 32428 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1209 DER Case No. WC-10-78 EUGENE HARDY, Respondent. /
