The Issue Whether Environmental Resource Permit No. IND-073-288406-1 (the “Permit”) should be issued as proposed in the notice issued by Respondent Northwest Florida Water Management District (the “District”).
Findings Of Fact Parties Palafox is a Florida limited liability company and is the applicant for the Permit. Palafox owns Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision, the six-acre property on which the Project is proposed for development. Palafox is the sole member of the Palafox Preserve Commercial Property Owners Association. The District is a Florida water management district having the duty and authority to regulate Florida’s water resources within its jurisdiction and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Part IV, and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated and authorized thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-330. Petitioner, Carmen Diaz, is the owner of Lot 18, Block A, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision, which is west of the Project and separated from the Project by a conservation easement owned by the Palafox Preserve Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”). The Project The Project is a 36-unit multi-family residential development proposed on approximately 2.68 acres of Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision. The Project is adjacent to, and immediately west of, Martin Hurst Road, and adjacent to, and immediately south of, Palafox Lane. The remainder of Palafox’s Lot 1, Block B, property runs to the west of the Project and south of Palafox Lane, and is located within a larger perpetual conservation easement (the “conservation easement”). Petitioner’s property is a residential lot located west of, and not adjacent to, Palafox’s property. A portion of Petitioner’s property is located within the conservation easement. Between Petitioner’s property and Palafox’s property is a portion of the conservation easement owned by the HOA. The conservation easement covers approximately nine acres, approximately seven of which is wetlands. The conservation easement straddles the boundary between Block A and Block B, with about two-thirds in Block A, owned, for the most part, by the HOA; and one-third in Block B, wholly owned by Palafox. Palafox’s property, Petitioner’s property, and the conservation easement are all located within the same closed basin. This means that stormwater within the basin will be maintained within the basin in all storm events up to and including a 100-year, 24-hour storm. Existing Palafox Preserve Subdivision stormwater management facilities (“SWMF”) Nos. 6 and 7 are constructed in platted drainage easements on Lots 11 through 19 in Block A. SWMFs Nos. 6 and 7 are constructed in a horseshoe shape adjacent to the conservation easement and are designed as detention facilities. Stormwater above the detention volume is discharged to the conservation easement wetlands. The SWMF to be authorized by the Permit, SWMFs Nos. 6 and 7, and the conservation easement containing the wetlands, are within the localized closed basin. There is another SWMF to the west behind the homesites located on Lots 1 through 7 that is numbered SWMF No. 5. SWMF No. 5 is not within the localized closed basin, and discharges to the Lake Jackson drainage basin. The closed basin also contains an emergency “pop-off” or outfall which allows for water from the wetlands to be discharged to the west if it reaches a certain elevation, which, based on the plans, is 223.57 feet. The outfall was designed to mimic pre-development conditions and only discharges if the 100- year, 24-hour storm is exceeded. If discharged, the water would travel west, through drainage easements to SWMF No. 5, and ultimately to Lake Jackson. The record does not support a finding that waters in the closed basin have ever risen high enough to trigger the pop-off. The only record evidence showed that Tallahassee has never recorded a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Petitioner’s Challenges Petitioner maintains the Project will cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; adverse flooding to on-site and off-site property; adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish, wildlife, and listed species, by wetlands and other surface waters, contrary to the governing administrative rules. Further, Petitioner alleges the permit is contrary to state requirements that the permittee own or control the property to which stormwater is discharged, and that the wetland must be properly delineated as a state jurisdictional wetland. Palafox’s Environmental Resource Permit Application and Modeling Report Palafox submitted its Permit application to the District on August 6, 2019. In support of its application, Palafox submitted, among other things, project drawings, background materials, and a stormwater modeling report, prepared by Blackhawk Engineering, Inc. (“Blackhawk”). The Permit application seeks approval of a SWMF that will consist of a dry detention with filtration stormwater pond that is to be constructed in the northeast corner of the Project site. The design calls for a side-bank sand filter with a minimum of two-feet of sand, which filters impurities out of the water as it flows through it. The filtered water then travels through two perforated pipes within the side bank filter that sit below the pond and discharge from a concrete retaining wall onto Palafox’s property. The sand filter controls the rate of discharge from the pipes. The stormwater pond proposed here is a common pond design in this area of the state. The pond is also designed with a 10-foot concrete overflow weir set at an elevation of 228.5 feet. If water rises to this level, it will also discharge through the weir onto Palafox’s property. For stormwater ponds utilizing detention with filtration, the District’s ERP rules require the pond to be able to treat at least one inch of runoff for the drainage area. This is known as the treatment volume. For this property, the treatment volume is 12,716.33 cubic feet of water. The Project was designed to meet Leon County’s more restrictive requirement to treat at least 1.125 inches of runoff from the drainage area. Consequently, the pond has more treatment volume than required by ERP rules, and will hold and treat over 14,000 cubic feet of water under the weir under that runoff scenario. That water can be recovered in 15.84 hours. The ERP criteria requires recovery in less than 36 hours. As part of the application, Palafox submitted a stormwater modeling report prepared by Blackhawk. The report documents the results from a numerical model that represents the amount of runoff in a basin. The modeling program used was Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing (“ICPR”). ICPR is a widely accepted modeling system within both the stormwater engineering profession and the regulatory community. The model calculates the amount of runoff generated by a storm event, then simulates the stormwater management process, including detention of the stormwater within the designed facility, as well as calculating the rate and amount of discharge through pipes and weirs. For the Project, the model compared the pre-development and post- development conditions of the closed basin in storm conditions up to and including a 100-year, 24-hour storm scenario.1 That comparison shows an increase in discharge of 9,630 cubic feet of water from Lot 1B in a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The result is an increase of 0.384 inches in the water elevation in the wetlands from pre-development to post-development conditions. Water Quantity and Flooding Impacts Petitioner alleges the Project will create a flood risk because it will replace an existing stormwater retention facility on Lot 1B, that does not discharge into the wetlands, with a detention facility that does. Petitioner maintains that the additional discharge will significantly increase the amount of water flowing into the wetlands and damage her property, as well as the wetland’s value. The existing pond, however, was designed to retain only the additional runoff from Lot 1B generated by construction of the subdivision entrance road, Palafox Lane. The existing pond does not serve the residential portion of the subdivision. Runoff that flowed into the wetlands before construction of the road (i.e., in pre-development conditions) is not retained in the existing pond. The ICPR addresses the effect of replacing the existing pond by comparing pre-development conditions with post-development conditions to document the performance of the new pond. As already noted, the increase in wetland water elevation is negligible. Any rise would be contained within the existing conservation easement. In support of her claims, Petitioner introduced the testimony of Andrew Carswell, who was accepted as an expert in stormwater management. Mr. Carswell testified, that, based on his calculations, the 1 The 100-year, 24-hour storm scenario is Leon County’s standard for environmental permitting. Project would contribute 505,000 cubic feet of water to the wetland over a period of one year. In Mr. Carswell’s opinion, the wetland would be overwhelmed, causing the basin to overflow in the direction of the lowest elevation—Lot 18, owned by Petitioner, and the adjacent Lot 19. Mr. Carswell explained that the topography of Lots 18 and 19 is very steep, which would cause stormwater to travel faster, scouring and eroding the subject properties. However, Mr. Carswell did not model the stormwater system, or otherwise perform a simulation to determine staging of particular storm events in the basin. Mr. Carswell performed a simple water balance calculation, utilizing average annual rainfall amounts and evapotranspiration rates he found online for Tallahassee. His testimony was unclear whether the calculation included any percolation rate for the wetland area itself. Based on his calculation, Mr. Carswell concluded the basin would collect ten inches of water a year, with none of that water ever leaving the closed basin. Under Mr. Carswell’s analysis, the basin would fill up quickly. Mr. Carswell admitted, however, that if he wanted to actually predict the incremental contribution of a stormwater discharge from a project into a closed basin, he would utilize a model similar to the one submitted by Palafox in support of this Project. He has never used only his water balance calculation in support of a stormwater pond in a permitting context. Palafox introduced the testimony of Mark Thomasson, its environmental consultant on the Project, who also assisted the project engineer in developing the Permit application. Mr. Thomasson was accepted as an expert in stormwater engineering and ERP permitting. In Mr. Thomasson’s opinion, Mr. Carswell’s calculation is not a reliable way to determine whether the Project will create a flood risk in the subdivision. He opined that the water balance calculation is too simplistic— simply adding an entire year’s worth of rainfall into a closed basin. It is a method of approximating average runoff rates, atypical in the regulatory flood setting. As Mr. Thomasson explained, a stormwater engineer can use simple math for the initial abstraction—how much rainfall the ground will soak up before it will runoff—but must rely upon a continuous simulation model, such as the ICPR, for calculating stormwater behavior after initial rainfall and absorption. Next, Petitioner introduced evidence aimed at undermining Palafox’s stormwater modeling in support of the Project. Mr. Carswell testified that, when modeling in a closed basin, the seasonal high-water mark must be used as the starting water elevation, and that Palafox erred in not doing so. However, Mr. Carswell admitted that not all closed basin analyses he has performed used the seasonal high-water mark. Mr. Thomasson made clear that consideration of the high-water mark is not necessary when analyzing a pre-versus-post condition in a closed basin, because the relevant standard is the delta—the difference in surface water elevation. Mr. Thomasson further explained that starting with the lower elevation is the more conservative approach because a closed basin is like a bowl, narrower at the bottom, so adding water at a lower elevation will actually lead to a higher delta. Mr. Thomasson’s testimony was more credible and reliable than Mr. Carswell’s on the issue of the professionally-acceptable method for determining whether the Project meets the standards for an ERP. As to Petitioner’s concern with adverse flooding of her property, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner’s house is at an elevation over 224 feet—nearly two feet above the 100-year high water elevation established by the Poole Engineering report that shows where such a storm would rise to in the basin. That 224-foot elevation is also higher than the emergency pop- off, which is at 223.57 feet. As previously noted, there was no evidence that water has ever risen that high in the closed basin, or that Tallahassee has recorded a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Furthermore, Mr. Carswell’s opinion that the Project would result in flooding of Lots 18 and 19 assumed conditions in which the emergency pop-off drain was clogged, or otherwise ceasing to function properly. Petitioner’s property currently contains a designed stormwater pond that connects by way of a drainage easement in her backyard. Under current conditions, Petitioner can expect to see water standing in that pond after a sufficient rain event, before the water eventually filters and drains into the wetland. The evidence does not support a finding that the post-development condition would result in adverse flooding to Petitioner’s property. Wetlands and Environmental Impacts Petitioner maintains that Palafox does not have the legal right to discharge water onto Petitioner’s property. The evidence, however, showed that Palafox will be discharging onto its own property, albeit a narrow strip thereof. If there is a significant enough storm event, treated stormwater will make its way downhill and commingle with water in the shared wetlands. There was no evidence, however, that Palafox will discharge directly onto any other landowner’s property, or that any discharge from Palafox’s pond will directly impact Petitioner’s property, which also discharges into the wetlands. Assuming, arguendo, that the facility for which Palafox seeks permit approval did discharge directly into the wetland, Section 2.5 of Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, would govern said discharge. That section specifically authorizes discharge of stormwater by an applicant to “waters of the state,” which includes wetlands. It also authorizes discharge of stormwater to multiple-owned properties. Water flowing off of the HOA’s property and Petitioner’s property is captured by the wetland as well. The wetland is owned in part by Palafox, in part by the HOA, and in part by Petitioner. The small portion of the wetland on Petitioner’s property is contained wholly within a conservation easement. However, the entire wetland is “waters of the state,” whether it is on Palafox’s property, the HOA’s property, or Petitioner’s property.2 The wetland is within a closed basin and the ICPR provided to the District by Palafox demonstrates that the wetland is capable of holding all of the discharge from the 100-year, 24-hour storm while increasing the water level in the wetland by only 0.384 inches. The District introduced the testimony of Andrew Joslyn, its agency representative, who was accepted as an expert in environmental permitting. He opined that, because the treated stormwater is discharged directly onto Palafox’s property and then flows to a wetland, which is both a water of the state and a multiple-owned property, no additional authorization is required by ERP rules to allow the treated stormwater to flow toward, and ultimately end up in, the wetland. Section 10.2.7 of Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, addresses secondary, not direct, impacts to wetlands. It states that activities will not be considered adverse to wetlands if buffers, with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet, are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design. In August 2019, District staff performed a “ground truth” inspection on Palafox’s property prior to the District’s notice of intent to issue the Permit. The District verified, on site, the drawing of the 2001 wetland limits supplied by Palafox. During that ground truth inspection of the wetland, District staff, accompanied by Mr. Thomasson, made the determination that Palafox’s proposed upland development was outside of the wetland, there was no direct 2 ERP permitting rules developed under the authority of chapter 373 provide that “[t]erms used in [chapter 62-330] are defined in section 2.0 of Volume I and section 2.1 of Volume II” of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 330.021. The Applicant’s Handbook, section 2.0(a)116. establishes that “‘Waters of the state’ shall be as defined in Section 403.031(13), F.S.” Section 403.031(13) provides that “‘Waters’ include, but are not limited to, rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments, wetlands, and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters. Waters owned entirely by one person other than the state are included only in regard to possible discharge on other property or water.” impact to the wetland, and the development was an average distance of greater than 25 feet, and at no point was closer than 15 feet to the wetland. Based on those measurements, the District determined that the secondary impact rule was not at issue. Petitioner argues that the District’s determination is in error because Palafox relied upon a wetland delineation conducted in 2001, which has expired pursuant to statutory provisions. Petitioner argues that the wetland boundaries have expanded since the 2001 delineation, thus the “ground- truthed” determination of the boundary is insufficient to determine that the secondary impact rule does not apply. Mr. Joslyn testified that a formal delineation of a precise boundary of the wetland is not required to identify or classify an area as a “wetland” or “water of the state.” Wetlands are within the state’s jurisdiction regardless of whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district has formally delineated or asserted jurisdiction. Moreover, ERP evaluation and approval criteria does not necessarily require a buffer between upland development and a nearby wetland. The buffer is only required to avoid a secondary impact-to-wetland analysis or, stated differently, a secondary impact-to-wetland analysis is only required if the appropriate buffer between upland and wetland is not maintained. Although not required, in order to avoid a secondary impact analysis, the appropriate buffer is a minimum width of 15 feet and an average of 25 feet. In support of her claim that there was not a proper wetland buffer, Petitioner presented a transcript of testimony from Kevin Songer given in a different proceeding challenging Leon County’s approval of the environmental permit for the Palafox subdivision. Petitioner presented the former testimony to support her position that Mr. Songer’s 2001 wetland delineation line has moved to a new line as set by Mr. Songer in 2015. The 2015 wetland delineation line purported to show that the wetland had expanded somewhat. Mr. Songer’s 2015 wetland delineation work was neither checked by independent peer review nor confirmed by any state or local environmental regulatory agency.3 In addition, Mr. Songer provided no testimony that the Project would cause any adverse impacts to the wetlands. He noted that there had been changes to the wetlands between the two times he was on site, 2001 and 2015. He did not assess what, if any, impact—adverse or otherwise—the Project would have on the wetland, or whether such change had any material effect on the relevant ERP standards. His only relevant testimony was directed towards an alleged change to the wetland boundary. Nonetheless, Mr. Thomasson reviewed Mr. Songer’s testimony and a survey of Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line. Mr. Thomasson prepared a document showing Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line overlaid on the existing conditions plan (i.e. pre-development) of Palafox’s property. Mr. Thomasson also prepared a document showing Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line overlaid on the proposed conditions plan (i.e. post- development) of Palafox’s property. In neither instance was there a distance less than 15 feet between Palafox’s proposed development and Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line. In both instances, there was always an average distance greater than 25 feet between Palafox’s proposed development and Mr. Songer’s proposed 2015 wetland line. 3 Palafox urged the undersigned to find that Mr. Songer’s 2015 wetland delineation does not represent a recognized wetland jurisdictional line, based on Administrative Law Judge Francine Ffolkes’ finding in Braswell v. Palafox, Case No. 18-2734 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 31, 2018; Fla. Leon Cty. Sept. 24, 2018). The undersigned granted Palafox’s request for official recognition of the Recommended Order in that case, but official recognition cannot be used to admit hearsay statements in court files. See Dufor v. State, 69 So. 3d 235, 253 (Fla. 2011) (“[W]hile the court may take judicial notice of documents in a court file … this notice would not make the contents of the documents admissible if they … constituted hearsay.”). Further, “courts generally cannot take notice of findings of fact from other proceedings for the truth of the matter asserted therein because these finding are disputable and usually are disputed.” General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F3d 1074, 1082 n.6 (7th Cir.1997). Whether Mr. Songer’s 2015 wetland delineation is a recognized jurisdictional wetland line is a matter in dispute in the instant proceeding. Accordingly, even if Mr. Songer’s 2015 proposed wetland line is used, Palafox has satisfied the buffer requirements found in Section 10.2.7 of Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, and no secondary impact analysis is required. Other than Mr. Songer’s former testimony, Petitioner presented no evidence regarding adverse impacts on the wetlands. Petitioner’s one expert witness, Mr. Carswell, admitted he is not qualified to opine on whether the Project would have an adverse impact on the function of wetlands. Mr. Carswell did testify that the discharge of stormwater from the Applicant’s project would not affect fish and wildlife. Mr. Thomasson expressed the opinion that the Project will not result in any change, adverse or otherwise, to the function of the wetland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit No. IND-073-288406-1 to Palafox, LLC, on the terms and conditions set forth in the District’s Notice of Final Agency Action. Jurisdiction is reserved to determine whether the District and Palafox are entitled to attorney’s fees and sanctions against Petitioner and her counsel under sections 120.595(1) and 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph B. Brannen, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Drawer 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 (eServed) Matthew E.W. Bryant, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Drawer 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 (eServed) Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Jefferson M. Braswell, Esquire Braswell Law, PLLC 116 Northeast 3rd Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 (eServed) W. Douglas Hall, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) James E. Parker-Flynn, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Brett J. Cyphers, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District 81 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Save the Manatee Club has standing in this proceeding? Whether the exemptions in paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, (the Exemptions) are "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority" as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes? Whether the Exemptions violate the prohibitions and restrictions on agency rulemaking contained in the last four sentences of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc., is a not-for- profit corporation dedicated to protecting the manatee. Respondent, The Southwest Florida Water Management District, is one of five water management districts in the State of Florida. A public corporation created pursuant to Chapter 61- 691, Laws of Florida, the District's geographic boundaries encompass a number of counties or some part of them including the three counties on the shores of Tampa Bay: Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee. See Section 373.069(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Within this boundary, the District is generally charged with the protection of water resources and with the management and storage of surface waters of the State pursuant to Part IV, Section 373.403 et seq., Florida Statutes. Intervenor, South Shores Properties Partners, Ltd., is a limited partnership composed of a subsidiary of Tampa Electric Company (TECO) and another business organization, Shimberg Cross Company, referred to by its President Glen Cross as "actually SCSS" (Tr. 133), apparently an acronym for Shimberg Cross Company. Mr. Cross' company is the general partner in the South Shores partnership. South Shores was formed in anticipation of closing on a contract entered by Shimberg Cross to purchase a parcel of real estate in Hillsborough County. The closing proceeded in January of 1998. On January 23, 1998, eight days or so before the closing, South Shores was formed as "a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Florida." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 15). It succeeded to the contract rights of Shimberg Cross and then, pursuant to the closing, became the owner of the real estate subject to the contract. South Shores hopes to sell the property to Atlantic Gulf Communities, an organization that will actually develop it. If the arrangement with Atlantic Gulf Communities is not consummated, South Shores will look for another developer or develop the property itself. No matter what party (if any) is the actual developer, South Shores, as the present owner, now seeks the benefit of the Exemptions in support of a District- issued conceptual permit for development of the parcel in Hillsborough County (the Parcel). The Parcel and Its Proposed Development The Parcel is 720 acres in southwestern Hillsborough County. South Shores proposes to use it for a multi-phase, mixed-use project. The development project is denominated "Apollo Beach aka (sic) Bay Side" (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) on the draft of the conceptual permit attached to the District's Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Atlantic Gulf Communities calls it "Harbor Bay". (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4). (It will be referred to in this order as Apollo Beach/Bay Side). If all goes as planned by South Shores, the Parcel's developer (whether South Shores, Atlantic Gulf Communities, or some other party) will be able to provide the residential portion of Apollo Beach/Bay Side with direct access by boat to Tampa Bay through an existing canal system on the Parcel. For now access to the bay is blocked by an earthen berm or "plug." With the plug in place, boat access to the bay from the canals can only be achieved by means of a boat lift. A lagoon is also part of South Shores' development plans for Apollo Beach/Bayside. Not yet excavated, the lagoon will allow residents to harbor boats close to their residences. If the lagoon is dug, a boat lift (different from the one necessary to allow boats to cross the plug if left in place) will be constructed to give the boats access to the canal system. With access to the canal system established, once the plug is removed, the boats will have unrestricted access to Tampa Bay. In the "Abstract" section of the conceptual permit proposed for issuance by the District, the project was described as follows: Apollo Beach (a.k.a. Bay Side) is a proposed multi-phase, mixed use development on approximately 720.0 acres in . . . Southwestern Hillsborough County. The project will include single-family and multi- family residential areas and commercial sites. The property is in close proximity to Tampa Bay, West of U.S. Highway 41 and immediately south of the existing Apollo Beach development. The site is presently undeveloped but does contain an existing manmade canal system that is tidally connected to Tampa Bay. The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project has an Environmental Resource Permit exemption pursuant to Chapters 40D-4.051(3)(5) and (6), F.A.C. and will only require Standard General Permits for Minor Surface Water Management Systems for the future construction in accordance with Chapter 40D-4.041(4), F.A.C. Because of this exemption, this Conceptual Permit will only review the storm water quality aspects of the project in accordance with 40D-301(2) and will not address storm water quantity issues or impacts to wetland/fish and wildlife habitats. The project will include the realignment of existing Leisley Road and the construction of a roadway system to serve the proposed residential and commercial areas. The project will also include the excavation of a "fresh water Lagoon" approximately 136 acres in size. Most of the proposed single-family residential lots will be constructed on the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. Surface water runoff from the upland portions of the project will be treated in 25 proposed ponds or isolated wetlands prior to discharge to the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13.) The ultimate effects to manatees of the proposed development project, if completed, were described by Ms. Thompson, the Club's witness: A typical project such as this one will introduce a good number of powerboats into the system, in this case, Tampa Bay. And manatees are impacted by powerboats either through propeller injuries or through collision with the hull of a fast-moving boat and the results are either death or in some cases sublethal injuries that may have other consequences such as inability to reproduce, et cetera. . . . [T]he very same boats can affect manatee habitat by prop scarring, boats going over sea grass beds and destroying the grasses. They also, in shallow water, kick up . . . turbidity which can affect light attenuation reaching the sea grass beds. And then there are the water quality issues which have secondary impacts to the sea grass beds . . . (Tr. 96). The Exemptions preliminarily afforded South Shore by the District will allow the removal of the plug in the canal system. Because removal of the plug will facilitate access to Tampa Bay by power boats harbored in the lagoon, it is the issue about the development of the Parcel that most concerns the Club in its efforts to protect manatees in Tampa Bay and elsewhere. Standing of Save the Manatee Club (i). The Manatee The manatee is the "Florida State marine mammal." Section 370.12(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Designated an endangered species under both federal and state law, 50 CFR s. 17.11 and Rule 39-27.003, Florida Administrative Code, the manatee is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. In Florida, the manatee enjoys, too, the protection of the Florida Endangered Species Act and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. The State of Florida has been declared to be "a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee." Id. The Club's Purpose and Activities The Club's primary purpose is to protect the manatee and its habitat through public awareness, research support and advocacy. Long active in efforts to protect the manatee, the Club has achieved special status in manatee protection in Florida. In 1996, it was the recipient of a resolution by the Florida Legislature's House of Representative recognizing its endeavors on behalf of the manatee. The Club has been designated a member of the Manatee Technical Advisory Council provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. See sub-sections (2)(p) and (4)(a) of section 370.12(2)(p) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department of Environmental Protection annually solicits recommendations from the Club regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies. In furtherance of its efforts, the Club has frequently participated before the Division of Administrative Hearings in administrative litigation involving manatees and manatee habitat on behalf of itself and its members. (iii). The Club's Membership The Club has approximately 40,000 members. The number of individual persons who are members of the Club, however, is far in excess of this number because many members are groups that receive membership at discounted fees. For example, a family may be one member or, as is quite common, an entire elementary school classroom may be one member. One-quarter of the Club's membership resides in Florida. Approximately 2,200 of the members are on the west coast of Florida with 439 in Hillsborough County, 584 in Pinellas and 165 in Manatee. The total number of members is therefore about 1,188 in the three counties whose shores are washed by Tampa Bay. (iv). Tampa Bay Tampa Bay is "prime essential manatee habitat." (Tr. 65). At least two factors make this so: the Bay's sea grass beds (manatee feeding areas) and warm water sources, particularly in winter, three of which are "power plant effluence." (Tr. 77). Not surprisingly, therefore, the Club has funded long- term research on the manatee in Tampa Bay. It has "provided about ten years of financial support for aerial surveys to count manatees in Tampa Bay and determine their distribution and the health of the sea grass beds . . ." (Tr. 75), a research project which finished last year. This research has contributed to other manatee research in the Bay leading the Club's witness at hearing to conclude, "[t]here's no other place in the state of Florida that has as long a term, as comprehensive a [manatee] database as Tampa Bay." (Tr. 76). Other activities in Tampa Bay conducted by the Club include the placement of manatee awareness signs. And the Club's staff biologist sits on the Tampa Bay Manatee Awareness Coalition established by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. In sum, the quality of manatee habitat in Tampa Bay is enough to make it especially important to the Club. But, its importance to the Club takes on added significance because it is the site of one of only three adoption programs the Club sponsors in Florida. The Tampa Bay Adoption Program The Tampa Bay Adopt-a-Manatee Program was established in April of 1999. The six manatees subject to the Tampa Bay Manatee Adoption Program (as of October 7, 1999) have been adopted by 1,229 members, 284 of which have been schools. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). Those adopting receive a photo of the manatee, a biography, a scar pattern sheet, and a map showing their manatees' favorite habitat areas along the west coast of Florida. Of the six "Tampa Bay Adoption" program manatees, five have been seen in Tampa Bay and one south of Tampa Bay in the Marco Island area. Of the five seen in the bay, four "winter at the warm water discharge area of Tampa Electric Company's power plant" (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, Tr. 67) where they can be observed by members of the Club and the Tampa Bay adoption program as well as by the public. The TECO Power Plant The TECO power plant area is the major warm water refuge for manatees known to frequent Tampa Bay, particularly during the winter. The waters near the plant have been observed to be the host of more than 100 manatees at one time, following the movement of cold fronts through the area. The plant has a manatee-viewing center, one of the two principal places in the state for viewing manatees in the wild. The Club's membership handbook gives detailed information about how to see manatees at the TECO viewing center. During the winter months, the Club frequently directs its members to the TECO viewing center. Precisely how many individuals, either as members of the Club through a group membership or as members, themselves, actually have viewed manatees at the TECO viewing center or elsewhere in Tampa Bay was not established. Nor was any competent estimate made of how many might visit the TECO viewing center in the future. The viewing center and the power plant are in the vicinity of Apollo Beach/Bay Side, the development project South Shores seeks to have approved for an Environmental Resource Permit (the ERP). The SWFWMD ERP Program Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, governs water resources in the state and sets out the powers and duties of the water management districts, including their permitting powers. Part IV of the chapter covers the management and storage of surface waters. According to SWFWMD rules, "'Environmental Resource Permit' means a conceptual, individual, or general permit for a surface water management system issued pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes." Rule 40D-4.021, Florida Administrative Code. The permit issued to South Shores in this case through the application of the challenged Exemptions, is a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit. See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13 and Rule 40D-4.021(2), Florida Administrative Code. The conceptual permit preliminarily issued South Shores is one that was reviewed by the Club's staff, just as it reviews many permit applications for potential effects to manatees. Because of use of the Exemptions as proposed by the District to South Shores, however, any review the Club conducted to assure that the permit met all general permitting criteria was of no use. Much of those criteria were not applied by the District to the application. If the Exemptions were not available to South Shores, the District would have to employ ERP permitting criteria to the surface water management activities associated with the development project, including removal of the plug, lagoon construction, and boat lift installation. The Exemptions, therefore, keep the Club from participating in what otherwise would be the process for the District's administrative decision on the application of those criteria. In sum, the Exemptions preempt the Club's participation in the state mechanism provided by ERP permitting criteria for assessing, inter alia, threats to the manatee and its habitat from harms associated with the proposed development project. The District recognized this effect of the permit in the draft of the permit. The draft states: "Because of this Exemption, this Conceptual Permit will . . . not address . . . impacts to . . . wildlife habitat." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13). The Exemptions, therefore, prevent the Club from carrying out functions useful to protection of manatee habitat, that is, participation in the District's application of wildlife habitat protection criteria. The non-application by the District of permit criteria related to wildlife habitat protection and the Club's inability to assure itself that the criteria are correctly applied poses the danger that manatee habitat will be lost, diminished or damaged. If the Club is ultimately proved right in its assertion that the manatee and its habitat will be damaged by the South Shores development without application of permitting criteria related to wildlife habitat, then the approved application increases the threat that Club members will encounter greater difficulty in observing, studying and enjoying manatees in the wild and in Tampa Bay in particular. Standing of South Shores to Intervene The District has no opposition to South Shores' intervention. As for the Club's position with regard to South Shores intervention, the Club stipulated to South Shores' standing to intervene in a notice filed with its proposed order. South Shores benefits, moreover, from the application of the Exemptions to its proposed project. In light of not having to show compliance with permitting criteria otherwise applicable, South Shores will escape some permitting costs and therefore, enjoys economic benefit. Furthermore, by allowing South Shores to avoid the requirements of compliance with ERP permitting criteria, the Exemptions facilitate fulfillment of the obligation of South Shores to obtain a permit to develop. The District's Rule-making Authority The District governing board has been granted general authority by the Legislature to adopt rules to implement the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972: The governing board of the district is authorized to adopt rules . . . to implement the provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. The Legislature has framed this authority in relationship to the District's power to administer the Chapter and its Part IV: In administering the provisions of this chapter the governing board has authority to adopt rules . . . to implement provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. In another provision in Chapter 373, the district has been given rule-making authority that exceeds the authority to implement specific provisions granted typically to most administrative agencies in Florida. This authority is broad indeed. Tied to water use in general, it is bound only by unspecified conditions as warranted: . . . governing boards, . . . may: Adopt rules . . . affecting the use of water, as conditions warrant, . . . Section 373.171, Florida Statutes. The Exemptions; Specific Authority and Laws Implemented The Exemptions are as follows: 40D-4.051 Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from [ERP] permitting under this chapter: * * * (3) Any project, work or activity which has received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction and is under construction prior to October 1, 1984. *(4) Any project, work or activity which received a surface water management permit from the District prior to October 1, 1984. * * * Any phased or long term buildout project, including a development of regional impact, planned unit development, development with a master plan or master site plan, or similar project, which has received local or regional approval prior to October 1, 1984, if: The approval process requires a specific site plan and provides for a master drainage plan approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, and The Developer has notified the District of its intention to rely upon this exemption prior to April 1, 1985. Projects exempt under this subsection shall continue to be subject to the District's surface water management rules in effect prior to October 1, 1984. As specific authority, the Rule containing the Exemptions references 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171, and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. For "Law Implemented", the Rule lists Sections 373.406, 373.413 and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. Section 373.414(9) is cited by the Rule both as specific authority and as one of the laws implemented. The first of the statutory provisions cited by the Rule as a law implemented is Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. It reads: 373.406 Exemptions.- The following exemptions shall apply: Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any natural person to capture, discharge, and use water for purposes permitted by law. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture to alter the topography of any tract of land for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to be applicable to construction, operation, or maintenance of any agricultural closed system. However, part II of this chapter shall be applicable as to the taking and discharging of water for filling, replenishing, and maintaining the water level in any such agricultural closed system. This subsection shall not be construed to eliminate the necessity to meet generally accepted engineering practices for construction, operation, and maintenance of dams, dikes, or levees. All rights and restrictions set forth in this section shall be enforced by the governing board or the Department of Environmental Protection or its successor agency, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to establish a basis for a cause of action for private litigants. The department or the governing board may by rule establish general permits for stormwater management systems which have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. The department or the governing board also may establish by rule exemptions or general permits that implement interagency agreements entered into pursuant to s. 373.046, s. 378.202, s. 378.205, or s. 378.402. Any district or the department may exempt from regulation under this part those activities that the district or department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district. The district and the department are authorized to determine, on a case-by- case basis, whether a specific activity comes within this exemption. Requests to qualify for this exemption shall be submitted in writing to the district or department, and such activities shall not be commenced without a written determination from the district or department confirming that the activity qualifies for the exemption. Nothing in this part, or in any rule or order adopted under this part, may be construed to require a permit for mining activities for which an operator receives a life-of-the-mine permit under s. 378.901. Certified aquaculture activities which apply appropriate best management practices adopted pursuant to s. 597.004 are exempt from this part. For the most part, this section sets out general classes of exemptions. And it allows the District to consider whether an activity comes within an exemption on a "case-by-case" basis. See Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. But, none of these "exemptions" appear to have anything to do with the grandfather protections provided by the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. See paragraphs 93-96, below. Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, in pertinent part, reads: (1) Except for the exemptions set forth herein, the governing board or the department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the construction or alteration of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. The department or the governing board may delineate areas within the district wherein permits may be required. Other than to make reference in subsection (1)to the existence of exemptions under Part IV of Chapter 373: "Except for the exemptions set forth herein . . .", Section 373.413 does not deal at all with exemptions. Certainly, it does not make reference with any specificity to the subject matter of the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. Cited both as "specific authority" and "law implemented" is paragraph (9) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Unlike Sections 373.406 and 373.413, it has a connection to the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding as is seen from perusal of the underscored language, below: (9) The department and the governing boards, on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provision of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. Such rules shall seek to achieve a statewide, coordinated and consistent permitting approach to activities regulated under this part. Variations in permitting criteria in the rules of individual water management districts or the department shall only be provided to address differing physical or natural characteristics. Such rules adopted pursuant to this subsection shall include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(29) and may include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(35). Such rules shall include a provision requiring that a notice of intent to deny or a permit denial based upon this section shall contain an explanation of the reasons for such denial and an explanation, in general terms, of what changes, if any, are necessary to address such reasons for denial. Such rules may establish exemptions and general permits, if such exemptions and general permits do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively . . . (emphasis supplied.) History of the Exemptions The Exemptions have been adopted twice and amended several times. One of the amendments and the second adoption followed omnibus legislation in the environmental permitting arena: the amendment in the wake of the passage of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, and the second adoption in the aftermath of the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (i). Amendment after the Henderson Act The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, (the "Henderson Act", later codified as Part VII of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes) was enacted through Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida. Approved by the Governor on June 1, 1984 and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on the same day, (see Laws of Florida, 1984, General Acts, Vol.1, Part One, p. 224) the Act had an effective date of October 1, 1984. The Henderson Act does not amend any provision in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the part of the Water Resources Act which delineates water management district authority over the program for permitting related to the management and storage of surface waters ("MSSW"). Nonetheless, between the adoption of the Henderson Act and its effective date, the District amended and adopted rules in Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40 of the Florida Administrative Code because of the Act's passage. Rule 40D-4.011 set out the policy for the amendments and adoptions: (2) The rules in this chapter implement the comprehensive surface water management permit system contemplated in part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. As a result of the passage of Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida, the Warren G. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, the District has adopted the rules in this Chapter and Chapter 40D-40 to ensure continued protection of the water resources of the District including wetlands and other natural resources. (Exhibit OR 4, See the page containing paragraph (2) of Rule 40D- 4.011 in the exhibit.) /1 Exhibit OR 4, a document officially recognized during this proceeding, is denominated "SWFWMD's Rule Amendment No. 116." The exhibit contains a letter on SWFWMD letterhead, signed by Dianne M. Lee for "J. Edward Curren, Attorney - Regulation" dated September 5, 1984. Under cover of the letter is a rule package filed by the District with the Secretary of State on September 11, 1984. Included in the package is the newly amended Rule 40D-4.051. The amended 40D-4.051 contains subparagraphs (3), (5) and (6), the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. They are worded precisely as they remain worded today. Consistent with the policy expressed in Rule 40D-4.011, Florida Administrative Code as filed in September of 1984, the effective date of the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions was the effective date of the Henderson Act: October 1, 1984. The Exemptions contained in the amendment filed in September of 1984 are "grandfather provisions." The first two are designed to protect certain projects, work or activities from the requirements of the Henderson Act if they had governmental approvals on October 1, 1984. The third is designed to protect from the Act "phased or long term buildout project[s]" that meet certain requirements, among them receipt of governmental approvals by October 1, 1984. At the time of the 1984 amendments, the Rule cited to Sections 373.044, 373.113, 373.149 and 373.171 for "Specific Authority," that is, the statutory source for the district's authority to make rules. For "Law Implemented" the Rule cited to Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. At that time, Section 373.406 contained only four subsections. These four are worded substantially the same as the first four subsections of the section today. Although Section 373.406 was the only law implemented by the Rule in 1984, the section is neither mentioned in nor part of the Henderson Act. The section, itself, does not make mention of the Henderson Act or of protection from it based on government approvals obtained by October 1, 1984. Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in its form both immediately before and after the Henderson Act provided exemptions that appear to have nothing to do with the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. The only connection between Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in 1984 and the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding when amended into the Rule in 1984 appears to be the use of the term "exemptions." The exemptions set out in the Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, as it existed in 1984, are not related to grandfather protection from the effects the Henderson Act had on the District's permitting considerations. Following the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions, the Rule was amended further. It was amended on October 1, 1986, March 1, 1988, and January 24, 1990. None of these amendments appear to have affected the Exemptions under consideration in this proceeding. The Rule became the subject of rule promulgation by the District again, however, as a result of a second omnibus act of the Legislature in the environmental permitting arena, the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (ii). The Reorganization Act of 1993 Nine years after the passage of the Henderson Act, the Legislature enacted the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993 (the "Reorganization Act"). Passed as Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, the Session Law declares its underlying policy: Declaration of Policy.-- The protection, preservation, and restoration of air, water, and other natural resources of this state are vital to the social and economic well-being and the quality of life of the citizens of this state and visitors to this state. It is the policy of the Legislature: To develop a consistent state policy for the protection and management of the environment and natural resources. To provide efficient governmental services to the public. To protect the functions of entire ecological systems through enhanced co- ordination of public land acquisition, regulatory, and planning programs. To maintain and enhance the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the environmental agencies of the state in the most efficient and effective manner. To streamline governmental services, providing for delivery of such services to the public in a timely, cost-efficient manner. Section 2., Ch. 93-213, Laws of Florida. The Reorganization Act carried out this policy in a number of ways. Among these, it merged the Departments of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Natural Resources into the Department of Environmental Protection. In so doing and at the same time, it incorporated DER's dredge and fill permitting program instituted by the Henderson Act into the programs of the water management districts for the Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW). The permitting program that resulted from the consolidation of DER's dredge and fill permitting program with the District's MSSW permitting program is what has been referred to in this order as the Environmental Resource Permitting or ERP program. With regard to rules under the new ERP program, the Reorganization Act amended Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Two sentences in subsection (9) of the amended section bear repeating: The department and the governing boards [of the water management districts], on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provisions of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. * * * Such rules may establish exemptions . . . if such exemptions . . . do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively. . . . As discussed earlier in this order, the Henderson Act did not directly create exemptions in the District's MSSW permitting program. Nonetheless, the District through the Exemptions of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, provided "grandfather" protections in the wake of the Act effective October 1, 1984. Whereas grandfather concerns were raised in front of the District after the Henderson Act, grandfather concerns and concerns about other situation that should be entitled to exemptions were raised to the Legislature during the advent of the Reorganization Act. These concerns were addressed in the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act, itself. The Act provided specific exemptions that were self- executing. Included were ones providing grandfather protection for certain activities approved under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, (DER's dredge and fill program) from imposition of new ERP permitting criteria expected to be promulgated in the wake of the Reorganization Act. The are contained in subsections (11) through (16) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. None of these exemptions make reference to the Exemptions at issue in this case. Of these provisions, only one addresses activities subject to rules adopted pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373 prior to the anticipated ERP permitting criteria: An application under this part for dredging and filling or other activity, which is submitted and complete prior to the effective date of [the anticipated ERP rules] shall be reviewed under the rules adopted pursuant to this part [including the Exemptions in Rule 40D-4.051] and part VIII of chapter 403 in existence prior to the effective date of the [anticipated ERP rules] and shall be acted upon by the agency which received the application, unless the applicant elects to have such activities reviewed under the [anticipated ERP rules]. Chapter 93-213, Section 30, p. 2149 of Laws of Florida, 1993, General Acts, Vol. 1, Part Two, now Section 373.414(14), Florida Statutes. 2/ Rule Activity in 1995 In observance of the mandate in the first section of Section 373.414(9), Florida Statutes, the District undertook adoption of rules "to incorporate the provisions of [Section 373.414] . . . into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters." These rules were the ERP rules anticipated by the Reorganization Act. They included the rules necessary for the District to administer under its ERP program its newfound authority over much of the dredge and fill permitting program formerly administered by DER and now consolidated with its permitting authority in its MSSW rules. Among the rules passed under the authority of the Reorganization Act's Section 373.414(9) is Rule 40D-4.051, the Rule containing the Exemptions subject to this proceeding. Filed with the Secretary of State on September 13, 1995, the adoption package for the new readopted states the following, in pertinent part: 40D-4.051 Exemptions The following activities are exempt from permitting under this chapter [Individual ERPs]: (1) - (7) - No change. (Exhibit OR 6, p. 14). The result of this adoption is that the Exemptions became part of the District's ERP Rules. They now apply to both the MSSW authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, which existed prior to the Reorganization Act, and, in a consolidated fashion, the District's authority conferred by the Reorganization Act to regulate certain dredge and fill activity formerly regulated by DER.
Findings Of Fact This application is a request for a consumptive use permit for two wells located in Pasco County, Florida, within the Pithlachascotee Basin. The subject wells are also located in that area wherein the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District declared a water shortage in Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 95,000 gallons with a maximum daily withdrawal of 360,000 gallons. The use of this water is for public supply involving effluent disposal by on-site percolation and ponding. This-use was existing prior to January 1, 1975 with am average daily withdrawal for 1974 of 74,000 gallons. The testimony presented by staff members of the Southwest Florida Water Management District establishes that the consumptive use for which a permit is sought will not violate any of the criteria set forth in Subsections 163- 2.11(2)(3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code, except that the use may significantly induce salt water encroachment. No evidence was presented showing that the sought for consumptive use will, in fact, significantly induce salt water encroachment. In the twelve month period ending October, 1975, applicant's highest average daily withdrawal was 81,000 gallons. This time frame corresponds to that time frame referred to in paragraph 1 of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. In view of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District, the staff recommends granting of the permit for an average daily withdrawal of 81,000 gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of four times that figure or 234,000 gallons. The staff further recommends imposition of the following conditions: That the permittee shall install totalizer flow meters of the propeller driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the permit with the exception of those wells which are currently ganged together using a single meter. That the permittee shall submit to the District a record of his pumpage for each meter, said pumpage to be read on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District on April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter. That all individual connections to the system be metered. That the permittee have water samples from all wells permitted analyzed for chloride on a monthly basis and results submitted to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar year.
Findings Of Fact On December 31, 1976, Respondent's territorial jurisdiction was expanded by transfer of substantial areas formerly regulated by other water management districts. The transfer was effected pursuant to legislative revision of Section 373.069, F.S., which delineates the geographic boundaries of Florida's water management districts. The following rule promulgated by Respondent became effective on January 31, 1977, and was amended on February 3, 1981: 40C-4.031 (previously 16I-4.04, Florida Administrative Code). Implementation. These regulations shall become effective February 1, 1981, throughout the District and will be implemented in those areas transferred to the St. Johns River Water Management District from the Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District and the Southwest Florida Water Management District on the same date. Implementation in other areas will be effected pursuant to public hearing at subsequent dates determined by the Board. The regulations implemented by the above rule establish permitting procedures for projects which involve holding, diversion, or discharge of significant quantities of water. However, permits are required only in the transferred territory. Petitioner owns 11,500 acres located within the territory where permits are required. Petitioner seeks to improve his property for agricultural purposes, which involves the holding and diversion of surface waters. He has accepted Respondent's determination that his property is within the permitting area and has filed the requisite application. However, Petitioner contends that he is unable reasonably to confirm Respondent's determination that his property is situated in the regulated territory. Respondent demonstrated that a determination can be made by comparing the statutory descriptions of Respondent's jurisdiction prior to and after the transfer, and has maps available which reflect the permitting area. To accomplish this task independently requires knowledge of legal territorial descriptions (section, township, range) and a laborious comparison of legal descriptions set out in the 1975 and 1977 versions of the Florida Statutes. At the time reorganization of the water management districts became effective (December 31, 1976) , Respondent had limited regulatory capability. Its decision to implement permitting only in the transferred territory was based on this limited capability and the need to preserve continuity 1/ in areas where permits had previously been required. In the years following this decision, Respondent has continued to require permits only in those areas transferred in 1976. The evidence established that the boundary between the regulated and unregulated areas is one of convenience and has no hydrological or other scientific basis. Respondent is considering a revision of its rules to become effective sometime in 1982. This revision may enlarge the permitting territory and modify the criteria for grant or denial of permits. Petitioner asserts that his application is being evaluated by rules not yet adopted and fears that new standards may be applied after hearing on the application, which is now under consideration pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), F.S., (DOAH Case No. 81-1588). Hearing is scheduled for December, 1981. In support of this contention, Petitioner points to the technical staff report prepared in May, 1981, which recommends denial of the application giving, among others, the following reasons: Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase 1 of the Upper Basin Plan catalogue a history of a diminish- ing water resource in the upper basin. The water resources in the upper basin have been harmed and the proposed project aggravates the existing harm to the resource. Moreover the proposed project is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district for the upper basin. Resolutions 75-11 and 81-2, the 1977 Management Plan, and Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase I of the Upper Basin Plan indicate that the objectives of the District are to curtail inter-basin diversion and maintain and enhance, if possible, the existing hydro- logic regime in the upper basin. The pro- posed project is not in conformance with either of these statutory requirements. (Emphasis added.) An earlier technical staff report prepared in November, 1980, recommended grant of the application, with some modification. This report did not refer to inter-basin diversion.
The Issue Whether Petitioner North Fort Myers Homeowners Association, Inc. (Homeowners) participated in DOAH Case No. 91-6436 for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact On September 11, 1991, Homeowners filed its Petition for Administrative Hearing and Request to Consolidate with Administrative Hearing set for November 7, 1991. The Petition alleged that Homeowners' interests would be adversely affected by Bradley's request for a permit for construction of a wastewater collection system that it planned to connect to Florida Cities Water Company's Sewage Treatment Plant. It was further alleged that Florida Cities current violations of federal water quality standards would increase as a result of such a connection. Bradley responded to the Petition by filing a Motion to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim/Or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 31, 1991, Hearing Officer Quattlebaum granted Bradley's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Hearing Officer found that the Petition did not allege that the application for a wastewater collection system permit failed to comply with the agency's relevant rules and criteria. The Hearing Officer also ruled that the Petition did not identify when such criteria would be unmet by the project. Homeowners was given leave of ten days to file an Amended Petition. Homeowners timely filed its Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing on November 13, 1991. This Amended Petition continued to focus upon whether Bradley's wastewater collection system should connect to Florida Cities Water Company's Sewage Treatment Plant and the federal water quality issue as it relates to discharge after treatment. After Bradley filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Petition and Homeowners replied, Hearing Officer Quattlebaum entered a Recommended Order of Dismissal on December 12, 1991. The basis for the recommendation was that Homeowners had "failed to allege that the application for permit failed to comply with the relevant criteria as set forth in statute and rule which govern issuance of the permit." The Temporary Operating Permit under which Florida Cities was operating expressly allowed Bradley's wastewater collection system to connect to the sewage treatment plant upon satisfaction of the Department's permitting requirements for such a collection system. Homeowners lost its opportunity to address whether such a connection was proper when it failed to timely challenge this Temporary Operating Permit. The only agency action subject to challenge in this case was whether Bradley's application to construct the wastewater collection system complied with the Department's permitting requirements for the system. Florida Cities anticipated actions were irrelevant to this particular proceeding because final agency action had already been taken on the question of whether the connection could take place. Throughout this proceeding, Homeowners failed to comprehend that it had waived its opportunity to pursue a challenge to the connection of Bradley's wastewater collection system to the sewage treatment plant when it did not timely challenge Florida Cities' Temporary Operating Permit. The Order granting Bradley's Motion to Dismiss dated October 31, 1991, did not affirmatively set forth that the connection issue could not be pursued in DOAH Case No. 91-6436. Homeowners' lack of comprehension on this issue remains evident in the Amended Petition, the Motion for Reconsideration filed after the Recommended Order of Dismissal, the Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees and the testimony presented at hearing. Lack of comprehension is a neutral condition which neither proves nor disproves that the Petition and Amended Petition were filed for improper purposes, as defined by Subsection 120.59(6)(e), Florida Statutes. No direct evidence of Homeowners' participation in the proceeding for an improper purpose was established at hearing. The attorney for Homeowners at the time the Petition and Amended Petition were filed denied that Homeowners was motivated by an improper purpose. It was seeking to protect water quality in its locale and to assure the local sewer treatment system is adequate. There was no evidence presented as to whether Homeowners has participated in other such proceedings involving Bradley and the same project for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Supplemental Final Order denying Bradley's request for attorney's fees and costs as Homeowners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose as defined by Subsection 120.59(6)(e), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6436 Homeowners' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See separate order on that issue. Rejected. Pleading amended accordingly. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See Preliminary Statement. The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. 3. Accepted. See HO #2. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. See HO #4. 8. Accepted. See HO #4. 9. Accepted. See HO #5. 10. Accepted. See HO #6. 11. Accepted. 12. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7 - HO #13. Bradley's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #7 and HO #8. Accept that Homeowners failed to present any justifiable issue of law or fact that could be heard in relation to this permit. See HO #7 - HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: HAROLD M STEVENS ESQ PO DRAWER 1440 FT MYERS FL 33902 FRANCINE FFOLKES ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 GERI L WAKSLER ESQ PEPER MARTIN JENSEN MAICHEL & HETLAGE 2000 MAIN ST - STE 600 FT MYERS FL 33901 DANIEL H THOMPSON ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 CAROL BROWNER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) was formed in 1974 by inter-local agreement under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a supply entity to provide and develop sources of water for its members and other governmental entities. The members of WCRWSA include the two cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa and the three counties of Pinellas (intervenor herein), Hillsborough and Pasco. The petitioner and the intervenor own and operate permitted well fields which are regulated by the respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and are therefore subject to the rules and regulations of SWFWMD. All parties have stipulated, and the evidence so demonstrates, that the WCRWSA and Pinellas County are substantially affected by the challenged proposed rule and therefore have standing to challenge its validity. The proposed rule being challenged in this proceeding was considered by the Governing Board of SWFWMD as a result of a prior rule being declared invalid in another proceeding. The prior rule, codified as Rule 16J-2.11(3), Florida Administrative Code, provided as follows: 16J-2.11 Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit Issuance of a permit will be denied if the amount of water consumptively used will exceed the water crop of lands owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. (Except where determined otherwise, the water crop [precipitation less evapotranspiration] throughout the District will be assumed to be three hundred sixty-five thousand (365,000) gallons per year per acre.) By Final Order dated April 9, 1980, 1/ that rule was declared to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the grounds that it exceeded SWFWMD's statutory authority under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, it impermissibly conflicted with provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, it created property rights to water by virtue of land ownership contrary to Chapter 373 and the decision in the case of Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So.2d and 663 (Fla. 1979); and it was a hydrologically unsound method of determining the issuance or denial of consumptive use permits and was accordingly arbitrary and capricious in nature. The two subsections of proposed Rule 40D-2.301 being challenged in this proceeding read as follows: "40D-2.301. Conditions for Issuance of Permits. Among other factors to be considered by the Board in determining whether a particular use is consistent with the public interest will be: the maximum amount to be withdrawn of a single day; the average amount to be withdrawn during a single week, during a typical growing (or irrigation) season, during an extreme cold season, during a year of extreme drought an during the term of the proposed permit; the amount to be withdrawn in relationship to amounts being withdrawn from adjacent or nearby properties; the proximity of withdrawal points to location of points of withdrawal by others; the total amounts presently permitted from the entire basin, or other hydrologic unit; and the change in storage that such withdrawal and use will cause. If the proposed consumptive use will average less than 1,000 gallons per acre per day, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board will presume that the quantity of water proposed for consumptive use is consistent with the public interest and the applicant will not be required to submit further evidence on this point. If the proposed consumptive use is to average 1,000 gallons or more per acre per day, the applicant must establish that the proposed use of water in such quantity is consistent with the public interest. (NOTE: Present subsections 6 through 11 will be renumbered consecutively following the above new subsections.) The factors listed in subsection (6) of the proposed rule are not all- inclusive. Each of the factors listed are resource related or hydrological considerations. The effect of each of the factors listed is appropriate for consideration by the Governing Board of SEFWMD when making a determination as to whether a consumptive use permit should be granted. With the exception of that portion of subsection (6) relating to a weekly average amount to be withdrawn, the factors listed in subsection (6) are covered by existing specific rules of SWFWMD. The word "acre" in the phrase "1,000 gallons per acre per day" is intended to mean land owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. The figure of 1,000 gallons per acre per day represents the average quantity of water which is available within the respondent's District for man's use and to maintain natural systems. The figure is a district wide estimation. It cannot be arbitrarily applied to any specific site within the District due to the fact that different parcels of land do not possess identical geologic or hydrologic characteristics. The amount of water which is available from a specific parcel of land is dependent upon geographical and hydrological factors which vary considerably from site to site. These factors include, among other things, the amount of rainfall the land receives, the water table, the existence of confining layers, soil and vegetation types, and transmissivity, storage and leakage coefficients. Withdrawals of water in small amounts per acre per day are generally less likely to have adverse hydrologic effects on the water resources within the District than are withdrawals in greater amounts. In most areas of the District, 1,000 gallons per acre per day can be withdrawn without jeopardizing or adversely affecting the resource or the availability of water for others. This would not necessarily be true of coastal areas where salt water intrusion is a possibility or in areas where wells presently exist which withdraw large quantities of water on a daily basis. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the more than 6,000 consumptive use permits which have been issued by the SWFWMD are for amounts less than 1,000 gallons per acre per day.
The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Applicant applied for a permit for public supply of water from a single well together with off-site, sewage treatment for an existing use in a housing development known as "Cherry Creek". The well site i1is located in the Hillsborough River Basin on a 97.9 acre tract of land in Hillsborough County. The application requests a consumptive-use permit authorizing the average daily withdrawal of water from a single well of up to a maximum of 99,400 gallons. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune on April 11, 18, 1975, pursuant to Florida Statutes, 373.146. Notices of said public hearing were sent by certified mail to LaMonte-Shimberg Corporation; Diaz, Seckinger and Associate, Inc.; and Mr. John Logan. No letters of objection were received. Newspaper affidavit was received in evidence together with copies of the application, receipts for certified mail and a map of the premises all marked "Exhibit 1". A map depicting the location of the sewer plant and perculation pond was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit 2". The witnesses were duly sworn and agreement reached on each point of applicant except Mr. Szell, hydrologist for the Governing Board, objected to the requested average daily withdrawal citing as 97,850 gallons per day, a figure the Board could recommend whereas the applicant requested 99,400 gallons per day. Mr. Ahern enumerated the conditions for a consumptive-use permit as required by Chapter 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and witnesses for the Board replied in a manner receptive to granting the application, except as delineated in finding (8). No objections were registered by applicant. The undersigned Hearing Officer requested and the witnesses for the parties agreed to a meeting to try to settle points in dispute and to furnish written results of such meeting to the Hearing Officer within ten (10) days. The permit application was changed and the Governing Board agreed to such changes as shown by exhibit marked "Supplement 1". The applicant agreed to such changes as shown by exhibit marked "Supplement 2".
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00408 is for an existing water use from six wells. The application seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 3.298 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 9.801 million gallons per day. The wells will be located in the Peace River basin in Polk County. Ninety-nine percent of the water will be used for industrial purposes and one percent of the water will be used for irrigation purposes. The applied for consumptive use will not violate any of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends granting of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points with the exception of the well to be used for agriculture located at , Latitude 27 degrees 45 minutes 39 seconds, Longitude 81 degrees 37 minutes 07 seconds and the fire well located at Latitude 270 54 minutes 39 seconds, Longitude 81 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds. The applicant shall submit to the district a record of pumpage for each meter installed in (a) above on a quarterly basis beginning January 15, 1977, with the pumpage recorded on a weekly basis.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit in accordance with Application No. 76-00408 be issued with the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Citrus World, Inc. Staff Attorney Post Office Box 1111 Southwest Florida Water Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
