The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the District should approve FRI's consumptive use permit application, no. 2-019-0012AUR, pursuant to Chapter 40C- 2, Florida Administrative Code The FRI is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of million gallons per day (mgd) of water and 762.85 million gallons per year of ground water for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead Sand Mine. Subject to certain limiting conditions to be set forth in the FRI's consumptive use permit, the water is proposed to be produced from three Floridan aquifer wells. District proposed to grant the permit application which was challenged by LBCA, resulting in the formal administrative proceeding. LBCA challenged the issuance of the permit to FRI on the basis of the FRI's alleged failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 3V3, Florida Statutes (E.S.), and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and other applicable law. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO FINDINGS OF FACT LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 2 that a necessary component of FRI's operation is its withdrawal of approximately 2.09 mgd of ground water for the production of sand. The 2.09 mgd is the average daily usage rate to who the parties stipulated prior to the hearing. The maximum daily usage rate is 3.75 mgd. However, FRI cannot exceed 762.5 million gallons for the year which is an average of 2.09 mgd. (Prehearing Stip. pp. 1,9). In the LBCA Proposed Recommended Order paragraph 25, the LBCA states that the operation "necessitates FRI's pumping allocation of an average daily 2.09 million gallons of water from the Floridan aquifer." Additionally, LBCA acknowledges in its Exception No. 2 that it is "known that approximately 2 mgd are pumped into the system." If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 41-42, 104, 913-914). LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 8 and 28 that the receiving water from the mine site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes and that the surficial aquifer recharge will result in a positive or immeasurable effect on the lakes. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings supported by evidence and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The decision to believe one expert over another is left to the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club v. Orlando Utility Comm., 436 So.2d 383, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 105, 120-129, 146, 170, 187-190, 208-209, 235, 248, 256-257, 972-973, 1085-1093, 1139). LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 11 that the aquifer characteristics in the Floridan aquifer beneath and around the mine site are relatively uniform. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 180, 926-927). LBCA Exception Number 4 The LBCA takes exception to a mischaracterization of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 13 regarding lake leakance by stating that the hearing officer found that some of the lakes at issue do not have leakance to the Floridan aquifer. In fact, it is contextually clear that the Hearing Officer was referring to "many of the lakes within the region." This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 77-80). LBCA Exception Number 5 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 16 that very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing into the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. In making its argument, LBCA inaccurately attributes testimony to FRI witness Fountain when the referenced testimony was testimony of LBCA witness Boyes. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1145-1146). LBCA Exception Number 6 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 22 and 55 that the data collection effort of FRI and the District was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size and that sufficient site-specific information was developed to be able to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the mine operation. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 103, 201, 238, 918-919; FR Ex. 5). LBCA asserts that FRI did not evaluate the "worstcase" scenario in order to establish permit entitlemet LBCA provides no legal citations to support its exception. LBCA's assertion lacks legal as well as factual support. LBCA has criticized FRI's aquifer performance test and modeling effort without presenting the elusive "worstcase scenario" which presumably would show impacts greater than those modeled by FRI. LBCA seeks to impose a burden of proof which is insupportable in law. It is not FRI's burden to show a violation of the criteria in Chapter 40C-2, Fla. Admin. Code, is a scientific impossibility, only to show that the non-occurrence of such violation is reasonably assured by the preponderance of the evidence in the proceeding. The Corporation of the President v. SJRWMD and City of Cocoa, Case Nos. 89-828, 89-751 (SJRWMD Dec. 13, 1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). An agency cannot assume the worst-case scenario unless that condition is reasonably foreseeable. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe and Gulf Stream Specimen Co. v. Dickerson Bayshore, Inc., 10 F.A.L.R. 3426 (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, June 8, 1988). As delineated in FRI's response to this exception, FRI and the Distract presented evidence of numerous investigations regarding this application, including testing and analyses of the impact of withdrawals at greater than the average and maximum daily pumping rates. (See Record citations on pp 17-20 of FRI's Response to Exceptions; T. 115-116, 126, 176-177, 918- 920). LBCA failed to present any citation to the record where it presented testimony evincing that another scenario which would result in greater impacts than those predicted by the applicant were reasonably like to occur. LBCA's speculation that another undefined scenario of pumping would show greater impacts was rejected by the hearing officer. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances with regard to the effects of the proposed withdrawal. LBCA Exception Number 7 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's purported inference in Finding of Fact 23 that the aquifer performance test (2T) measured impacts significantly greater than could be expected to occur under "worst case" conditions as a result of the mining operation. The finding actually states "the (aquifer performance) test measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 mgd." As discussed in the ruling on exception no. 6, LBCA's assertion of a "worstcase scenario" has factual support in the instant case. The applicant is required to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed use is reasonable, beneficial, will not impact existing legal uses and is consistent with the public interest. The applicant is not required to evaluate LBCA's unspecified worst case scenario or prove the use will not cause any impacts. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-115, 141, 920). LBCA Exception Number 8 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 23 that no changes in the lake levels are attributable to the pumping at the mine. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. In Finding of Fact No. 24, the hearing officer found that the effects of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before and after the ADT test. Therefore, his conclusions are not inconsistent as alleged by the LBCA. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 120-130, 146, 759, 928- 933, 942, 944- 948, 1015-1016, 1122-1123, 1168; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA Exception Number 9 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the actual effects of the pumping will be approximately one half of the observed amounts of the 2T test on an average pumping day. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-117, 923-996; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA's claim that this finding is irrelevant since only a "worstcase" scenario is pertinent is likewise rejected. Initially, it is noted that LBCA cites no legal support for its arguments. Furthermore, there is no requirement in the District's rules governing consumptive use which mandates consideration of only "worstcase" scenarios. Furthermore, an agency cannot assume worst case scenarios unless they are reasonably foreseeable, which determination is a case by case factual issue. See Florida Audubon Society, supra., Rudloe, supra.. LBCA Exception Number 10 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 26 that Dr. Stewart testified that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogenous and isotropic but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 738). LBCA Exception Number 11 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 27 that the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 129, 182). For the same reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7, the LBCA's claim regarding irrelevancy is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 12 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 28 that a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance and that the drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. The LBCA is simply rearguing their case. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 118-120, 129, 237, 706-708, 758). LBCA's irrelevancy argument is rejected for the reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7. LBCA Exception Number 13 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 42 through 54 as being conclusion of law rather than findings of fact. The LBCA does not cite to the record or make legal argument to support the exception as required by Rule 40C-1 .564, F.A.C. Without said citation or argument, the exception is rejected. Corporation of the President, supra.. The hearing officer's recitation of the individual criteria of Rules 40C-2.301 (2), (4) and (5), F.A.C., serve as introduction to and reference for the specific findings with regard to each criterion to provide clarity in the order. To the extent that expert witnesses presented testimony on the criteria and how the applicant satisfied the criteria through proof, the elements are findings or fact. These additional reasons also serve as ground for rejection of the exception. LBCA Exception Number 14 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 56 that LBCA's referenced exhibits do not correlate with normal conditions when compared with longer periods of time. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. In addition, the hearing officer ultimately did not admit the exhibits and therefore, the Finding of Fact becomes irrelevant. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930- 933, 948, 969; FR Ex. 50A, SOB). Contrary to Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C., LBCA fails to state wish particularity citations to the record or legal basis as required by Rule 40C-1.564, F.A.C., in support of its attack on finding 56 and its inferential attack on findings 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and conclusions 62 and 63. The entire exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 15 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 66 that LBCA's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83 have limited probative value to the extent it is predicated on FRI's rebuttal testimony. The LBCA argues that the rebuttal testimony is of low probative value. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the exception is rejected. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930-933, 948, 969). Exception is also taken to Findings of Fact Nos. 32, 36, and 56 and Conclusion of Law 62 because LBCA argues that the testimony on which they are based exceeded the scope of direct examination and the LBCA was not given the opportunity to object. The correct time to object was when the alleged improper testimony was elicited. The LBCA did not object to preserve the record and therefore, has waived the objection. Section 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Finally, LBCA asserts that it was denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony in violation of Section 120.57(1)(b)4., Fla. Stat. To the contrary, LBCA was not denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony but failed to request surrebuttal and consequently failed to preserve any denial of that request by an objection on the record. (T. 1188-1190). Since LBCA never requested surrebuttal, the hearing officer never denied that request and, therefore, LBCA's argument is without merit. Furthermore, pursuant to the order of presentation under Rule 40C- 1.5434(1), F.A.C., which is followed in a permitting proceeding (applicant, petitioner, district), LBCA's entire case tended to be in the nature of rebuttal to the applicant's case. While the hearing officer did state that he did not ordinarily allow surrebuttal (T. 1169) before the rebuttal testimony was concluded, LBCA never affirmatively requested to present surrebuttal evidence or testimony nor did LBCA proffer any such evidence or testimony. Since no proffer was made of any relevant surrebuttal testimony which LBCA contends was excluded, and no objection was made in the record to LBCA's belief that it was prohibited from adducing surrebuttal evidence, it is now precluded from complaining about this perceived adverse ruling. King v. Estate of King, 554 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Holmes v. Redland Construction Co., 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Roberts v. Hollway, 581 So.2d 619 (a. 4th DCA 1991); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 16 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63. Findings of Fact 18, 19, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63 are discussed in subsequent exceptions and therefore arc not addressed in this ruling on exceptions. LBCA's exception to Finding of Fact 20 fails to state with particularity any supporting citations to the record or legal argument as required by Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C., and is therefore, rejected. LBCA takes exception to Finding of Fact 17 that the hearing officer incorrectly refers to three distinct water quality studies. In fact, the hearing officer actually refers to "numerous analyses" LBCA also objects to the reference to "unknown persons" in the finding and apparently to the statement: "They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels of certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992." Clarification that HRS personnel conducted sampling in 1989 and 1992 is provided; however, since these personnel were never specifically named, to that extent the hearing officer's reference to "unknown persons" is accurate. (T. 1035, 379). The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 102-103, 130- 133, 451, 1023-1037, 1041- 1048, 1151-1152). LBCA Exception Number 17 The LBCA takes exception to that part of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 18 that states: "This theory was predicated on... an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond." LBCA fails to prove any supporting transcript citations in violation of Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C. In Finding of Fact 18, the hearing officer reached the conclusion that none of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., supra.. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 133, 575, 1024-1025). LBCA Exception Number 18 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 19 by arguing that water quality on the mine site says nothing about off site impacts and positing that the finding is predicated on certain speculation. LBCA offers no helpful record citations supporting these allegations. Expert testimony established that water quality sampling by FRI and the District of the surficial aquifer at the locations chosen was where water quality impacts would be most likely to be revealed and consequently was a conservative approach. (T. 133, 144, 1029-1030, 1061, 1073). This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 130-139, 141-144, 575-576, 1028-1031, 1061-10 65, 1073, 1136-1139). LBCA Exception Number 19 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 by stating that it misleadingly implies that 212 homes were tested for water quality by HRS. To the contrary, the hearing officer's finding states "12 out of 212 homeowners" (emphasis added) south of the mine site were tested, not 212. In addition, the exhibits referenced do not reflect the testing of 212 homes. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 167-168, 379, 990, 1036-1037, 1041, 1048-1050, 1052-1053). LBCA Exception Number 20 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 on the basis that it is a legal conclusion which misrepresents and misapplies the state water quality standards. However, LBCA cites no authority or record citation for the argument as required by Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C. The finding actually states "with the exception of one well... the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese"; clearly, this is a factual statement. This exception, under the guise of an unsupported legal argument, goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence which, incidentally, includes explanation and citation to the relevant exception/standard. Furthermore, the parties stipulated that official recognition was taken of chapter 17-520, F.A.C. The exception is rejected. (T. 1034, 1041, 1077-1078; Prehearing Stip. p 12; Rules 17- 520.420(2) and 17-520.200(11), F.A.C.) LBCA Exception Number 21 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 that the 1989 water quality samples by HRS were unreliable because of the uncertainty regarding the sampling technique protocol. This exception erroneously states there was no evidence of sampling protocol used by HRS. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1039-1049). LBCA Exception Number 22 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 52 that the receiving body of water will not be seriously harmed, by characterizing the finding as being predicated on an unproven theory that the surficial aquifer receives all groundwater discharged from one site. LBCA has failed to read the entire finding which clearly reveals that the hearing officer did not confine his consideration to the surficial aquifer. He found that water quality standards would not be violated in the surfical aquifer, where the highest concentrations of any potential contaminants would appear, then they would not be violated in any intermediate aquifer similarly, no violations would occur in one Floridan aquifer. The decision to believe one expert over another is the role of the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club, supra.. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 105, 141-142, 1025-1030, 1034-1035). LBCA Exception Number 23 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 55 that water quality sampling was collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond. In their responses to this exception, FRI explicitly notes it has no response to this exception and District counsel concedes that although water quality samples were taken from the dredge pond and a water budget was calculated for the dredge pond, these two procedures were not linked to one another. The testimony of FRI witnesses is that water quality sampling and data to determine the water budget for the dredge pond were performed. (T. 76, 103). Counsel for FRI and the District have stipulated that the testimony does not support the finding that the water quality samples were used to evaluate the water budget. Since, as stipulated, this portion of the hearing officer's finding is not supported by any evidence in the record, the exception is accepted. LBCA Exception Number 24 The LBCA takes exception to the nearing officer's Finding of Fact 55, arguing that the applicant did not perform an environmental assessment of Lake Brooklyn, and thus cannot fairly draw any conclusions about its operation's impact on that lake. The Finding of Fact describes the site-specific information which supports the application. The pertinent part of the finding states: "FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes." To the extent Lake Brooklyn is encompassed by use of the term "area lakes", the existence of an assessment of the impacts to Lake Brooklyn is supported by expert testimony. (T. 281, 899). Additionally, the finding is otherwise supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 266-280). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 25 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 31 which states in pertinent part: "petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring." LBCA is essentially complaining that the entirety of Dr. Stewart's testimony should be credited not just a portion. The role of the hearing officer is to consider and weigh all the evidence, resolve conflicts and judge credibility of the witnesses. The hearing officer apparently did not view all of Dr. Stewart's testimony in the same manner as LBCA's attorney; such is his legal prerogative. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 784-786, 145- 146, 232-233, 285-286, 288-289, 897-898, 1085). LBCA Exception Number 26 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the rate of decline (in Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes) during the APT test was not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before or after the test. LBCA provides no record citations to support its argument that since the hearing officer rejected its use of certain APT data in an attempted correlation between pumping and Lake Brooklyn levels, that all the APT data was entirely discredited and could have no value in an analysis regarding Spring, White Sands or Gator Bone Lakes. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 941-948, 1015-1016, 1123, 1168). RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 62 and 63 and Findings of Fact 42 through 54 (which LBCA alleges should be conclusions of law) that FRI has established its entitlement to the permit. LBCA argues that the applicant failed to present sufficient information about conditions at Lake Brooklyn. LBCA's numerous "factual" statements in this exception are unsupported by record citations. The burden of proof in an administrative hearing falls initially upon the party asserting the affirmative of an issue, i.e. entitlement to a permit. Rules 40C-1.545 and 40C-2.301(7), F.A.C.; Capeletti Brothers v. Department of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The party must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Audubon Society v. South Florida Water Management District, 13 F.A.L.R. 4169 (undated). The applicant's burden is to establish reasonable assurances that the proposed use is a reasonable-beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. Section 373.223, Fla. Stat. The burden of reasonable assurances is not one of absolute guarantees. City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Dev. Dist., 14 F.A.L.R. 866 (January 16, 1992). The impacts which are reasonably expected to result from issuance of the permit must be addressed, not potential impacts or those that might occur Hoffert v. St. Joe Paper Co., 12 F.A.L.R. 4972 (December 6, 1990); Chipola Basin Protective Group Inc. v. Florida Chapter of Sierra Club, 11 F.A.L.R. 467 (Department of Environmental Regulation, December 29, 1988); Florida Keys Citizen Coalition v. 1800 Atlantic Developers, 8 F.A.L.R. 5564 (Department of Environmental Regulation, October 17, 1986). Once the party asserting the affirmative, FRI, has presented its prima facia case, the burden shifts to the LBCA to present contrary evidence. 1800 Atlantic Developers, supra.; Hoffert, supra.. LBCA cites Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Mobil Chemical Co., 481 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) in support of the exception. In Booker Creek, the Court held that additional testing, beyond that offered by the applicant, should have been done before the permit could be issued. Booker Creek was limited to its unique set of facts by the case of Berry v. Dept. of Env. Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The Berry Court, in dealing with a dredge and fill permit, refused to extend the Booker Creek holding to such permits, noting that the permit under consideration in Berry, was not a pollutant discharge permit. The permit in issue here also is not a pollutant discharge permit. More importantly, like the applicant in Berry, FRI offered evidence of extensive testing and analysis regarding where water comes from and goes to at the mine site and in the surrounding vicinity. Finding of Fact No. 55. LBCA incorrectly argues that the modeling information submitted by FRI has no applicability to impacts at Lake Brooklyn, because the model "did not include Lake Brooklyn". Particularly, in view of findings of fact 23, 28, 31-36 (exceptions to which have been previously rejected), it is apparent that the hearing officer rejected LBCA's view of the "facts" stated in this exception. While the model boundary (which is based on water level data for Floridan wells in the region (T. 164)) is between Lake Brooklyn and the pumping wells at the mine, the drawdown at the model boundary is based on a distance-drawdown relationship that relates to the pumping rate at the mine. The 1991 transient model showed that within the 9 square mile boundary, the impacts at the boundary were no more than 0.1 feet. (T. 129, 178). The reduced boundaries in the 1992 model accurately predicted what was happening at the mine site. (T. 178). The distance-drawdown relationship established by the model shows that the drawdown contour ceases before the model boundary is reached and therefore, before Lake Brooklyn is reached. (FR Exs. 5, 22). Impacts to Lake Brooklyn were also assessed through the review of water levels in the Floridan aquifer well (C- 120) between 1960 and 1992. (T. 928-933). The data showed that water levels in the well at Lake Brooklyn actually continued to rise when the 1989 and 1991 pump tests were conducted. (T. 411-412, 931-933; SJRWMD Ex. 13). In addition, when the pumping wells at the mine were turned off, the water level in the well at Lake Brooklyn did not recover. This indicates that there were outside influences for the fluctuation in the well. (T. 415, 933). The data does not show impacts from the pumping at the sand mine. (T. 942). LBCA also erroneously states that groundwater in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine. (See ruling on LBCA's factual exception 5). As listed in responses to LBCA's factual exceptions, particularly those regarding exceptions 8 and 12, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the bindings regarding no adverse impact to Lake Brooklyn. The hearing officer found that the applicant met its burden or proof in Conclusion of Law 62. In Conclusion of Law 63, the hearing officer concluded that the LBCA did not meet its burden of presenting contrary evidence that the withdrawals at the sand mine correlate with the decline in water levels at Lake Brooklyn. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 that additional permit conditions in the case of a water shortage or a shorter permit duration are not necessary. The LBCA is reargue their case in the exception. The District has authority to require FRI to reduce its water use during a water shortage within the seven year life of the permit. Sections 373.175 and 373.246, Fla. Stat., and Rules 40C-2.381(2)(a)2. and 40C-21.271, F.A.C. Rule 40C-2.381(2)(a)2., F.A.C., which is incorporated into the permit as a limiting condition, states: Nothing in this permit should be construed to limit the authority of the St. Johns River Water Management District to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to section 373.175, F.S., or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to section 373.246, F.S. In the event a water shortage, is declared by the District Governing Board, the permittee must adhere to the water shortage restrictions, as specified by the District, even though the specified water shortage restrictions may be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. (emphasis added). Rule 40C-21.271, F.A.C., General Water Use Restrictions, specifies the restrictions which may be imposed during a water shortage on all water users and states, in pertinent parts: The Board may order use of general water use restrictions and the water use restrictions specified in Part VI for the appropriate water shortage phase for each affected source class. Further, the Board may order any combination in lieu of or in addition to the restrictions specified in Part VI of the restrictions described in Subsection (3), by use or method of withdrawal class, within each source class, if necessary to achieve the necessary percent reduction in overall demand. (emphasis added). General water use restrictions which may be imposed include provisions that facilitate the right of water users in an area to make voluntary agreements among themselves, with the concurrence of the Board or the Executive Director, providing for the mutual reduction, sharing, or rotation of use; restrictions on the total amount of water that may be used, diverted, impounded, extracted, or withdrawn during any day, month, or year during the declared shortage; restrictions on the timing of use, diversion, impoundment, extraction, or withdrawal of water; restrictions on pumping rates and schedules or diversion rates and schedules; or such other provisions or restrictions as are necessary to protect the water resources from serious harm. With the above cited authority, the District can require the withdrawals at the sand mine to be reduced during periods of water shortage within the seven year term of the permit by reducing the total amount withdrawn, controlling the schedule of withdrawals or "by other restrictions which arc necessary to protect the water resources." The hearing officer's conclusion is consistent with the rules and statutes which govern the Board. The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 and Finding of Fact 47 that FRI satisfied the criteria regarding water conservation measures. See Rule 40C-2.301(4)(e), F.A.C. The LBCA reargues the facts which the hearing officer found to support the conclusion. However, the LBCA offered no evidence to rebut the testimony of FRI. In addition, the LBCA cites no authority that the hearing officer's conclusion is contrary to law. Florida Audubon Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 F.A.L.R. 565 (October 31, 1986). LBCA also renews its attack on the allocation amount, essentially iterating its factual exception which is rejected for the reasons set forth therein. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). LBCA's exception lacks any record citations or legal authority in support of this exception. The conclusion and finding are supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 43-52, 106, 234- 237, 988-989, 1103- 1104, 1111, 1132-1133) LBCA Exception Number 3 (sic). The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63, by arguing that the use of water from the surficial aquifer requires a separate permit. Section 40C-2.051, F.A.C., states: No permit shall be required under the provisions of this rule for the following water uses: Withdrawals of ground or surface water to facilitate construction on or below ground surface ..., in the following circum- stances: ground water may be withdrawn if it is recharged on site to the aquifer from which it was withdrawn by either infiltration or direct injection; surface water may be withdrawn only from wholly owned impoundments or works which are no deeper than the lowest extent of the uppermost water bearing stratum and which have no surface hydrologic connection off site, and the surface water must be recharged on site to the uppermost water bearing stratum by either infiltration or direct injection. This exemption from permitting is applicable here, and therefore, no additional permit is required. An agency's interpretation of its rules is afforded great weight. Franklin Ambulance Service v. DHRS, 45 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). LBCA offered no auth-orty or evidence that the District's interpretation is contrary to established law. This conclusion is supported by competent substantial evidence. The exception is rejected. (T. 38-39, 105, 249, 972, 1101-1102). RULINGS ON EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN POST- HEARING EVIDENTIARY RULING LBCA excepts the hearing officer's rulings in Finding of Fact No. 56 and Conclusion of Law No, 66 excluding LBCA exhibits nos. 61, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83 as inadmissible for failure of LBCA to comply with subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., regarding use of summaries of evidence. LBCA takes exception to FRI's objection post-hearing alleging that the exhibits had been admitted. In fact, the exhibits were not admitted at hearing. The LBCA's citation to the transcript is not the hearing officer's ruling on the exhibits. The hearing officer did not admit the ten exhibits on the record, as he did with every other exhibit that he admitted. The LBCA's assertion that it believed the exhibits were admitted is belied by LBCA's failure to list them as admitted in its Proposed Recommended Order on page 3. Therefore, LBCA's claim that FRI's continuing objection was a surprise is without merit. LBCA asserts that FRI cannot make a post-hearing objection to the exhibits in its Proposed Recommended Order and infers gnat FRI's objection to the admission of the exhibits was not preserved at hearing. Rule 40C-1.561, F.A.C., provides for the submission of legal briefs along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions or law. For matters that remain pending at the close of a hearing, a party may file a legal brief in support of its position. FRI did not object to the opinion testimony of the LBCA expert witness, only to the graphic depictions of such testimony. (T. 356). LBCA stated at hearing that the excluded exhibits were simply graphic depictions of the expert's opinion testimony. (T. 354). The record is abundantly clear that FRI preserved its objection to the exhibits and the hearing officer reserved ruling on their admission until the recommended order was issued. (T. 353, 358, 360, 363, 369, 370, 375, 377, 524, 531, 537, 1079-1080, 1178). LBCA essentially asserts that the exhibits are not "summaries" and therefore not subject to subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., which, of course, the fact-finder found otherwise. LBCA's reliance on Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) is misplaced. Marks did not hold that expert testimony is not subject to subsection 90.956, but only that an expert is not required to utilize subsection 90.956 when presenting underlying data relied on for his opinion. The hearing officer found that the hydrographs were summaries and the underlying information was not indicated on the summary. The hearing officer allowed FRI time to review the data and present rebuttal. The fact-finder is entitled to great latitude in admitting or excluding summary evidence. Wright v. Southwest Bank, 554 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1977)(trial court without jury is entitled to great latitude covering the admission or exclusion of summary evidence). LBCA has failed to show that the hearing officer abused this discretion in excluding the exhibits. LBCA also takes exception that LBCA was denied rebuttal, or surrebuttal, on FRI's rebuttal case. As discussed in the ruling on LBCA's Exception 15, LBCA failed to request rebuttal of FRI's case. The hearing officer allowed cross-examination and LBCA did not offer any additional evidence from LBCA witnesses. Since the LBCA never requested to offer rebuttal testimony, then the hearing officer could not and did not deny that request. It is well-settled that an objection must be preserved during an administrative proceeding or it will be deemed waived. DeMendoza v. First Federal Savings and Loan, 585 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(even if mistake was made in trial, party's waived its right to appeal the issue since it failed to call the deficiency to the court's attention during trial); Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condominium Assoc., 500 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(party's failure to object to matters at administrative hearing made those matters unreviewable, even though party claimed fundamental procedural errors, it failed to show how it was prejudiced by any such action or omission; National Dairy Products, Corp. v. Odham, 121 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1959). Therefore, LBCA's exception based on the denial of rebuttal is rejected. LBCA argues that-the proper vehicle for the objection was a motion for rehearing. LBCA does not cite authority for its assertion. Since the hearing officer never ruled on the admissibility, there was no order on which to base a motion for rehearing. Nevertheless, the alleged error, if any, of excluding the exhibits, was harmless. Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1991)(exclusion of manual was harmless since experts testified to the same matters in the manual); Little v. Banker's National Life Insurance Co., 369 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(harmless error to exclude letter since witnesses otherwise testified at length as to its contents and conclusions). The LBCA expert testified extensively regarding the basis of each excluded exhibit and the information it depicts in relation to the conclusions of his expert opinion which the hearing officer weighed in rendering his factual findings and conclusions. (T. 346, 349, 351, 352, 358, 359, 364, 366, 371, 373, 411, 456, 457, 458, 481, 486, 501, 504, 507, 509, 511, 512, 516, 517, 518, 519, 542). The hearing officer concluded that even if the exhibits had been admitted it would not have altered his factual findings stating that they had limited probative value. (Conclusion of Law No. 66). Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON RECOMMENDED ORDER'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 120.59(2), FLA. STAT. LBCA asserts that the hearing officer failed to comply with subsection 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., by not providing a sufficiently explicit ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. Section 120,59(2), Fla. Stat., requires "a ruling upon each proposed finding" The Appendix to the Recommended Order does not contain an omnibus "blanket" ruling on all of LBCA's proposed findings which the courts have found inadequate. Cf. Island Harbor beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Health Care Management, Inc. v. DHRS, 479 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Appendix clearly contains a ruling upon each of LBCA's proposed findings. Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., requires no more. LBCA relies on Island Harbor Beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), to support this argument. Island Harbor Beach Club, differs significantly from this case. The order Island Harbor Beach Club did not individually address each specific proposed finding as the Recommended Order in this case does. The only reference to proposed findings made in the Island Harbor Beacon Club order was a single paragraph which stated: The parties proposed findings of fact have been considered and where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate. This differs from the Recommended Order in the instant case which specifically addresses each proposed finding and specifies where (by paragraph) in the Recommended Order that proposed finding is addressed. It is elementary to then read the paragraph referred to in the Recommended Order to determine what portion of the proposed finding was accepted. More applicable to this case is the case of Schomer v. Department of Professional Regulation, 417 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The order in Schomer did not contain specific rulings on each proposed finding submitted by the Appellant. The substance of the final order, however, demonstrated that each finding had been considered and ruled on. The Court noted that, for purposes of complying with Section 120.59(2) Fla. Stat., It would not elevate form over substance." An agency need not Independently quote verbatim each proposed finding and independently dispose of that proposed finding; rather, it is sufficient that the agency provide in its decision a written foundation upon which the reviewing court may assure that all proposed findings of fact have been consider and ruled upon and not overlooked or concealed. Id. at 1090. The Court held that it could discern from the substance of the order that each of the proposed findings were addressed, and to the extent the technical requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., were departed from, the departure did not materially impair the fairness or correctness of the proceedings. Id. at 1091. LBCA merely has to compare the hearing officer's findings with its proposed findings to discern those portions accepted. Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON MOTION FOR REMAND Pursuant, to Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., LBCA has filed a Motion for Remand asserting that newly discovered evidence establishes that a finding by the hearing officer is inaccurate because of allegedly false testimony by District expert witness, Dr. Larry Lee. The hearing officer found that Lake Brooklyn had been in a period of decline before and after the 1989 aquifer pump test and that due to rainfall deficits Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least 18 to 24 months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The hearing officer determined that the rate and character of declines during the pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before and after the test. Thus, he found that impacts to Lake Brooklyn water levels from the pumping were indistinguishable from the declines due to drought. (Finding of Fact No. 30). LBCA asserts that a newly discovered Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) survey, dated October 11, 1988, shows that Brooklyn Bay was not segregated from the remainder of the lake due to drought conditions prior to the 1989 aquifer pump test as testified by Dr. Lee and seeks the Board to remand the issue to the hearing officer for consideration of this new evidence. The only reasons for remand regarding fact finding are if an erroneous legal conclusion by a hearing officer warrants taking of evidence on the issue, or if a factual issue was never ruled upon by the hearing officer. See Miller v. Dept. Envt'l Reg., 5504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(agency's modification of legal conclusions necessitated factual findings on issue which hearing officer had initially disregarded as irrelevant) and Cohn v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(when the hearing officer fails to find a specific fact, agency must remand to the hearing officer to do so). Clearly, neither of these reasons have any application to Petitioner's arguments. Although subsection 40C-1.512, F.A.C., provides that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to District administrative proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with Chapter 120 or Chapter 40C-1, the applicability of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is problematic and inconsistent with a subsection 120.57 proceeding. First, the civil procedure rule only applies to final judgments and in this subsection 120.57 administrative proceeding LBCA is attempting to apply the civil procedure rule to a nonfinal recommended order. Second, LBCA has not expressly excepted Finding of Fact No. 30 as not supported by competent substantial evidence or that a Board rule or policy has been incorrectly interpreted /1 , but actually seeks the Board to allow LBCA to supplement the record after remand with new facts for the hearing officer to weigh in applying those facts to the applicable District rules. Thus, unlike a trial court, Finding of Fact No. 30 cannot be altered by this Board if supported by any competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); School Board of Leon County v. Weaver, 556 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Board may only consider whether the findings actually made by the hearing officer are sustained by the evidence, and whether, if so, they support the recommended legal conclusions. Cohn v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Unlike a judge with plenary and equitable powers in a judicial setting, this Board, under Chapter 120, cannot authorize fact- finding after a hearing's conclusion except in the most narrow circumstances, none of which are applicable to the motion before the Board. Cf. Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous legal interpretation); Cohn, supra.. (may remand if a necessary factual issue was not determined by the hearing officer); Friends of Children v. DHRS, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous evidentiary ruling). In effect, LBCA wants to utilize a civil procedure rule for the Board to authorize additional fact-finding on a matter already considered by the hearing officer regarding a finding supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., simply does not authorize the Board to take such action. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. Stat.; Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(chapter 120 does not allow additional or cumulative evidence on matters already considered and the APA does not envision a never-ending process). Consequently, the application of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is inconsistent with Chapter 120 and LBCA is free to raise any alleged error at hearing on appeal of the final order. Even assuming Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is applicable to this subsection 120.57 proceeding, LBCA has failed to clearly establish the extraordinary circumstances warranting the granting of its motion. The material issue of whether FRI's proposed pumping would impact the area lake levels already effected by a rainfall deficit was expressly raised by LBCA in its initial petition for hearing as far back as August 1992 and was also an issue stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation prior to the February 1993 hearing. (Petition for Administrative Hearing paragraph f. 2, 3, 4.; Prehearing Stip. paragraphs B. 2, G. 1). Consequently, LBCA had over five months prior to hearing to elicit all relevant evidence to that Issue. If Rule 1.540(b) was applicable, LBCA's burden would be to clearly establish the following to receive relief: (1) it must appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the-result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before one trial by the exercise of due diligence; and (4) that it is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching. City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Construction Inc., 370 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); King v. Harrington, 411 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev denied, 418 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1982). The predicate for LBCA's motion is that Dr. Lee's testimony regarding the lake separation was false, therefore LBCA could not have exercised due diligence in discovering the alleged new evidence. LBCA has filed no express exception with record support establishing that Finding of Fact No. 30 is not supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the Board by law cannot alter that factual finding. Section 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C.; Section 120.37(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze, supra.. Consequently, Dr. Lee's testimony is not false. Importantly, Dr. Lee's testimony was not the only evidence supporting this finding. LBCA's own witness, the president of the association, testified that Brooklyn Bay had been segregated for four or five years from the main part of the lake and that he had been able to walk across the lake without getting wet for the last four or five years. (T. 863, 870). Likewise, LBCA's own expert stated that Lake Brooklyn's condition between 1989 to 1991 had receded to such an extent as it was no longer a continuous lake. (T. 317). Accordingly, the predicate for LBCA's motion is factually inaccurate and misplaced. Furthermore, LBCA must clearly establish that even though the exercise of due diligence before the hearing, it would not have discovered the 1988 D.O.T. survey. Brav v. Electric Door-Lift Inc., 558 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(movant's burden to establish due diligence); Plisco v. Union Railroad Co., 379 F.2d 15 (3d DCA 1967)(motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence is granted only where extraordinary circumstances are present). Even though the effects of FRI's proposed pumping on lake levels in time of rainfall deficit was an issue dating back to August 1992, LBCA asserts that it could not have obtained the survey prior to hearing in February 1993 "because of the logistics of requesting public records and the delay in delivery of same." LBCA could have reasonably anticipated that witnesses would testify regarding the disputed issue, particularly its own witnesses, and obtained the survey with the exercise of due diligence. LBCA offers no basis why D.O.T. would not have supplied the survey as required by law or that LBCA could not obtain it and, in fact, the public records law contains a provision for obtaining immediate relief if a request for records is denied. See subsection 119.11, Fla. Stat. In Florida Audubon Society v. Ratner, 497 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), a 1981 judgment had been entered finding that limestone mining would be inconsistent with the water management purposes of a water management district's flowage easement on platiff's property. Plaintiff sought a new trial because of newly discovered opposing evidence in a 1980 Corps of Engineers report on the effects of limestone mining. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court agreed finding that the granting of such motions was disfavored and that the report was prepared in September 1980 well before the trial and judgment in June 1981 and could have been discovered prior to the with the exercise of due diligence. Likewise in this proceeding, the proffered D.O.T. survey was prepared in October 1988, nearly four and one-half years before the February 1993 hearing and LBCA has failed to show that due diligence would not have discovered the survey prior to the administrative hearing in this proceeding. See also, Morhaim v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 559 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(no new trial granted based on post-judgment affidavits regarding evidence on known issue that could have been discovered prior to trial). LBCA also asserts that Dr. Lee misrepresented the contents of Clark's "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida" regarding its conclusions and his opinion concerning the separation of Brooklyn Bay from Lake Brooklyn and thus prejudiced LBCA's case. LBCA argument is an attack on the weight of the conflicting evidence which is the job of the hearing officer to resolve. An expert witness is not required to disclose the facts and data underlying his opinion. Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). LBCA could have cross examined Dr. Lee regarding the separation. LBCA was aware of the "Clark Report" (T. 844) and even anticipated testimony regarding water levels in its case in chief (T. 846). Indeed, the report was listed by LBCA as its Exhibit 13 in the Prehearing Stipulation, although LBCA chose not to introduce it into evidence during the hearing. Dr. Lee testified not once but twice about the location of the staff gauge (T. 946 and 962-966). On cross, LBCA did not inquire about the location of the staff gauge or the lack of water beneath the bridge. (T. 991-1017). It was LBCA's burden to challenge the factual basis for Dr. Lee's opinion. City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). An insufficiency in the expert opinion offered, if any, should have been addressed in cross-examination by LBCA, not by a post-hearing motion. LBCA alleges that the outcome would be different if the DOT survey were part of the evidence. The Board cannot accept new evidence or rule on the admissibility of evidence which was not presented to the hearing officer. The Finding of Fact to which LBCA refers states six reasons why the correlation between the pumping at the sand mine and its effects on Lake Brooklyn water level were not established. See Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 32. The location of the staff gauge in Brooklyn Bay rather than Lake Brooklyn was one of those six. LBCA's error was in not knowing the location of the staff gauge (T. 418-420) rather than the testimony of Dr. Lee. Therefore, LBCA's allegation that but for the testimony of Dr. Lee, the hearing officer would have found differently is unfounded. The mere chance that the hearing officer might have found differently is insufficient to remand the hearing for additional fact finding. Cluett v. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 530 So.2d 351, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The courts look with disfavor on motions based on newly discovered evidence because to look with favor would bring about a looseness in practice and encourage counsel to neglect to gather all available evidence for a first trial by speculating upon the outcome, and then, being defeated, become for the first time duly diligent in securing other evidence to cure the defects or omissions in their showing upon the first trial. Rushing v. Chappell, 247 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Henderson Sians v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 397 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is well-settled that no abuse of discretion occurs on the part of an agency by refusing to direct a remand to receive evidence which could have been introduced during the course of the original proceedings. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) LBCA has failed to clearly establish a right to relief and therefore the motion is denied. RULING ON MOTION FOR OFFICIAL RECOGNITION AND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD LBCA has filed a Motion for Official Recognition and to Supplement the Record seeking the Board to accept into evidence the October 11, 1988 D.O.T. survey which was the subject of LBCA's Motion for Remand and also the U.S.G.S. publication "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida", by Clark, also referenced In LBCA's Motion for Remand. The Board is not a fact-finder in this subsection 120.57 proceeding and it is reversible error for the Board to supplement the record through post-hearing evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. stat., Marks v. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 566 So.2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(court refused to take judicial notice of factual matter based on records that could have been offered at administrative hearing); Nest v. Dept. of Professional Regulation 490 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Shongut v Mark, 173 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(Where matters raised on motion for relief from judgment could have been available to movant during trial proceedings, denial of motion was not abuse of discretion); Weaver, supra.. Moreover, the Motion for Remand has been denied. LBCA's post- hearing motions will be available as part of the record of this proceeding for purposes of any appeal which may be pursued. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Recommended Order dated June 4, 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted in its entirety except as modified by the final action of the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District (Ruling on LBCA Exception 23). Florida Rock Industries' application for consumptive use permit no. 2-019-0012AUR is hereby granted under the terms and conditions as provided herein. The post-hearing Motion for Remand, Motion for Official Recognition and Motion to Supplement the Record filed by LBCA are hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July 1993, in Palatka, Florida. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT By: JOE E. HILL CHAIRMAN RENDERED this 14th day of July 1993. By: SANDRA L. BERTRAM ASSISTANT DISTRICT CLERK
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Florida Rock Industries (FRI or applicant), a Florida corporation, operates a nine hundred and eighty acre sand mine known as the Goldhead Sand Mine (Goldhead) in Clay County, Florida. The mine is located approximately six miles northeast of Keystone Heights and fifty miles southwest of Jacksonville. FRI has operated the mine since 1958. With the exception of eighty acres of land owned by FRI, the remainder of the land on which the mine is located is owned by Carroll-Phillips Investors and has been leased to FRI since 1973. The mine lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), a special taxing district created by the legislature and charged with the responsibility for administering and enforcing permitting programs for consumptive uses of water. FRI is accordingly subject to the District's regulatory authority. As a necessary component of its operation, FRI withdraws approximately 2.09 million gallons per day (MGD) of groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer which is used in the production of sand. This use of water is made pursuant to a consumptive use permit (no. 2-019-0012U) issued to FRI by the District on December 11, 1984, and which allows it to consume 762.85 million gallons per year of groundwater for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead mine. The permit was issued for seven years. In order to continue groundwater withdrawal and use, FRI has applied to the District for a seven-year renewal of its permit with no request for an increase in allocation. That request, which has been identified as application no. 2-019-0012AUR, is the subject of this proceeding. After conducting a review of the application, making site inspections, and performing various studies and analyses, on July 28, 1992, the District, through its staff, gave notice of its intent to approve the application with certain conditions. Thereafter, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, Lake Brooklyn Civic Association, Inc. (petitioner), a nonprofit corporation made up of property owners in adjacent areas of Clay County, filed a petition under Subsection 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, seeking to contest the proposed action. Petitioner is a citizen of the state and has an interest in activities that may injure or harm the state's water resources. Thus, it has standing to bring this action. As twice amended, the petition generally alleged that the consumptive use would (a) cause an unmitigated adverse impact on adjacent land uses, including a significant reduction in water levels in Lake Brooklyn and Spring, Gator Bone, and White Sands Lake, which lie generally to the south and southwest of the mine site, (b) cause a deterioration in water quality, (c) cause economic or environmental harm, and (d) be for purposes other than operating a sand mine. The broad three-pronged test to be used in determining whether the permit should be issued is whether the proposed consumptive use is a reasonable- beneficial use, whether it will interfere with presently existing legal uses of water, and whether it is consistent with the public interest. In addressing this test, the parties have presented extensive expert testimony involving highly technical subject matter. As might be expected, the experts reached different conclusions as to whether the criteria have been met. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, and this accepted testimony is recited in the findings below. The Mining Site Operations The entire mine site is around 7,000 feet east to west, about one mile north to south in a rectangular shape, and lies within the lake region of northeast Florida. The mine's product is silica sand used for concrete and masonry mortar for construction throughout northeast Florida. As such, it produces an economic benefit to the region. The mine is located on one of the few sites in the northeast Florida area with deposits suitable for construction purposes and is the closest sand mine to the Jacksonville market. In 1958, FRI installed three ten-inch diameter production wells in the center of the mine site. One well is 450 feet deep while the other two are 460 feet deep. The 1984 permit authorizes withdrawals of 762.85 million gallons of water per year, an average rate of 2.09 MGD, and a maximum rate of 3.75 MGD. This rate is consistent with the amount of water used at other mines in north Florida and is based on FRI's projected maximum annual use. The use is industrial commercial for sand mining while the source is the Floridan Aquifer, the lowest acceptable water quality source available capable of producing the requested amount of water. Water use withdrawal from the three wells is monitored by in-line flow meters installed in 1991 as a water control and conservation measure. The pumping rate depends on the number of fixtures and valves open in the system at the time of pumping. However, the actual rate of water production cannot be varied at any of the pumps since the wells are connected to "on or off" pumps. The need for water in the dredge pond and processing plant dictates how long FRI will have a pump in operation. Water from the wells is first discharged into a dredge pond, twenty feet deep, which is an approximately 155-acre excavation lake located in the southwest portion of the mine site. In periods of low water, the water is used to float the dredge, which requires some three feet of water to float, and in conjunction with a bulldozer, to wash sand down from the bank toward the dredge. After the dredge sucks up sand and water from the bottom of the pond, this mixture is slurried to an on-site processing plant where more water is added to sort and wash the sand. The end product (silica sand) is then loaded onto trucks which haul the product to the market. After processing, the moisture content of the sand product is only 5 percent. The tailings (unusable waste product) and wash water are then routed by a slurry pipe to settling areas and eventually recirculated through a system of ditches, canals and water control structures back into the dredge pond. No chemicals are used in the operation. Although FRI's contract with the lessor of the property requires it to maintain the dredge pond elevation at a specified elevation, this requirement cannot be fulfilled during drought conditions. The mining operation is a closed system to the extent there is no point source (surface water) discharge from the system. Even so, a significant amount of water loss occurs during the process, mainly through percolation into the ground. Other water loss occurs through evaporation. The receiving water from the site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes, including Gator Bone, White Sands, and Spring Lakes. Water may also travel through the surficial aquifer into the sinkholes on site and thence to the Floridan Aquifer. However, not all water is lost to sinkholes in the settling area because they are filled with fine materials. This is confirmed by the fact that water returns to the dredge pond. The mining operation has not affected this pattern. The lakes in the region are replenished solely by rainfall, either by direct rain on the lakes or through water seeping through sands. FRI plans to mine approximately thirty additional acres at the Goldhead Site during the next seven years. To this end, it has secured a management and storage of surface waters permit from the District which allows construction of this additional acreage. It also has acquired an industrial waste water discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation. It is expected that within the next two to four years, FRI will abandon the current dredge pond and start a new one on the north side of the property to accommodate mining operations, or in the alternative, extend the current pond to the north. Water conservation A water conservation plan has been submitted by FRI. Measures already implemented include (a) using in-line flow meters to monitor amounts of withdrawal, (b) not pumping for more than seventeen hours per day to prevent exceeding the maximum allotment per day, (c) regularly monitoring withdrawals to ensure allocations as not being exceeded, (d) extending the plant discharge further past the sinkholes in the settling area to maximize return water to the dredge pond, (e) raising water levels in the settling area to facilitate flow back to the dredge pond, (f) during periods of drought using bulldozers instead of water spray to break loose sand formations, (g) curtailing production when further production would cause the plant to exceed allocations, (h) replacing water-cooled bearings in plant machinery with bearings that do not require water, and (i) restricting dredge mobility to allow operation in shallower water. No other water conservation measures are economically, environmentally or technologically feasible. Hydrogeologic characteristics at the mine site The mine site, which is located within the Upper Etonia Creek surface water drainage basin, generally slopes from 200 feet NGVD on the north to 120 feet NGVD on the south, and is underlain, in order, by approximately 10 to 50 feet of sand (known as the surficial aquifer), 200 feet of dense, moist clay (known as the Hawthorn Formation), and then a highly transmissive limestone formation (known as the Floridan Aquifer). The surficial aquifer flows from north to south across the site while water falling on the site primarily moves downgradient through the surficial aquifer. There are five sinkholes on the site, all having predated the mining activities, which may provide a conduit for recharge from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan aquifer. Except where the Hawthorn formation, a confining unit to the Floridan aquifer, is breached, recharge through the Hawthorn formation is very slow because of the dense clays of that formation. Aquifer characteristics within the Floridan aquifer beneath the site and immediately adjacent thereto are relatively uniform. As noted earlier, 5 percent of the water leaves the mine site as moisture in the sand product. The remaining 95 percent of water is immediately recharged on site to the surficial aquifer through various impoundments, and after entering the surficial aquifer, that portion of the water which is not recirculated to the dredge pond for reuse in the mining process moves either vertically into the Hawthorn formation, vertically into the Floridan aquifer through a sinkhole, downgradient through the surficial aquifer to one of the lakes south of the mine, or evaporates. It is noted that notwithstanding the mining operations, the flow in the surficial aquifer system still parallels the topography as it existed prior to mining, and the same saturated thickness within the surficial aquifer exists on site as existed before mining occurred. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Region The region in which the mine is located is very high in topographic altitude indicating that it is a groundwater recharge area. Like the mine site, the region has three distinct geologic units underlying the surface, including sands and clayey sands (surficial aquifer), thick clays (Hawthorn formation) and limestones and dolomites (Floridan aquifer). The Hawthorn unit serves as a confining unit or semi-confining unit between the surficial aquifer, or water table, in the upper unit and the Floridan aquifer in the lower unit. When solution channels develop within the limestones in the lower unit, the openings can cause the overlying units to collapse, forming sinkholes. Thus, when the Hawthorn formation is breached by the development of a sinkhole, water can move rapidly through the overlying units to the Floridan aquifer. Many of the lakes within the region exist over collapsed features within the limestone units beneath them and are referred to as sinkhole lakes. The rate of recharge from each lake depends on the rate of leakance into the Floridan aquifer. Some lakes leak fast, others not at all. For example, Lake Brooklyn fluctuates about two feet, Lake Johnson about thirteen feet, and Pebble Lake about thirty feet. Lake Brooklyn, which lies several miles to the southwest of the mine, is the fourth lake in a chain of lakes consisting of Blue Pond, Sand Hill Lake, Lake Magnolia, Lake Brooklyn, Keystone Lake, Lake Geneva, Oldfield Pond, and Half Moon Lake. All of these lakes are in a different surface water drainage sub-basin within the larger Upper Etonia Creek Basin than the mine site. The lakes above Lake Brooklyn in the chain are at higher elevations than Lake Brooklyn, and when rainfall is sufficient, water flows from Blue Pond to Sand Hill Lake, to Lake Magnolia, and then to Lake Brooklyn through Alligator Creek. Direct rainfall and surface water inflows from Alligator Creek represent the most significant sources of water to Lake Brooklyn. Other pertinent lakes in the area are Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes, which lie almost directly along the mine site's southern boundary and are each less than a mile from the mine's dredge pond. During the period records have been maintained for water levels in Lake Brooklyn, it has fluctuated over a range of slightly more than twenty feet. Although average rainfall within the Upper Etonia Creek Basin is approximately fifty-one inches per year, during the period from 1974 through 1990 the basin experienced a continuing period of below normal rainfall resulting in a cumulative deficit of rainfall for this period of minus seventy-eight inches. Since 1988, the lake region has experienced a severe drought. Because the lakes in the region have risen or fallen in correlation with periods of below normal or above normal rainfall, lake levels have fallen dramatically in recent years. Water levels in Lake Brooklyn began declining in 1974 at the same time the period of below normal rainfall began and continued declining until 1991, a year in which the region experienced above normal rainfall. These low water levels were exacerbated by the cessation of surface water inflows from Alligator Creek in late 1988 which continued until late 1992 when such flows resumed. The cessation of surface water flows into Lake Brooklyn during the period from 1988- 1992 were a direct consequence of the extended period of below normal rainfall in the region. Finally, very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. Water Quality Impacts Numerous analyses have been conducted to determine water quality of the site, water quality in nearby homeowners' water systems, and water quality impacts of the proposed consumptive use. They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels for certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992. In addition, FRI conducted water quality sampling on site in eight wells, the dredge pond and a settling pond. Finally, petitioner reviewed water quality samples from off-site private water supply wells taken on March 1, 1989, and on July 22, 1992, by unknown persons. As to this latter sampling, petitioner had no knowledge of the protocol used in obtaining the 1989 samples and offered no evidence of reliability of the 1992 data. Thus, the reliability of its assessment is in doubt. None of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. However, petitioner posits that a chemical reaction is likely occurring at the deeper levels of the dredge pond, possibly causing undissolved iron in sediments to become dissolved, and then traveling in solution through the clays of the Hawthorn formation into transmissive units and finally to off-site homeowners' wells which may be in those units. This theory was predicated on the results of 1989 HRS sampling which revealed some wells near White Sands Lake experienced elevated levels of iron and manganese, and an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond. However, only one application of a herbicide occurred, and that was in 1990, or one year after iron was detected in the off-site homeowners' wells. Petitioner agreed that the 1990 application of herbicide could not have affected the 1989 sampling. It also agreed that these reactions were less likely to be occurring in a pond with water flowing through it. In this case, water is circulated through the dredge pond by being pumped into it, pumped out of it, and allowed to flow back into the pond. FRI determined that no state water quality standards were exceeded for iron, manganese, zinc, turbidity, total dissolved solids, chloride and nitrate in the surficial aquifer and Hawthorn formations at the site. The wells used for monitoring water quality were installed and sampled using standard quality assurance techniques. Water quality from the surficial aquifer was emphasized because if iron or manganese were present in the water, it would most likely be detected in wells in the surficial aquifer because they are detected in wells immediately downgradient of the source. If the chemical reaction is occurring, water leaving the dredge pond is contaminated, and such water will follow the path of least resistance by going either to the Hawthorn formation or the surficial aquifer. Because of the geologic properties of the Hawthorn, this path is the surficial aquifer. At least 70,000 gallons per day enter the surficial aquifer from the bottom of the dredge pond. Since contaminated water would receive water quality treatment by absorption of the Hawthorn but not in the surficial, water in the surficial aquifer represents the worst case scenario as to the possible presence of contaminated water. The chemical reactions which petitioner believes may be occurring in the deeper portions of the dredge pond require the presence of an acidic environment and reduced oxygen levels in the water. FRI's water quality testing indicates that water in the dredge pond is not acidic, but rather is neutral. Therefore, any reaction which might be occurring could not be on a large enough scale to affect water quality. Moreover, even if the reactions were occurring, it was established that the clays in the Hawthorn formation would absorb iron, and such absorption would not take place in the surficial aquifer. Therefore, it is found that there would be no adverse impact to groundwater including the surficial aquifer and that water quality standards will be met. Although petitioner presented evidence that in 1989 HRS testing of 12 out of 212 homeowners south of the mine site indicated that three homeowners had iron concentrations in excess of state drinking standards and two had manganese concentrations in excess of state drinking water standards, this is insufficient to prove that the mining operation has an adverse impact on water quality. To begin with, some of the wells sampled were thirty to fifty years old even though the life expectancy of a well is fifteen to twenty years. Some were constructed of galvanized steel pipe, and those wells also indicated high turbidity levels. High turbidity levels are caused by a number of unrelated factors and will result in increased iron levels that are not representative of the quality of the groundwater in the formation, but rather of the iron-laden sediments in the formation, or from the casing material. With the exception of one well (the Sutton well), the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese. The elevated iron and manganese concentrations in the Sutton well are caused by a number of factors other than the mine. Then, too, a proper sampling technique may not have been followed during the 1989 sampling event thus rendering the results unreliable. Finally, properly constructed monitoring wells should be used to assess the quality of the groundwaters, and the wells sampled in 1989 and 1992 were not of that type. The Mine's Impact on Water Levels Perhaps the issue of primary concern to members of petitioner's organization is whether the mining operations have contributed to the decline in water levels of nearby lakes, including Lake Brooklyn. This is because of serious declines in the levels of those water bodies over the past years, and a concomitant decrease in the value of homes which surround the lakes. In an effort to resolve this and other water level issues, the parties made numerous studies of the current and anticipated water level impacts from the site. This data collection effort was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size. They included aquifer performance tests by FRI and the District, steady state and transient computer modeling of impacts on the Floridan and surficial aquifers by FRI, an analysis of correlations of pumping and water level changes in lakes and aquifers by FRI and petitioner, photolinear and fracture trace analyses of structural conditions by FRI and petitioner, a stratigraphic analysis of a geologic core retrieved from the site by FRI, installation of deep and shallow wells for groundwater monitoring by FRI, groundwater flow mapping by FRI, review of literature by all parties, review and analysis of rainfall data by all parties, analysis of evaporation data by the District and petitioner, and an analysis of geophysical logs from wells by FRI and the District. Aquifer performance tests Aquifer performance tests, which enable hydrologists to reach conclusions regarding the characteristics of the aquifers tested, were conducted in January 1989 by the District and June 1991 by FRI. In a typical pump test, an aquifer production well pumps at a constant rate, while water levels are monitored in observation wells at specified distances from the pumping well. In this case, the tests measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 MGD. The zone of influence of pumping was measured at wells placed at the property boundaries, at Gold Head State Park, east of the mine, as well as wells to the south of the mine for the 1989 tests. During the 1989 tests, lake levels for Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes were recorded. The effects of pumping were approximately equal for wells spaced approximately equal distances along the east, south and west. Thus, for purposes of analysis, the Floridan aquifer was considered isotropic and homogeneous. This is consistent with assumptions commonly made by geologists in Florida. Computer models were calibrated with actual results of these tests to account for variations caused by this assumption. The District has concluded, and the undersigned so finds, that no changes in the levels of the lakes are attributable to pumping. Further, the aquifer itself will not be harmed by the use of the amount of water requested in the application. The tests indicate the maximum amount of drawdown in the Floridan aquifer from pumping at twice the average rate is 0.1 to 0.6 foot in neighboring wells. Effects of actual pumping will be approximately one-half the test observed amounts on an average pumping day. For example, based on the 1989 test results, drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer at the boundary of the FRI property during an average day of pumpage should not exceed 0.2 to 0.3 feet while drawdowns beneath Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes to the south of the mine should be less than 0.2 feet. The tests provide actual measurements of the effects of pumping. Indeed, all three lakes were declining before the 1989 test began and continued to decline after the test was ended. However, the rate of decline during the seventy-eight hours of the test was not distinguishable from declines which occurred before or after the test. Computer modeling As a supplement to the aquifer performance tests, FRI performed computer modeling to determine effects of the water withdrawal and use on the Floridan and surficial aquifers. These models are used by hydrologists to predict impacts associated with a particular source of stress, such as pumpage, to an aquifer and, in this case, occurred in three phases. The first was an impact model which determined the drawdown in the Floridan aquifer. The second occurred as a result of questions raised by residents of the sand mine area and included a "steady state" model simulation of impacts of the Floridan and surficial aquifers. The third occurred as a result of questions raised by petitioner and included new data along with both a "transient state" and "steady state" simulation. All three phases of modeling were consistent in finding that the effects of pumping are non-existent or negligible, that is, a predicted drawdown in various locations of the Floridan aquifer of from less than 0.1 to 0.3 feet on an average pumping day, and they corroborated the drawdowns observed during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests. Petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart criticized FRI's 1992 "steady state" computer modeling on the grounds FRI had insufficient data to conduct the modeling, the constant head boundaries were set too close to the pumping, a transient model should have been run, and the modelers assumed that the Floridan aquifer is isotropic and homogeneous. However, Dr. Stewart failed to review or consider (a) any technical data or information gathered since September 10, 1992, (b) the 1991 transient model, (c) the December 1992 transient model, (d) the computer disc for the July 1992 steady state model, (e) the December 1992 steady state model, (f) the December 1992 calibration, (g) the basis for setting the constant head boundaries, or (h) the data from the 1989 and 1991 pump tests. All of this data was part of the evidence FRI's experts used in formulating their opinions. Dr. Stewart agreed that he could not form any conclusions on this data and that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogeneous and isotropic, but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. The modeling was calibrated to replicate actual subsurface and pumping conditions. Maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This is drawdown with no replacement, although there will be leakance back to the Floridan aquifer through sinkholes on the site and surcharge to Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes through the surficial aquifer. The impact to the Floridan is minor compared to normal water level fluctuations in that aquifer of 3 to 5 feet per year. In fact, barometric pressure changes can cause water level changes of up to one foot per week. Lake levels Because many of the lakes in the area leak downward, water levels in the lakes could be affected by the changes in levels in the Floridan aquifer. Indeed, for lakes connected to the Floridan aquifer, changes in the level of the potentiometric surface (or pressure) in the Floridan aquifer can have an impact on the level of the lakes. However, a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance. Consequently, even if Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes do leak to the Floridan aquifer, the amount of decline in lake levels attributable to pumping at the mine will be less than the 0.1 to 0.2 foot modeled by FRI. This drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. Even if levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes are affected by drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer, that effect will be more than offset by surcharge to the surficial and Floridan aquifers from the dredge pond. The net effect to the lakes would be either positive or immeasurable. This is confirmed by the computer modeling results. Lake stage and precipitation data for Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes indicates that these lakes, like other lakes in the region, rise and fall in correlation with precipitation patterns. For example, in 1991, a year with above normal rainfall, Spring Lake rose 4.1 feet in elevation, White Sands Lake 2.9 feet in elevation, and Gator Bone Lake rose 3.5 feet in elevation. Similarly, water levels were monitored before, during and after the 1989 aquifer performance test in a portion of Lake Brooklyn known as Brooklyn Bay. Because of low rainfall, Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least eighteen to twenty-four months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The lake had been in the midst of a long term decline both before and after the test, and the rate and character of declines during the period of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before or after the test. It is accordingly found that the impacts on water levels in Lake Brooklyn, if any, as a result of pumping from the Floridan aquifer are immeasurable. According to petitioner's witness Boyes, activities at the mine have an influence on water levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes by "increasing the rate of decline". However, the witness could not quantify the degree of impact but stated the impacts during the 1989 aquifer performance tests were a decline of .03, .03 and less than .03 foot, respectively, for each lake. The witness also opined that, based on District staff guage readings during the 1989 aquifer performance testing, pumping at the mine resulted in a .04 foot decline in lake level for Lake Brooklyn during the 1989 testing period. This decline had a net result of .8 acre decrease in the previously 600 acre plus Lake Brooklyn. By comparison, the drought caused a decline of 162 acres in 1989 and an additional 158 acres in 1990. It is noted that the decline in each lake would be less during average pumping conditions, or about one-half of the .04 foot decline, since average pumping is one-half of the aquifer performance test pump rate. Finally, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring. It is found, however, that these drawdowns are less than the .1 to .2 foot modeled by FRI and should have no significant adverse impacts on water levels. Preferential flow theory Petitioner presented evidence of a purported correlation between pumping at the mine and water levels in a Floridan aquifer well located on the southwest side of Lake Brooklyn, 4.3 miles from the mine, and lake levels in Brooklyn Bay, 3 miles from the mine. According to petitioner, this serves as proof of a "preferential flow pattern" in the Floridan from Lake Brooklyn to the mine, and that this preferential flow results in a .04 to .05 foot drawdown in the Floridan aquifer at Lake Brooklyn. However, this correlation is deemed to be incorrect for several reasons. First, if a true correlation existed, recovery from pumping effects would occur after pumping ceased, but the Lake Brooklyn well showed recovery in the Floridan aquifer prior to cessation of pumping, and did not recover when pumping stopped at the end of the 1989 aquifer performance testing. Second, if the premise is correct, impacts from pumping would occur in wells closer to the pumping earlier than in wells farther away, but the Lake Brooklyn well, 4.3 miles from pumping, showed drawdown began before that of the Goldhead well, only 1,000 feet from pumping. Third, levels for the Lake Brooklyn well should have declined during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests but the levels rose during the 1991 tests. As to the water level changes in the well during the 1989 test, witness Boyes believed these may reflect declines due to hydrologic conditions rather than the pump test. Fourth, if a true correlation existed, impacts would be experienced following the same hydrographic pattern as pumping, but the Lake Brooklyn well's hydrographics did not correlate to the pumping schedule at all times of the year. It should also be noted that at least two other large scale water users are withdrawing water from wells within 1.25 miles from the Lake Brooklyn well and may affect that well's water levels. Further, the variations in the well may be explained by many other variables, such as barometric pressure changes, diurnal fluctuations in water levels, rainfall, and pumping from closer wells. Finally, Brooklyn Bay is now physically separated from Lake Brooklyn, and it was improper for petitioner to rely on lake level information from Brooklyn Bay to support its theory regarding Lake Brooklyn. To further support its hypothesis that a preferential flow path exists between the mine and Lake Brooklyn, petitioner utilized a "photo linear analysis" or "fracture trace analysis", which is based on an interpretation of surface topographic features to determine the presence of subsurface hydrogeologic features such as solution channels in the limestones of the Floridan aquifer. However, without extensive subsurface testing, which is not present here, such analyses are only interpretative to determine what, if any, subsurface features are present and their hydrogeologic effect. It is noted that subsurface fractures are present less than 50 percent of the time, and if present, the features may be hydrologic barriers as well as preferential flow paths. According to witness Boyes, a photolinear feature (fracture) exists from Lake Brooklyn through Spring Lake and across the mine property to Goldhead State Park. If such a feature did exist, however, the drawdown during the aquifer performance tests and other pumping would be greater adjacent to Spring Lake than adjacent to Lake Brooklyn. This was not observed. Moreover, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart thought the photolinear was only inferred and had a lower degree of confidence that it exists. FRI's witness Fountain established that elongated surface features are more likely to demonstrate linear subsurface features. Both witness Boyes and Dr. Stewart agreed with this conclusion. That being the case, the postulated Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear is not demonstrated, and continuation of the elongated axis of Lake Brooklyn and Brooklyn Bay would bypass the mine site altogether. Because no investigations have been conducted to demonstrate that these postulated photolinear features exist, and the more reliable results of the aquifer performance tests indicate otherwise, the preferential flow path theory is deemed at best to be highly speculative. If the Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear feature offered a preferential flow path as opined by witness Boyes, the resulting drawdown would be elongated with a zone of influence extending from the mine westward toward Lake Brooklyn. Therefore, areas closer but not on the feature would experience less drawdown than areas farther away which are on the feature, the zone of influence would extend from the mine's wells through Spring Lake toward Lake Brooklyn causing declined water levels along the feature, and areas closer to the pumping wells, such as Spring Lake, would experience a greater decline than areas farther away, such as Lake Brooklyn. However, evidence offered by petitioner shows that the water levels between Lake Brooklyn and the mine are actually higher than in surrounding areas. Finally, even if petitioner's preferential flow path theory were true, there is no evidence that the pumping from the mine is resulting in significant and adverse impacts as required by District rules. Therefore, it is found that the sand mine does not cause significant and adverse impacts on the water levels in the Floridan aquifer or on the water levels of Lake Brooklyn or Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes. Rather, the lake levels in each of the four lakes in issue here are directly or indirectly a function of rainfall. Intermediate and surficial aquifers Whether an intermediate aquifer is present beneath the mine site is subject to dispute. All parties agree that, on a regional scale, the Hawthorn formation contains some discontinuous water-bearing lenses that in some places produce water in quantities sufficient for household use. The lenses occur in carbonate deposits in the formation, although not all carbonate deposits or all water bearing units will necessarily transmit water. The evidence is less than persuasive that the Hawthorne formation contains carbonate units which are present on the sand mine site as transmissive beds. This finding is based on FRI's review of on-site core boring information and other data from the site. In addition, this finding is corrorborated by District witness Lee, who concluded that water from the site is not discharging into the Hawthorn, but rather into the surficial aquifer. This is because clays comprising the Hawthorn have low permeability, causing water to flow laterally through the surficial aquifer rather than into the Hawthorn. With respect to impacts to the surficial aquifer, FRI presented evidence that during mining operations, the surficial aquifer will be surcharged by up to five feet. When mining operations cease, water levels will return to natural conditions. This evidence was not contradicted. Impacts on Property Values and Recreation Testimony regarding the property values for lake front properties on Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes was offered by petitioner's witness Price. He established that values have declined since mid- 1989 as a result of a loss of recreational value suffered as water levels have receded. However, witness Price stated that he would not expect a 0.1 foot drop in lake levels to negatively affect property values. Since the declines predicted by petitioner are far less than a 0.1 foot drop, it is apparent that FRI's water use will not result in harm to property values in the area. Similarly, while it is true that declining water levels have impaired recreational uses of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes, FRI's water use cannot be blamed for such impairment. Environmental Impacts The anticipated impacts of the water use on the wetlands and wildlife resources of the area were addressed by FRI witnesses Peacock and Lowe. According to Peacock, who analyzed the wetland vegetation, the dominant species and their adaptions, the wildlife resources and their adaptions, and the general ecology of the area, the water levels in the adjacent lakes have historically fluctuated greatly, and wildlife that use the lakes have adapted to these fluctuations. His opinion that the mine's water use will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, Spring or White Sands Lakes is hereby accepted. Based upon witness Lowe's inspection of the three downgradient lakes, his past knowledge of Lake Brooklyn, the aquifer performance tests, and Dr. Lee's conclusion that the maximum drawdown in the lakes would be 0.1 foot, Lowe opined that the proposed water withdrawal will not cause environmental harm. In addition, such a drawdown will not adversely affect off-site vegetation or cause unmitigated adverse impacts on adjacent wetlands or other types of vegetation. These conclusions were not contradicted and are hereby accepted. Compliance with rule criteria To obtain a consumptive use permit, an applicant must give "reasonable assurance" that the proposed water use is a reasonable beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. These broad criteria are further explained by criteria enunciated in Rule 40C-2.301(3)-(6), Florida Administrative Code, and sections 9.0 et seq. and 10.0 et seq. of the Applicant's Handbook adopted by reference in Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. Findings as to whether these criteria have been satisfied are set forth below. To obtain a renewal of a consumptive use permit, an applicant must first give reasonable assurance that the proposed use of water is a "reasonable beneficial use". For a use to be considered reasonable beneficial, the criteria enumerated in Rule 40C-2.301(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, must be satisfied. First, paragraph (4)(a) of the rule and section 10.3(a) of the handbook require that the water use must be in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, and the quantity requested must be within acceptable standards for the designated use. The evidence shows that FRI has used a reasonably low amount of water necessary to continue operations at the mine, it has implemented some water conservation methods and tried or considered others that proved to be inefficient or not economically feasible, and the requested amount of water is within acceptable standards for sand mines operating within the District. Then, too, some ninety-five percent of the water pumped from the wells is recirculated for reuse in the mining process or is recharged back into the surficial and Floridan aquifers on site. Finally, there is no surface discharge of water outside the mining site. Accordingly, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(b) of the rule and section 10.3(b) of the handbook require that the proposed use be for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. The proposed use of the water is to produce sand used in construction materials. This is a reasonable use of water and results in an economic benefit to the region by producing a valuable product. Accordingly, it is found that the use is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. All parties have stipulated that the Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the requested amounts of water. This satisfies paragraph (4)(c) of the rule and section 10.3(c) of the handbook which impose this requirement. The next criterion, paragraph (4)(d), as amplified by section 10.3(d) of the handbook, requires that "the environmental or economic harm caused by the consumptive use must be reduced to an acceptable amount." The evidence shows that during mine operations, the surficial aquifer is being surcharged by up to five feet. When they cease, the water levels return to natural conditions. The maximum drawdown anticipated in the Floridan aquifer at the property boundary was 0.3 feet and less than or equal to 0.1 feet for most of the area outside the mine site. At most, this equates to a maximum lake level decline of 0.04 feet at Lake Brooklyn, 0.03 feet at Gator Bone and White Sands Lakes, and less than 0.03 feet at Spring Lake. Thus, FRI's usage of water has had, and will have in the future, little, if any, immediate or cumulative impact on the levels of the area lakes. Further, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that these lowered lake levels or aquifer levels will not result in environmental or economic harm to the area. In addition, the District has proposed to incorporate into the permit a condition that FRI implement a detailed monitoring plan which will detect any overpumping causing lake level changes and a concomitant adverse impact to off-site land uses. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(e) and section 10.3(e) require the applicant to implement "all available water conservation measures" unless the applicant "demonstrates that implementation is not economically, environmentally or technologically feasible." The rule goes on to provide that satisfaction of this criterion "may be demonstrated by implementation of an approved water conservation plan as required in section 12.0, Applicant's Handbook: Consumptive Uses of Water." Because FRI's water conservation plan insures that water will be used efficiently, as required by section 12.3.4.1. of the handbook, this criterion has been met. The next paragraph provides that "(w)hen reclaimed water is readily available it must be used in place of higher quality water sources unless the applicant demonstrates that its use is either not economically, environmentally or technologi-cally feasible." Since the unrebutted testimony establishes that reclaimed water is not readily available to the mine site, it is found that paragraph (4)(f) has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(g) of the rule and section 10.3(f) of the handbook generally require that the lowest acceptable quality water source be used. Since the evidence shows that the Floridan aquifer is the lowest acceptable quality water source, this requirement has been met. Paragraphs (4)(h) and (i) provide that the consumptive use "should not cause significant saline water intrusion or further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems" nor "cause or contribute to flood damage." The parties have stipulated that these requirements are not in dispute. The next paragraph provides that the "water quality of the source of the water should not be seriously harmed by the consumptive use." The uncontradicted evidence shows that the source of the water for the proposed use will not be seriously harmed from either saltwater intrusion or discharges to the Floridan aquifer. Paragraph (4)(j) and section 10.3(g) have accordingly been met. Paragraph (4)(k) and section 10.3(k) require that the water quality of the receiving body of water "not be seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. In this case, there is no surface water discharge from the mine site. Thus, the only relevant inquiry here is whether the receiving water (surficial aquifer) will be "seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. To determine compliance with this criterion, the District compared water quality samples from the mine site and surrounding areas with the DER monitoring network to ascertain whether state water quality numerical standards and natural background levels were exceeded. The relevant standards are found in Rule 17-520.420, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring data from eight wells and from the dredge pond indicate there are no water quality violations resulting from the sand mine operations. Petitioner has contended that water from the dredge pond provides a significant source of water to an intermediate aquifer, which would also be a receiving body of water. However, the evidence shows that any contaminants resulting from the dredge pond flowing into an intermediate aquifer will also be contained in the surficial aquifer. The clays of the Hawthorn formation would absorb and filter out iron and manganese as they traveled to a water transmissive zone. Therefore, the concentrations sampled in the suficial aquifer downgradient from the dredge pond represent the highest concentrations. Since the concentrations in the surficial aquifer do not violate water quality standards, the same finding as to concentrations in the intermediate aquifer can be made. Further, the rule criteria require consideration of the future water use's effect on water quality, and if the intermediate aquifer is in fact a receiving water as contended by petitioner, the reactions which could cause water quality violations are presently occurring. There is no reason to believe they would cease if the mine ceases operation, and the mining operation adds oxygen to the water, which reduces the possibility of the reaction described. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. The parties have stipulated that the requirements of paragraph (4)(l) have been fulfilled. Finally, rule 40C-2.301(5)(a) provides that a proposed consumptive use will not meet the criteria for issuance of a permit if such proposed water use will significantly cause saline water encroachment or otherwise cause water flows or levels to fall below certain minimum limits set forth in the rule. The evidence shows that, to the extent these criteria are applicable and in dispute, they have been satisfied. Miscellaneous The contention has been made that insufficient site-specific information was submitted by the applicant to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the sand mine. In this regard, the evidence shows that FRI consultants installed monitoring wells, performed core borings, and took soil samples at the site. The geology of the site was verified by core boring, review of geologic logs and drilling wells. Slug tests were performed to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the material in which the monitor wells were set, and a step drawdown analysis was performed to measure hydraulic conductivity. A number of monitoring wells to measure water levels data were installed before and after running the 1991 aquifer performance tests, and groundwater modeling in both the transient and steady state modes were run using data that was collected in the field. In addition, water quality samples were collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond, and FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes. Besides this submission and analysis, the District reviewed United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, potentiometric maps and aerial photographs of the area, water levels of the surrounding lakes, potentiometric surfaces in Floridan and intermediate aquifer wells, geophysical logs for wells, rainfall records, the core generated by FRI consultants, and scientific literature relied upon in making consumptive use permitting assessments. It also monitored the 1991 aquifer performance test and reviewed the resultant model. Before and after submission of the application, the District conducted aquifer performance testing at the site and evaluated the 1991 aquifer performance test conducted by FRI consultants. Finally, the District assessed water quality impacts of the sand mine in 1989 and in the present by site visit, sampling of the Floridan production well and dredge pond, and reviewing sampling data from both monitor wells and homeowner wells. It also reviewed information on water quality data gathered from other sand mines and applied data from the DER background monitoring network. Therefore, the contention that insufficient site-specific information was submitted and considered is rejected. Petitioner has offered into evidence petitioner's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83. A ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits was reserved. The exhibits, which are based on data collected by the District and the USGS, are hydrographs showing water levels from lakes and monitoring wells during so-called "normal mine operations" on selected dates in 1988, 1989 and 1991. Although FRI was given copies of the exhibits ten days prior to hearing, it was not informed of the source of the data until final hearing. As it turned out, petitioner's witness had reviewed records over an extensive period of time and selected two or three days out of that time period as being representative of "normal" conditions. However, FRI established that, when longer periods of time were reviewed, the correlations alleged to exist by the graphs did not in fact exist and thus they did not represent normal conditions. Attorney's fees and costs FRI has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theories petitioner interposed various papers and brought and participated in this action for "an improper purpose" within the meaning of Subsections 120.57(1)(b)5. and 120.59(6), Florida Statutes. In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions on the ground four motions filed by FRI were filed for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. It may be inferred from the totality of the evidence that petitioner did not intend to participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Likewise, the same inference may be made with respect to the four motions filed by FRI. Therefore, fees and costs (sanctions) are not warranted for either party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the District granting application number 2-019-0012AUR as proposed by the District in its notice of intent to approve the application issued on August 6, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 4th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5017 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 10-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 15-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 8. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 31-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 36-42. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 52-53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding 23. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 59-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 64-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32-36. 72. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 73-74. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 75. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 76-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 83-120. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 121-139. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25-27. 140-144. Rejected since even if true, the impacts are not significant. 145. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 146-158. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18-20. 159-171. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 172-177. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. Respondent (District): 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1, 3 and 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 19-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. 24-40. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12-16. 41-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11. 52-59. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 60-64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 67-69. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 74-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 80-81. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 82-83. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. 84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 85. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. 86-90. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. 91. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 92-94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 95. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 96. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 97-100. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 101. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 102-103. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 104-121. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. 122-130. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 131-133. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 134-138. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 139. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 140-141. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 142. Partially accepted in finding of fact 48. 143. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. Respondent (FRI): Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 22-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 31-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 40-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 42-45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 50-51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 52. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. 55. Partially accepted in finding of fact 46. 56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 47. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. 59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 51. 60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 52. 61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 54. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, cumulative, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Patrice Flinchbaugh Boyes, Esquire Post Office Box 1424 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1424 Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Jennifer L. Burdick, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Marcia Penman Parker, Esquire Emily G. Pierce, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
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
Findings Of Fact The subject application requests a water use permit from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) for the supplemental irrigation of 145 acres of citrus lands located in Orange County. Received into evidence at the hearing were the public notice of hearing appearing in the Sentinel Star, permit application number 21424 with an attached report and the Staff Report of the FCD, prepared by Nagendra Khanal. The applicant requested an annual allocation of water in the amount of 120.15 acre-feet or 9.94 inches per year, for a period of twenty (20) years. The Staff Report recommends the issuance of a permit for said amount, with maximum monthly pumpages not to exceed 49.8 acre-feet or 4.13 inches, the permit to expire on January 15, 1978. Several further special provisions were recommended on pages 4 & 5 of the Staff Report, which report is attached hereto. There is no dispute between the applicant and the FCD over the technical aspects of the Staff Report. The protests of the applicant center around the length of the permit and some of the special provisions recommended in the Staff Report, which the applicant feels are vague and ambiguous. Mr. James A. Hinson, the applicant's corporate secretary, felt that the FCD had sufficient data and statistics as to the water resources and agricultural usage within the area to sustain the granting of a twenty year permit. It was further felt that the issuance of a two-year permit for the purpose of gathering information as to the quantity of use would tend to prompt higher usage and even lead to falsification of pumpage records on the part of agricultural users so as to assure the issuance of future permits. The applicant was also concerned with the costs of applying for another permit in two years. Mr. Nagendra Khanal, a hydrologist with the FCD, explained that the purpose of the two-year permit was to obtain information from agricultural users in the area as to the amount of water used and the effect of such usage on the Florida aquifer system. Since the outset of regulatory provisions, the FCD has set the same termination date for each permit for agricultural use within each of the basins. At that expiration time, the pumpage records for all users in the area will be established and present experimental estimates can then be compared with actual usage. Little is known by the FCD about how the Florida aquifer system operates and the data presently in use are experimental. Since all permits within each basin will expire on the same date, the entire basin can then be evaluated at one point in time. It was felt that if falsification of pumpage records were to occur, it could probably be detected by data currently available to the FCD. It was further opined by Mr. Khanal that at, the expiration date of all permits issued in each basin, an automatic conversion into new permits would occur at little or no cost to the applicant. With regard to the special provisions recommended in the Staff Report, Mr. Hinson expressed concern over the manner of compliance. Specifically, he desired more information on the type of equipment or devises required by the FCD when it calls for "minimum head pressures", and "a measuring device on each of the three wells." He also desired information as to the times of year the water quality analyses were to be performed. Mr. Khanal explained that no regulatory criteria had been established by the FCD with regard to pumpage and that the minimum type of measuring device, such as a time clock, on each of the wells would suffice. Further specifications will be supplied to the applicant upon request. It was explained by Khanal that the water quality analyses should be performed once before the rainy season (at the end of May) and once after the rainy season (at the end of October). There was some confusion over the inclusion of the parameter of "specific conductivity" within the definition of a standard complete water quality analysis. Finally, Mr. Khanal listed two amendments to be made in the Staff Report. On page 2, under "B. Existing Facilities", "3,500 gpm" should read "3,600 gpm." The last item on the chart on page 3 of the Staff Report should read "2 in 10 Year Drought" in lieu of "1 in 10 Year Drought."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that Application No. 21424 be granted and that a permit be issued in accordance with the recommendations and provisions set forth in the Staff Report, as amended. Due to the apparent confusion over the inclusion of "specific conductivity" as a parameter to be included within the definition of a standard complete analysis, it is further recommended that the Staff make further inquiry into its necessity. If the Staff then concludes that "specific conductivity" is necessary to obtain a complete water quality analysis, it is recommended that it remain on the list of parameters. Respectfully submitted this 5th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 5th day of March, 1976 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson and Wharton 17th Floor CNA Building Orlando, Florida Stephen A. Walker, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent, W. B. Persico, should be issued a permit to construct a commercial marina as described in the Department's Intent to Issue, in Class III waters of the state in Charlotte County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc., was an association of property owners whose property is located in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision located in Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant, W. B. Persico, is the owner of a piece of property located adjacent to the subdivision and applicant for a permit to construct a marina on his property. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency responsible for the regulation and permitting of dredge and fill activities in the waters of the state. Mr. Persico's property is located on a dead end basin canal in Charlotte County, Florida. The canal is a Class III water but is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On July 31, 1989, Mr. Persico applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 75 slip, 5660 square foot commercial marina on his property within this artificial, dead end basin. Because of objections by the Department to several aspects of the proposed project, on February 27, 1990, Mr. Persico submitted a modification proposal in which he eliminated the use of pressure treated lumber for pilings, substituting concrete pilings; incorporated boat lifts in each slip; reduced the number of slips from 75 to 65; committed himself to installing a sewage pump-out facility at the site; committed to creating an inter-tidal littoral shelf planted with mangroves; agreed to face the existing vertical bulkhead seawall in the basin with rip-rap; and incorporated a commitment to include, as a part of his rental contract, long term agreements prohibiting vessel maintenance and liveaboards on boats at the site, and insuring the perpetual use of boat lifts and pump out facilities provided. He now proposes to market the marina as a condominium ownership operation. The basin in which the Persico project is proposed is 136 feet across at the entrance, (the narrowest point), and 326 feet across at the widest point. The length of the basin is more than 900 feet. The docking structure to be created will have fingers extending no more than 39 feet into the water from the existing vertical seawall. It will have a 4 foot wide walkway parallel to and 10 feet from the existing seawall from which the arms will extend 25 feet into the basin. The basin which is the proposed location for the marina is at the end of the easternmost canal in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision. It is located just west of and parallel to US Route 41, and at the entrance point, joins a perimeter waterway which meanders approximately 1 mile seaward toward a lock which joins that waterway to Alligator Creek which is an Outstanding Florida Water. The waterway from the basin through the lock into Alligator Creek and thereafter to the Gulf provides the only navigable access for most vessels moored in the Burnt Store canals and which would be moored in the proposed marina between Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. The lock which joints the Burnt Store canals to Alligator Creek consists of two hydraulically operated swinging gates which are operated by a boater entering or exiting the canal system. This lock was constructed as a part of a 1973 agreement between Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., a developer, and the state to prevent the construction and runoff polluted waters of the canal from freely mingling with the Outstanding Florida Water in Alligator Creek. The lock is now maintained in an open position from November 15 to May 15 because boaters complained of the inconvenience of having to operate the lock system. Available evidence indicates that a complete passage through the lock, one way when closed, takes 15 minutes. No more than 24 boats can complete a round trip in a 12 hour boating day. When the lock is open there is no appreciable delay. The residential lots which abut the Burnt Store canals are still mostly vacant. The City of Punta Gorda has assumed the responsibility of conducting a 5 year water quality monitoring program which was previously agreed to by Punt Gorda Isles, Inc. when the lock was built. The 1973 agreement was amended in 1984 to permit the operation of the lock in a closed position for an entire year if water quality monitoring should indicate a degradation of water quality in either Alligator Creek of the Burnt Store Isles canals. This has not been necessary. The Petitioners fear that pollution generated by the addition of 65 additional boats moored at and operating from the proposed marina will cause the Department to implement that clause and order the lock to operate from a closed position year round. This does not mean that the lock would not be opened for boats, but that it would be closed when not being used. Petitioners contend that the increased usage would create an intolerable traffic jam at the lock which would, for the most part, make their use of the waterway to the Gulf intolerable. Mr. Persico is a former road and bridge contractor. Though he has never owned a marina, at one time he rehabilitated one in the Chicago area. He has owned the property in question here for four years and now plans to develop a condominium ownership marina. When he decided to do so, he hired Mr. James M. Stilwell, an environmental consultant, to prepare and submit to the Department the application for the required dredge and fill permit. Initial discussions between Mr. Stilwell and the Department dealt with many environmental issues. Mr. Stilwell pointed out that the water in the canal might already be stale and avenues were explored to mitigate that problem. They did not discuss the type of docks to be installed or the potential for destruction of mangrove stands along the seawall, but even though the original plan called for the docks to be placed against the seawall, it was to be done in such a way as not to disturb the mangroves. The modified plan removing the docks to a point 10 feet off from the wall will obviate any damage to the mangroves. Admittedly, the original submittal prepared by Mr. Stilwell contained factors which were considered unacceptable to the Department. These included construction of the finger piers with pressure treated wood. To eliminate possible pollution from leaching, the pressure treated wood was replaced with a floating dock using concrete pilings. Liveaboards, and the potential contamination from that activity, have been prohibited. The provision and required use of a sewage pump-out facility should prevent any escape of polluting sewage into the waters of the basin. The use of power hoists at each slip should prevent pollution from bottom paint leaching, and boat maintenance at the marina is to be prohibited. Fueling of the vessels will not be permitted at the site thereby obviating the potential of polluting fuel spills. The construction of a 10 foot wide littoral shelf, planted with mangroves, between the dock and the sea wall will provide increased water filtration and improve water quality. It would also help the development of the fish and wildlife population and would reduce the flushing time. Air released into the water from the use of the boat lifts should add oxygen and contribute to improved water quality. At the present time, the ambient water quality in the basin, as it pertains to dissolved oxygen, is probably below standards in the lower depths of the basin, and of the outside channels as well, due to poor light penetration. The channel depth is anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. The oxygen level at the bottom is undoubtedly depleted. Mangroves are currently located along 300 feet of the 1,300 foot seawall. Mr. Stilwell's proposal, and that approved by the Department, does not call for removal of the mangroves, but they would be built around or possibly trimmed. Mr. Stilwell is of the opinion that provision for trimming of the mangroves is inherent in the granting of the permit though such permission was not specifically sought. There is no evidence to contradict this thesis. Water quality issues were raised subsequent to the filing of the original application, and the facility as now planned is designed to minimize impacts on the environment as best as can be done. Water quality would be improved, or at worst not adversely affected, by the prohibitions against liveaboards and fueling, the provision of boat lifts and a pump station, and the prohibition against other structures beyond the dock and slips. Flushing of the water is important considering the fact that the dissolved oxygen content in the water is already low. However, Mr. Stilwell is satisfied, and it would so appear, that water quality would be improved by the implementation of the proposals as included in the conditions to the permit. Mr. Stilwell, admittedly, did no dissolved oxygen tests because they were not considered as a part of the permit application. If the Department requests them, they are done, but they were not requested in this case. It is clear that the original application did not address all the environmental concerns that Petitioners feel are pertinent. Nonetheless, those items already discussed were treated, as were turbidity control during construction. As to others of concern to Petitioners, many are included in the state standards and need not be specifically addressed in the application. The Department considered the application in light of the state standards, and by the use of the conditions appended to the Intent to Issue, provided for the water quality and other environmental standards to be sufficiently addressed and met. In his February 22, 1990 letter to the Department, Mr. Stilwell directly addressed the public interest concerns including the mangroves and the construction of the littoral shelf. The Department was satisfied that the public interest criteria were met, and considered the plans to be environmentally sound. They appear to be so. Petitioners have raised some question as to the effect of the 39 foot long dock fingers interfering with navigation within the basin. Mr. Stilwell does not feel that the facility would create this problem, even at the narrowest point, and it is so found. The width of the canal there is 136 feet. The portion of the slip designed to accommodate vessels is no more than 25 feet long, and presumably, vessels of a length much greater than that would not visit the basin. Even subtracting 39 feet from the 136 feet narrow point, 97 feet of turning space remains, and this is almost four times the length of the normal vessel anticipated in the basin. Mr. Stilwell did not address the subject of the lock as it relates to navigation, but primarily as it relates to the impact on water quality and the environment. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that keeping the lock open on a year round basis would not trigger a change to the ongoing program under the agreement between the state and Punta Gorda Isles and result in the lock being closed year round. Mr. Shultz, the environmental specialist with the Department, reviewed the application here initially for file completeness, and when all required information was in, made a site visit. He evaluated the application and the attachments for permitability. For Class III waters, the project must meet water quality standards outlined in the Department's rules. Only one of the water quality criteria, that of dissolved oxygen, was shown to be not met. Since the water was already below that standard, the test to be applied then is whether the project will create some improvement." In Mr. Shultz' opinion, planting the mangroves, as proposed by the applicant, does this, as does the use of the lifts. The existing mangroves will not be impacted by the project as it is proposed, and the use of rip-rap, as proposed, will provide additional surface area for organisms which will improve the water quality. When first reviewed, the Department had some concern about on-water storage of boats. These concerns were treated by the use of hoists to hold the boats out of the water when not in use, and as a result, pollutants will not be introduced by bottom paint leaching and, presumably, bilge pumping. Standard conditions included in all Department Intents to Issue, require the project to comply with applicable state water quality standards or to give assurances that such general standards for surface waters and Class III waters will be met. In this case, Mr. Shultz is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that water quality standards will be maintained, and there was no evidence presented by the Petitioners to contradict this. Once water quality standards are shown to be protected, then the project is balanced against the public interest criteria outlined in the statute. Here, the requirement is for a showing that the project is not contra to the public interest. It does not, because of its nature, require a positive showing that the project is in the public interest. In his opinion this project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, (it will have no environmental effect on other property). It will not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife in their habitats, (the planting of mangroves will provide a net improvement to species habitat in the area). The project will not adversely affect navigation, flow of water, or erosion, (the width and length of the dock system appear to pose no threat to navigation in the basin and there would appear to be no obstruction or potential therefor as a result of this project; the project is within a no-wake zone; and the size of vessels is limited by the slip size). The permit will not adversely affect marine productivity, (there is currently very little productivity in the area now since waters below 0 depth of 6 feet are already low in oxygen, and the project would, at least minimally, improve this condition). The project is permanent and would not adversely affect historical or archeological resources in the area, (there are no objects or known resources in the area, but a standard condition in the permit requires immediate notification if known resources or objects are found). The project would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed in the area since the area is currently a real estate development which is far from completely built. Based on his consideration of these criteria, Mr. Shultz concludes that the project is not contrary to the public interest and this appears to be a valid conclusion. There appears to be no evidence of sufficient weight, presented by the Petitioners, either through direct evidence or through cross examination of the applicant and Department witnesses that would tend to diminish the credibility of Mr. Shultz' analysis. If there are subsequent violations, the Department has enforcement action available. There is, consistent with the multiple use zoning category applied to the area across the basin from the marina, the potential for up to an additional 100 docks to be constructed in the basin beyond those treated here. Nonetheless, the Department does not consider 165 boats to be a problem either in the basin or at the lock. This is not necessarily a supportable conclusion, however. Those 100 additional docks do not currently exist and their potential should not be considered in determining whether to approve the permit under consideration here. In opposition to the applicant, Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth both indicated that the addition of 65 more boats would seriously overtax the operation of the lock and make it difficult, if not hazardous, to operate boats in that area between the Burnt Store Isles subdivision and Alligator Creek. Both individuals agree, and it is so found, that in general, motor boats pollute to some degree the waters on which that are operated as a result of oil leaks from engine operation, leakage of bilge oil, escape of sewage, and leaching of copper paint and other solvents. In addition, manatee have been seen in the area, and the increase of boating operations could present some hazard to the manatee population. There is, however, no indication that a manatee population is permanently in residence there or is even there frequently. It is also accepted that boat wake has an adverse effect on sea walls, and all of these factors should have been and, in fact were, considered in the analysis of the permitability of the project. The concerns of Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth were echoed by Mr. Gunderson who, over 30 years operating boats, has seen what he considers to be a definite lack of concern for the environment by many boaters who pump bilges directly into the water, throw debris overboard, and use detergents to wash their boats at marinas. He is of the opinion that renters of slips are generally less concerned about water quality than those who live on the water, and take a more cavalier approach to water quality standards. These sentiments are also held by Mr. Young who, over the years, has owned marinas in Connecticut and has observed the approach of nonowning slip users to the water at their disposal. His concerns could be met by the strict enforcement of standards at the marina. Mr. Powell, a nurseryman who owns the lot across the basin from the site of the proposed marina, fishes from his lot and has observed the an increase of pollution in the canal. He routinely sees floating dead fish, palm leaves, cocoanuts, bottles, slicks and other debris, and though he owns a multifamily lot, would have a difficult time putting in many slips since his lot, at the entrance to the basin at the narrow point, would be across from the slips proposed by applicant and their proximity would, he feels, hinder his ability to build out into the basin as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing Permit No. 081679445, to W. B. Persico as modified and outlined in the Intent to Issue dated March 16, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. Accepted but applicable only when the locks are closed. Accepted. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. Accepted as valid when the lock is operated from a closed position. However, the evidence indicates that currently the lock is left open from November 15 to May 15 of each year and this does not cause delay. Accepted if the lock is operated from a closed position. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. FOR THE APPLICANT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: Accepted. and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. Lynch Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc. P.O. Box 956 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The CLDD was established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, on August 4, 1967. Its purpose was to "reclaim" or render the land within its boundaries usable for agricultural purposes. The land comprising the CLDD consists of approximately 3,500 acres in Lee County, mostly planted in citrus trees. Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, a "Plan of Reclamation" was prepared by consulting engineers for the CLDD's Board of Supervisors in August, 1967. That plan contains provisions for reclaiming lands within the CLDD's boundaries and for managing and controlling surface water within CLDD. The method of water control outlined in the 1967 reclamation plan included a dike and ditch system around the boundaries of CLDD with a series of interior canals to carry excess water away from the citrus trees. The land in the north part of he CLDD is higher than the south and water generally, naturally flows from north to south. The interior canals were designed to carry water in accordance with existing contours of the land and eventually discharge excess surface water to the rim ditches on the north and east sides of Spoil Area "M," which is south of the CLDD and which was then owned by the C&SFFCD, the predecessor agency to SFWMD. The system of drainage delineated in that 1967 plan, inaugurated pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, was put into effect substantially as described therein. CLDD's 1967 plan was altered somewhat because of an agreement entered into on September 30, 1971, between the CLDD and neighboring landowner Kenneth Daniels. Pursuant to that agreement, the two parties agreed to extend the dike on the west side of the CLDD property and construct a ditch from a point 50 feet north of the northwest corner of the Petitioner Mellor's property, which new ditch was to run southwest across the Daniels' property and connect with Spanish Creek. That ditch or canal would thus connect the western rim ditch of the SFWMD's Spoil Area "M" with Spanish Creek and have the result that surface waters could be discharged from CLDD lands through the western rim ditch of Spoil Area "M" thence through the "Daniels' Ditch" finally discharging into the lower reaches of Spanish Creek. (see Exhibits 1 and 11) Because the western side or western rim canal of the SFWMD's Spoil Area "M" had not been used under the original plan of reclamation approved by the C&SFFCD, CLDD sought permission from C&SFFCD to use this western rim canal for the purpose stated pursuant to the agreement with Daniels. Thus, CLDD's proposed use of the rim canal of Spoil Area "M" would be confined to the western, northern and eastern perimeter canals and not the southern boundary canal. All affected landowners, Kenneth Daniels as well a Jake and Lilly Lee, agreed to those proposed installations and uses. The resulting agreement between CLDD and C&SFFCD was entered into on October 12, 1972, and describes the flood control District land to be used by CLDD as a 100 foot wide strip running along the west, north and east sides of Spoil Area "M," also know as "Aspic." This 100 foot wide strip of land running thusly is co-extensive with the rim ditch of Spoil Area "M." The CLDD was mandated by this agreement to install 72- inch pipes in the rim ditch at the southwest corner of the spoil area, just north of the Mellor property, giving a point of discharge from the western rim ditch into the Daniels' Ditch with similar pipes connecting that Daniels' Ditch with Spanish Creek, such that the canal between these two points could carry water from the west rim ditch to Spanish Creek. The easement incorporated in this agreement was to last for five years with an option for a five-year renewal, which option was exercised. At the end of this 10-year period, SFWMD, successor to C&SFFCD, notified CLDD that because its statutory authority had since changed, the easement could not be renewed and that CLDD would have to seek the subject permit so as to be authorized to use works and lands of the District. The requirements to be met by an applicant for a right-of-way permit such as this one are set out in Rule 40E-6.301, Florida Administrative Code, and SFWMD's permitting information manual, Vol. V, Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District, July, 1981, which is incorporated by reference in that rule. In that connection, the permit at issue, if granted, would not cause an interference with the "works" of the District, that is dikes, ditches, flood control structures arid drainage structures because it would merely renew the pre-existing authorized use. The permit will not be inconsistent with an comprehensive water use plan developed by the District. Further, the permit applicant owns or leases the land adjacent to the portion of the "works of the District" involved herein that is the east, north and west rim ditches of Spoil Area "M," the Daniels' Ditch and the pipes at either end of it coupled with the water control structures at the southeast corner and southwest corners of Spoil Area "M," which control water entering the south rim ditch. CLDD has a surface water management permit, issued in August, 1980, which is a prerequisite to the granting of the subject right-of-way permit. It remains in full force and effect. That surface water management permit authorizes "operation of a water management system serving 3,642 acres of agricultural lands by a network of canals and control structures, with a perimeter dike and canal discharging into Cypress Creek." The "surface permit" authorized the system of drainage and discharge in existence at the time of its issuance, May 8, 1980. The system of drainage, at the day of the hearing, consisted of the same basic water flow and discharge pattern that existed for approximately 10 years, and this permit would allow that to be continued, thus, there will not be any additional effect on environmentally sensitive lands occasioned by an issuance of the subject right-of-way permit. The surface water management permit, by its terms, refers initially to the operation of a water management system" . . . discharging into Cypress Creek." The reference to "Cypress Creek" was an administrative error. The express language on the face of the permit authorization incorporates by reference the application, including all plans and specifications attached thereto, as addressed by the staff report, and those materials, including the staff report, are a part of the permit. The complete permit, including all those documents incorporated by reference, makes it clear that the authorization of the surface water management permit was that the system of drainage in existence at the time of permit issuance (1980) was that which was being approved, and that included discharge to Spanish Creek and not Cypress Creek. Discharge of water to Cypress Creek as an alternative was never recommended or authorized by that surface water management permit. This is clearly the intent expressed in the permit in view of the language contained in a special condition of that surface water management permit imposed by the SFWMD as a condition for issuance which stated as follows: Within 45 days of the issuance of this permit the permittee shall submit for staff approval a proposal and schedule for the elimination of the adverse impacts being created by the operation of the permittee's water management system, which can be legally and physically accomplished by the permittee. Adverse impacts are considered herein to be reduced flows to Spanish Creek and increased flows to Cypress Creek. Thus, it is obvious that the authorization of the surface water management permit was designed to provide for discharge into Spanish Creek and to enhance the flows to Spanish Creek pursuant to a required proposal which the permittee submitted to SFWMD. Thus, the right-of-way permit applied for herein is consistent with the valid surface water management permit held by the permit applicant in this proceeding. Petitioners William H. and Patricia H. Mellor are co-owners of parcels of property lying some distance south of Spoil Area "4" in the vicinity of the Caloosahatchee River. This property does not abut the spoil area at any point. Spanish Creek does cross their property several thousand feet south of the south boundary of the spoil area. In the past, particularly in 1982, water flowing from the south rim ditch of the spoil area through a break in the dike of that south rim ditch, has flowed through a ditch known as Dry Creek in a generally southerly direction under S.R. 78 and has washed out an access road constructed by William Mellor which leads from Highway 78 to his property. He had this washout repaired at his own expense in 1982. The washout was caused by water from CLDD flowing into the south rim canal of Spoil Area "M," that is, the ditch that traverses (and defines) the southerly boundary of the spoil area. Mr. Mellor admitted, however, that SFWMD had at least partially plugged the opening in the south rim ditch which had allowed flow down the Dry Creek ditch and wash out his road. If closed water control structures are maintained at the southwest and southeast corners of the spoil area ditches, then no water could flow into the south rim canal and no such injury could again be caused. Petitioner's Jim English and Patricia Mellor are co-owners of a 45- acre parcel of land located in the southwest corner of Spoil Area "M." The five acres forming the extreme southwest corner of the spoil area do not belong to these Petitioners, but are owned by one Lynwood Brown, who is not a party to this proceeding. The English/Mellor property forms a part of the spoil area, but does not adjoin or constitute any part of the spoil area which is sought to be used by CLDD through the proposed right-of-way use permit (as clarified by CLDD's stipulation). The south rim ditch, either part of, or adjoined by their property, has been used for water storage in the past (they maintain illegally) 1/ Mr. Tom Pancoast has observed Spanish Creek frequently over a nine- year period starting in approximately 1973. He has often used those waters during that period for fishing. During the early years of his use and observation of Spanish Creek, the water flowed out of Spanish Creek into the Caloosahatchee River. Beginning in about 1976, the water appeared to be flowing in the opposite direction, from the river into Spanish Creek. Contemporaneous with this hydrologic change, the creek has become increasingly characterized by siltation and hyacinth growth. Mr. William Mellor owns property along the course of Spanish Creek. He has used the stream for recreational purposes, picnicking where the stream traverses his property. In recent years there has occurred a marked increase in the growth or profusion of aquatic plants of unidentified types in the creek, reduced clarity and reduced flows or volumes of water in the creek. Witness English has made a similar observation. Witness James English has a substantial degree of training by formal education and experience in water management and drainage practices and methods, particularly as they relate to citrus grove development and management in southwest Florida. Mr. English has observed Spanish Creek regularly for most of his life, including the region of its headwaters in the "Cow Prairie Cypress," a remnant wetland cypress strand lying within the CLDD immediately north of Soil Area "M." The chief adverse impact of the CLDD water management system is reduced flow to Spanish Creek, especially its upper reaches since the advent of the "Daniels' Ditch" as a drainage route and discharge point into lower Spanish Creek. However, the only special condition on the issuance of the surface water management permit approving CLDD's extant water management system was the requirement that CLDD should submit a plan for eliminating that adverse effect, which it did (as Petitioner English admits). Beyond the submission of such a plan, no concrete action designed to restore historic flows to Spanish Creek has yet begun, however. The restoration of historic flows, adequate in volume and quality, to the entire creek system would require discharging water from CLDD's system to the Cow Prairie Cypress area at the headwaters of the creek rather than substantially further downstream at the present Daniels' Ditch site. The Petitioners' complaints (aside from the issue of adequacy of flows in Spanish Creek), although meritorious, are, because of stipulations asserted by CLDD during the course of this proceeding, now rendered moot. CLDD stipulated that it only seeks a permit to use the west, north and eastern spoil area ditches. It does not seek and stipulated that it will not use, at any time, the south rim ditch and will maintain water control structures so to block water from entering that ditch. This will alleviate the problem of potential storage of water on Petitioners English and Patricia Mellor's property and the erosion problem on Petitioners William and Patricia Mellor's property south of the spoil area. It was thus established that the issuance of the right-of-way permit will not cause the injuries these Petitioners have suffered in the past because of use of the south rim ditch for water drainage and storage.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the South Florida Water Management District grant the County Line Drainage District's application for a permit for utilization of works and lands of the District. Subject to the following special condition: Issuance of this right-of-way permit does not relieve the Respondent CLDD from the responsibility of complying with special condition number 1 of the surface water management permit number 36-00184-S. Respondent CLDD shall, within 30 days of date of permitting, submit a design to the satisfaction of the SFWMD staff which will prevent the ability of CLDD to discharge to the southern rim ditch, described above. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the City of Tarpon Springs (“City”) is entitled to a industrial wastewater facility permit for its proposed discharge of demineralization concentrate into the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Henry Ross is a resident of Tarpon Springs. In his petition for hearing, he alleges that he is a recreational fisherman and a "consumer of fish taken from the area" where the proposed wastewater discharge would occur. He presented no evidence at the final hearing to prove these allegations. Neither the City or the Department stipulated to facts that would establish Ross's standing. The City of Tarpon Springs is a municipality in Pinellas County and the applicant for the industrial wastewater permit that is challenged by Ross. The Department is the agency charged by law with the duty, and granted the power, to regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State. The Proposed Permit - General Due to the cost of obtaining potable water from Pinellas County Utilities, the City decided to look for another source of drinking water. In February 2004, an alternative water supply plan was developed by the City’s Office of Public Services which analyzed potable water supply options. It determined that the withdrawal and treatment of brackish groundwater represented the best option for the City. The proposed permit authorizes the City to discharge industrial wastewater into waters of the State. The wastewater is demineralization concentrate, which is produced when RO technology is used to remove salts from brackish water to convert it to potable water. The wastewater would be produced in conjunction with the operation of a not-yet-constructed WTP that would supply public drinking water to the residents of the City. The City must also obtain a consumptive use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District for the proposed withdrawal of groundwater. Whether the Town is entitled to a consumptive use permit is not at issue in this proceeding. The industrial wastewater permit would authorize a maximum daily discharge of 2.79 million gallons per day ("mgd") of RO concentrate. The initial operation of the WTP, however, is expected to discharge 1.05 mgd. The RO concentrate would be transported via a force main from the WTP in the City to an outfall in Pasco County. The outfall would discharge the wastewater into a canal which is already being used for the discharge of cooling water from Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s Anclote Power Generation Facility. The outfall would be 50 feet north of the point in the canal where Progress Energy is required to demonstrate compliance with its own permitting requirements, so as not to interfere with Progress Energy's ability to demonstrate compliance. There is a floating barrier in the channel north of the proposed point of discharge, and a fence along the side of the canal, to prevent swimmers, boaters, and persons on foot from getting near the Progress Energy power plant. The floating barrier and fence would also prevent swimmers, boaters, or pedestrians from reaching the proposed discharge outfall and the area of the canal where the discharge will initially mix. After being discharged into the canal, the wastewater would become diluted and flow northward, out of the canal and into the open waters of the Gulf. The prevailing currents in area would most often force the wastewater south toward Pinellas County and the mouth of the Anclote River. To determine the characteristics of the wastewater, the City's consultants collected water from the three proposed well fields for the new WTP and ran the water through a small, pilot-scale RO unit to generate an RO concentrate that is representative of the proposed RO discharge. It was determined that eight constituents of the wastewater would likely be present in concentrations that would exceed applicable state water quality standards: aluminum, copper, iron, gross alpha (a radioactivity measurement), total radium, selenium, nickel, and zinc. The Mixing Zones The Department may authorize mixing zones in which a wastewater discharge is allowed to mix with the receiving waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.244. Within the mixing zone, certain minimum water quality criteria must be met. At the outer boundary of the mixing zone, the applicable state water quality standards must be met. In this case, the water quality standards for Class III marine waters are applicable. The City's consultants analyzed the wastewater, receiving waters, and other factors and used an analytical model to simulate a number of mixing scenarios. In cooperation with Department staff, a separate mixing zone was established for each of the eight constituents that are not expected to meet water quality standards at the outfall. The largest mixing zone, for copper, is 1,483.9 square meters. The smallest mixing zone, for nickel, is 0.7 square meters. The mixing zones are conservatively large to assure sufficient mixing. Under most conditions, the mixing is expected to occur in a smaller area. Toxicity Analysis Among the minimum criteria that must be met within a mixing zone is the requirement to avoid conditions that are acutely toxic. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-302.500(1)(a). A wastewater discharge is tested for potential acute toxicity by exposing test organisms to the undiluted discharge and determining whether more than 50 percent of the organisms die within a specified time period. The test organisms, mysid shrimp and silverside minnow, are sensitive species. Therefore, when a discharge is not acutely toxic to these organisms, it can be reasonably presumed that the discharge would not harm the native organisms in the receiving waters. The acute toxicity test for the proposed RO concentrate indicated zero toxicity. The Department requested that the City also analyze the potential chronic toxicity of the proposed discharge. A wastewater discharge shows chronic toxicity if exposure to the discharge adversely affects the growth and weight of the test organisms. The tests performed on the representative discharge showed that the proposed discharge of RO concentrate would not create chronic toxicity in the mixing zones. Petitioner’s expert witness, Ann Ney, did not review the toxicity analyses or other water quality data that were submitted to the Department by the City. However, she expressed a general concern about a salty discharge that could create stratification in the canal with higher salinity at the bottom of the canal that might be hypoxic (little or no dissolved oxygen). The more persuasive evidence shows that salinity stratification, or a hypoxic condition, is unlikely to occur. The proposed permit requires the City to conduct quarterly chronic toxicity tests. The permit also requires the City to periodically test the water and sediments for any unexpected cumulative effects of the discharge. Evaluation of Disposal Options Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-620.625(6) requires that an applicant for a permit to discharge demineralization concentrate must investigate disposal options potentially available in the project area. The City evaluated blending the discharge concentrate with the City's re-use water irrigation program or with the City’s domestic wastewater discharge into the Anclote River. The RO concentrate was too salty for irrigation use and there was an inadequate volume of domestic wastewater available throughout the year. In addition, the Anclote River is an Outstanding Florida Water and, therefore, is afforded the highest water quality protection under Department rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(2). The City also looked at underground injection but that was economically unreasonable and there was concern about upward migration of the discharge. It was economically unreasonable to discharge the concentrate farther out into the Gulf. Anti-degradation Analysis For a proposed new discharge, a permit applicant must demonstrate that the use of another discharge location, land application, or recycling that would avoid the degradation of water quality is not economically and technologically reasonable. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(1)(d). As discussed above, the City investigated other disposal options, but they were not economically or technologically reasonable. An applicant for a permit authorizing a new discharge must demonstrate that any degradation is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.300(17). In determining whether a proposed discharge is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest, the Department is required by Rule 62-4.242(1)(b) to consider the following factors: Whether the proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare (taking into account the policies set forth in Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and, if applicable, Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C.); and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge; and Whether the proposed discharge is consistent with any applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan that has been adopted by a Water Management District and approved by the Department. The proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare because it would provide drinking water for the public. In addition, the treatment and use of brackish groundwater converts otherwise unusable water into a valuable resource. The use of brackish water avoids the use of water in the surficial aquifer that is used by natural systems, such as wetlands. The Florida Legislature has found that the demineralization of brackish water is in the public interest, as expressed in Section 403.0882, Florida Statutes (2010): The legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to conserve and protect water resources, provide adequate supplies and provide for natural systems, and promote brackish water demineralization as an alternative to withdrawals of freshwater groundwater and surface water by removing institutional barriers to demineralization and, through research, including demonstration projects, to advance water and water by-product treatment technology, sound waste by-product disposal methods, and regional solutions to water resources issues. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife. Because the discharge is not toxic to sensitive test organisms provides reasonable assurance that the native fish and other aquatic life would not be adversely affected by the discharge. The only identified threatened or endangered species that frequents the canal waters is the endangered Florida Manatee. Manatees use the canal because of its relatively warm waters. Manatees come to the surface to breathe and they drink fresh water. There is no reason to expect that a manatee moving through the mixing zones would be adversely affected by the RO concentrate. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which has primary responsibility for the protection of endangered and threatened species, did not object to the proposed permit. Manatees and many other aquatic species use seagrasses as food or habitat. There are no seagrasses in the area of the canal into which the RO concentrate would be discharged, but there are dense seagrass beds nearby. The proposed discharge would have no effect on the seagrasses in the area. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Because the proposed discharge is non-toxic and would meet Class III water quality standards before reaching the closest areas where humans have access to the canal and Gulf waters, there is no reason to believe that the proposed discharge would be harmful to humans. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect recreational activities, such as swimming, boating, or fishing. Petitioner presented the testimony of two fishermen about fishing resources and water flow in the area, but no evidence was presented to show how the proposed discharge would reduce marine productivity. Petitioner contends that the proposed discharge would adversely affect the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve. However, the aquatic preserve is two miles away. The proposed discharge would probably be undetectable at that distance. It would have no effect on the waters or other resources of the aquatic preserve. With regard to the requirement that the proposed discharge be consistent with an adopted and approved Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for the area, there is no such plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order determining that Petitioner lacks standing, and approving the issuance of the industrial wastewater facility permit to the City. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 16th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas J. Trask, Esquire Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, LLP 595 Main Street Dunedin, Florida 34698 Henry Ross 1020 South Florida Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
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 Respondent's water use permit should be revoked for nonuse of the permit for a period of two years or more.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The District is a state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing water use permits under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40B- 2 for the geographic area under its statutory jurisdiction. Alachua County is within that geographic jurisdiction. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices at 700 Northwest Cheeota Avenue, High Springs, in northern Alachua County. It owns approximately 700 acres in High Springs (west of Interstate Highway 75) on which it operates a church retreat and summer camping and recreational facility known as Camp Kulaqua. The property surrounds, and is contiguous to, Hornsby Spring, a first-order magnitude spring (having a flow rate of 100 CFS or greater) which, under normal conditions, discharges into the nearby Santa Fe River. Hornsby Spring is one of 296 documented springs within the District's jurisdiction. After receiving an overture from a representative of a private water bottling company, on September 28, 1999, Respondent filed an application for a General Water Use Permit in Township 7 South, Range 17 East, Section 26, in High Springs. In its application, Respondent represented that it desired a daily allocation of 2,000,000 gallons; that it intended to install two 12-inch wells, each having a capacity of 1,400 gallons per minute, just east of, and upgradient from, Hornsby Spring; and that all water withdrawals would be used in conjunction with a privately-owned commercial spring water bottling facility to be located on its property. The application also represented that the facility would employ 36 persons and operate 168 hours per week. The application was reviewed by a former District hydrogeologist, William H. Kirk. During the review process, and in response to Mr. Kirk's request for more information, Respondent provided a comparison of the requested allocation with the overall flow of Hornsby Spring. This was because Mr. Kirk was concerned that the requested allocation was "a bit high," and he wanted to ensure that the issuance of the permit would not cause harm to, or adversely affect, the water resources. Under a professional guideline that Mr. Kirk used, if the applicant could show that the cumulative amount being withdrawn was to be less than ten percent of what the available data showed to be the mean spring flow, the District would consider it to be "an acceptable impact." Notwithstanding Mr. Kirk's use of this guideline, the District points out that there is no District rule or policy sanctioning the ten percent rule, and at hearing it denied that this standard is used by the District in assessing water use applications. Further, the Permit itself does not refer to a relationship between spring flow and the size of the allocation. Even so, this analysis was considered by Mr. Kirk in determining whether Respondent had given reasonable assurance that the spring would not be impacted. In its response to the request for additional information, Respondent reduced its requested allocation to 750,000 gallons per day and indicated that if a bottling plant were to be constructed on its property, approximately 700,000 gallons of the total allocation would be consumed in "bulk transfer and bottling," with the remainder for camp use. More specifically, Respondent indicated that it would allocate 490,000 gallons per day for bulk transport, 210,000 gallons per day for spring bottling water, and 50,000 gallons per day for incidental uses at its property. By reducing the allocation from 2,000,000 gallons per day to 750,000 gallons per day, Respondent's requested average daily allocation represented only 0.4 percent of the average daily spring flow as measured over the last 28 years. The reduced allocation satisfied Mr. Kirk's concern that Respondent demonstrate a reasonable demand and a reasonable need for that allocation, and he recommended approval of the application.2 On February 25, 2000, the District approved the application and issued Water Use Permit No. 2-99-00130 (Permit).3 The Permit authorizes an average daily withdrawal of 0.7500 million gallons per day (750,000 gallons per day) or a maximum daily withdrawal and use of 0.7500 million gallons per day with an annual allocation not to exceed 273.750 million gallons (273,750,000 gallons) per calendar year in conjunction with the operation of a privately-owned water bottling plant. The Permit expires on February 25, 2020. After the Permit was issued, under the regulatory process in place, Respondent was required first to obtain a permit for a temporary test well which would be used to collect information concerning the site of the proposed activity, and to then file an application for permits authorizing the construction and operation of the two 12-inch production wells. The Permit contains a number of conditions, two of which require a brief comment. First, Condition No. 2 provides that "[t]his permit is classified as unconfined [F]loridan aquifer for privately owned bottled water plant." This means that all water withdrawals must be made from the unconfined Floridan aquifer, as opposed to the spring head of Hornsby Spring. (Respondent's proposed siting of its two production wells 660 yards east of the spring is consistent with this provision.) Second, Condition No. 4 provides that "[t]he permittee shall submit daily pumpage records on a monthly basis to the [District]." Pumpage reports are filed by permittees so that the District can determine whether the permit is actually being used, and if so, to ensure that the amount of water being withdrawn under the permit does not exceed the authorized allocation. As it turned out, pumpage reports were never filed by Respondent. (However, the record shows that the District has never strictly enforced this requirement for any permittee.) In late 2002, the District staff undertook a review of the nine water bottling permit holders within its jurisdiction, including Respondent. That category of permit holders was selected for review because of the small number of permits and the limited resources of the District staff. (In all, the District has probably issued several thousand permits to other types of users.) On February 4, 2003, the District served its Complaint under the authority of Sections 120.60 and 373.243, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-2.341. As grounds for revoking the permit, the District alleged that there was "non-use of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of two (2) years or more." Although Respondent contends that it should have been given an opportunity to correct the nonuse allegation before the Complaint was issued, nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act or District rules requires that this be done. Until the issuance of the Complaint against Respondent in early 2003, and similar Complaints against eight other permit holders at the same time, the District had never invoked this statutory provision.4 There is no evidence to support Respondent's contention that the Complaints were issued for "purely political reasons." On March 4, 2003, Respondent requested a formal hearing challenging the District's proposed action. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the issues have been broadly described as follows: whether Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes, is to be strictly or liberally construed; whether Respondent's nonuse is based upon extreme hardship for reasons beyond its control; and whether the District is equitably estopped from permit revocation. (According to the District, even if the Permit is revoked, such revocation is without prejudice to Respondent reapplying for, and receiving, another permit so long as it meets all applicable requirements.) Equitable Estoppel Respondent first contends that the District is estopped from revoking its Permit on the theory that, under the circumstances here, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. For that doctrine to apply, however, Respondent must show that the District made a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later asserted position; that Respondent relied upon that representation; and that the District then changed its position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent. See, e.g., Salz v. Dep't of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 432 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The District issued Respondent's Permit on the condition that Respondent operate in conformity with all pertinent statutes and regulations. This finding is consistent with language on the face of the Permit, which states that the Permit "may be permanently or temporarily revoked, in whole or in part, for the violation of the conditions of the permit or for the violation of any provision of the Water Resources Act and regulations thereunder." Respondent relied on the District's representation that it could use the Permit so long as it complied with all statutes and regulations. In reliance on that representation, in addition to staff time, after its Permit was issued, Respondent expended "somewhere around" $70,000.00 to $74,000.00 for conducting water quality testing; sending cave divers underground to ascertain the correct location of the portion of the aquifer on which to place its production wells; drilling a 6-inch test well in August 2000; obtaining the City of High Springs' approval in March 2000 for industrial zoning on a 10-acre tract of land on which to site a "water plant"; and engaging the services of a professional who assisted Respondent in "seeking out businesses and getting the right qualifications of the spring water to make sure that it was a marketable water." The District has never asserted anything different from its original position: that if Petitioner complied with all statutes and rules, it could continue to lawfully make water withdrawals under its Permit. The issuance of the Complaint did not represent a change in the District's position. Because a change in position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent did not occur, the necessary elements to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel are not present. Was the Permit Used? A preliminary review by District staff indicated that Respondent had never filed the daily pumpage reports on a monthly basis and had never requested permits authorizing the construction of the two 12-inch production wells. These preliminary observations were confirmed at final hearing, along with the fact that Respondent has never entered into an agreement with a water bottling company (although draft agreements were once prepared); that Respondent has never constructed a water bottling facility; and that no operations were ever conducted under the Permit. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that Respondent did not use its Permit for the two-year period after it was issued, as alleged in the Complaint. Respondent's contention that the evidence fails to support this finding belies the evidence of record. In an effort to show that it actually used the Permit, Respondent points out that in August 2000 it applied for, and received a permit to construct, an unmetered 6-inch test well in association with its General Water Use Permit. (Respondent sometimes erroneously refers to the test well as a test production well. This is incorrect as the well is a test well, and not a production well.) After the test well was installed, at some point Respondent says it began withdrawing approximately 50,000 gallons per day of water from that well for incidental uses associated with the operation of Camp Kulaqua.5 These withdrawals were made on the assumption that the test well permit fell under the broad umbrella of the General Water Use Permit. (Respondent also has a permitted 6- inch diameter well and an unregulated 4-inch well on its premises, both of which are used for water supply needs at Camp Kulaqua.) It is true, as Respondent asserts, that its Permit authorized incidental withdrawals of up to 50,000 gallons per day for unspecified uses at Camp Kulaqua. However, these withdrawals are authorized under the General Water Use Permit and not the test well permit. The two permits are separate and distinct. On the one hand, a test well is intended to be temporary in nature and used only for the purpose of test well development and collecting information regarding the height of the aquifer and water quality at the site of the proposed activity. Conversely, withdrawals for any other purpose, even incidental, must be made from the production wells, which are only authorized by the General Water Use Permit. Before a test well can be used for normal consumptive purposes, the permit holder must seek a modification of the permit to include it as a part of its general water use permit. Here, no such modification was sought by Respondent, and no authorization was given by the District. Therefore, Respondent's incidental water uses associated with its test well cannot be counted as "uses" for the purpose of complying with the use requirement in Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes. In light of the District's credible assertion to the contrary, Respondent's contention that it is common practice to lawfully withdraw water from a test well for incidental consumptive purposes has been rejected. (It is noted, however, that the District has not charged Respondent with violating the terms of its test well permit.) Extreme Hardship Under Section 373.243, Florida Statutes (which was enacted in 1972), the District is authorized to revoke a water use permit "for nonuse of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of 2 years." However, if the user "can prove that his or her nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control," revocation of the permit is not warranted. The phrase "extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control" is not defined by statute or rule. In the context of this case, however, the District considers an extreme hardship to occur under two scenarios. First, if the aquifer level has dropped so low due to drought conditions that a permit holder cannot access the water through its well, its nonuse is excusable. Alternatively, if an emergency order has been issued by the District directing permit holders (including Respondent) to stop pumping due to certain conditions, an extreme hardship has occurred. (Presumably, a severe water shortage would precipitate such an order.) In this case, the District issued a water shortage advisory, but not an emergency order, due to a "severe drought," indicating that users could still pump water, but were encouraged to voluntarily reduce their usage. This advisory remained in effect from the summer of 1998 until the spring of 2003, when a severe drought ended. However, no emergency order was ever issued by the District. Respondent contends that its nonuse was due to an extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control. More specifically, it argues that a severe drought occurred in Alachua County during the years 1998-2003, and that under these conditions, federal regulations prevented it from withdrawing water for bottling purposes, which was the primary purpose for securing a permit. Further, even if it had withdrawn water during these drought conditions, such withdrawals could have adversely impacted Hornsby Spring and constituted a violation of a District requirement that water resources not be adversely impacted. Because an investment of several hundred thousand dollars was required to drill and install the two production wells, Respondent contends it was not financially prudent to make that type of investment and begin operations until normal spring conditions returned. These contentions are discussed in greater detail below. Around September 7, 1999, a representative of a water bottling company first approached Respondent about the possibility of the two jointly operating a water bottling plant and/or transporting water in bulk from Respondent's property. Prompted by this interest, less than three weeks later Respondent filed its application for a water use permit (although at that time it did not mention on the application that off-site bulk transfers would occur), and a permit was eventually issued in February 2000. Later, and through a professional firm it employed, Respondent had discussions with representatives of several bottling companies, including Great Springs Waters of America (Great Springs) and Perrier Group of America. Apparently, these more serious discussions with a potential suitor did not take place until either late 2000 or the spring of 2001. Periodic measurements taken by District staff at Hornsby Spring reflected natural drought conditions from April 2000 to April 2003. As noted earlier, this was the product of a "severe drought" which took place between the summer of 1998 and the spring of 2003; the drought was one of a magnitude that occurs only once in every 50 to 100 years. During the years 2000 through 2002, the spring had zero flow or was barely flowing much of the time.6 Had Respondent pumped water during 20 out of the 24 months after the Permit was issued, it could have potentially violated the requirement that it not harm Hornsby Spring. This fact is acknowleged by a District witness who agreed that if the "spring is not flowing, . . . [pumping] would have an [adverse] impact." Even as late as October 2003, the spring had tannic discoloration caused by the lengthy drought conditions. The parties agree, however, that there is no water shortage in the District at the present time. To illustrate the difficulty that it experienced in obtaining a joint venture partner for water bottling purposes, Respondent established that in the spring of 2001, a Great Springs representative visited the site when the spring was "barely flowing." For obvious reasons, Respondent could not "bring a party there who would want to enter into a business [agreement]" under those conditions. These same conditions remained in effect during most of the two year period. The District points out, however, that even though the spring was low or barely flowing, so long as the aquifer itself was not too low, Respondent could still withdraw water from the aquifer, since Condition 2 of the Permit authorizes withdrawals from the aquifer, and not the spring. The reason for this apparent anomaly is that when a spring ceases to flow, the aquifer has simply dropped below the level of the spring vent; even under these circumstances, however, there may still be a substantial quantity of water in the aquifer available for pumping. Assuming that it could still lawfully pump water when the spring was dry or barely flowing without causing adverse impacts to the spring, Respondent was still subject to federal regulations which govern the bottling of spring water. See Title 21, Part 165, C.F.R. For spring water to be marketed as bottled "spring water," 21 C.F.R. § 165.119(2)(vi) requires that the water "be collected only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring." This means that the bore hole had to be physically connected with the cave system feeding Hornsby Spring or produce water of the same quality as that discharging from the spring. The regulation goes on to provide that "[i]f spring water is collected with the use of an external force [such as by a pump], water must continue to flow naturally to the surface of the earth through the spring's natural orifice." While this regulation obviously does not prohibit Respondent from pumping water, since that authority lies within the District's exclusive jurisdiction, it does provide that in order to use spring water for bottling purposes, the water must continue to flow naturally from the aquifer to the spring. If it does not, the water cannot be used for this purpose. Because Hornsby Spring had zero flow for parts of 2001 and 2002, and severely reduced flows during most of the other time during the two-year period ending February 2002, Respondent was effectively prevented by the foregoing regulation from using the water for bottling purposes. Therefore, Respondent's nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control -- a severe drought lasting throughout the two-year period after the Permit was issued, and federal regulations which prevented it from using water for the purpose for which the Permit was issued. Thus, the nonuse is excusable.
Findings Of Fact The property has been annexed into the Acme Improvement District (Intervenor) by Special Act of the Florida Legislature. Petitioner purchased 487.7 acres of this tract from private owners in 1954. Subsequently, Petitioner purchased 653.59 acres from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida on or about March 4, 1960. The balance of the land constituting the property is a 224 acre hiatus tract owned by Marshall Brown with whom Petitioner has an agricultural use agreement. A parcel of Petitioner's land within the property includes a commercial lease to Malrite Corporation for siting a television antenna, consisting of 111 acres in the southeast corner of the property. This area is within the permit application. The tract is otherwise undeveloped and is currently submerged or semi- submerged during much of the year. Petitioner's development plan envisions drainage of this tract and use of the property for cultivation. The property is bounded on the north by Acme Improvement District, on the east by a subdivision called Homeland, on the west by Water Conservation Area #1, also known as the Loxahatchee Refuge, and on the south by undeveloped lands. The boundaries of the Loxahatchee Refuge actually encroach by approximately 300 feet into the property. The property development plan, which is the basis of this application, was prepared by the engineering firm Gee and Jensen. This plan calls for the creation of a 240 acre reservoir of a proposed 3 foot maximum depth. This reservoir would hold the internal stormwater runoff for subsequent agricultural irrigation. Perimeter dikes are to be constructed to prevent surface water runoff from outside areas entering the project and perimeter ditches are to be developed for the deliverance of stormwater runoff from the internal agricultural system to proposed pump stations located at the southwest corner of the development area. On the northwest corner of the proposed reservoir, the existing Acme Improvement District pump station No. 2 would be increased in capacity by 27,000 gallons per minute. Under Acme's charter and its statutory annexation of the property, the proposed reservoir and water management works would become a unit of development controlled by Acme. Under Petitioner's agreement with the hiatus tract owner, Acme would be the exclusive manager and operator of the proposed system, and the property would become an integral part of Acme's water management system. The Acme Water Improvement District is not solely an agricultural support enterprise but serves the various uses which may evolve within its boundaries. The area is currently zoned for limited residential development as well as agricultural. The television antenna facility located on the property is an example of a non-agricultural use. Petitioner's surface water management system is proposed to discharge into the Acme system, which in turn discharges offsite. Discharge into the Acme system is of a limited nature, but the system is designed to discharge for successive days under wet conditions. The design discharge is not limited to an extreme rainfall event but would probably occur during the traditional hydrologic cycle of south Florida. Under conditions which reflect actual rainfall over the past 20 years, the proposed surface water management system would have discharged 19 out of 20 years into the Water Conservation Area (Loxahatchee Refuge). In some years this discharge would have continued for approximately three months. The unrebutted testimony of expert witnesses called by Respondent established that the entire 1,393 acre tract referred to herein as "the property" is a freshwater wetland habitat. The western half is emergent marsh land, while the eastern half is forested with woody species. The wetlands on the property form a valuable wildlife habitat. Environmentally, they are in excellent condition. This area has not been adversely affected by drainage, fire or exotic species. These marshes also have good habitat diversity. The populations of aquatic invertebrates and forage fishes that are produced in these Everglades marshes are utilized by the many species of wading birds that feed in these wetlands. The proposed project will adversely affect wildlife species, including a variety of wading birds which will likely be unable to relocate. While this is undesirable from an environmental standpoint, conversion of this land would provide benefits from an agricultural standpoint, and would create additional water recreational facilities.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying the application. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1983.
