Findings Of Fact The Problem: A Seawall In Danger of Collapse Applicant is an incorporated condominium association which owns the Gulf front property of Bonita Beach Club, a residential condominium located on the northern portion of a barrier island known as Little Hickory Island. The island is south of Fort Myers and part of Lee County. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney; R-1.) Applicant's Gulf front property is protected by a 600-foot seawall; that seawall, exposed to wave and storm attack, is now in the beginning stages of failure. Applicant seeks a permit to place a revetment along the entire seaward face of the seawall "to help strengthen the seawall and stop the erosion at [its] . . . base . . . ." (R-1.) (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney, Sharma; R-1) The seawall shows evidence of profile lowering; sand has been scoured from its face, exposing 6 to 7 feet of wall above the sand line. Its face shows abrasions from buffeting by sand and sediment; its joints have begun to separate, allowing sand from behind the wall to leak through the cracks. Under high tide conditions, the seaward portions of the seawall are under water; under other tidal conditions there is no more than 6 to 7 feet of wetsand area between the base of the wall and the waterline. (Testimony of Truitt.) The present condition of the seawall is mainly due to two processes: the long-term shoreline migration of Little Hickory Island, and (2) profile steepening, scouring, and accelerated sand loss in the immediate vicinity of Applicant's seawall. There is a south-to-north longshore or littoral sand transport in the area off Little Hickory Island, a northward flowing "river of sand." This phenomenon has caused sand loss to beaches in front of and south of Applicant's property and sand accretion to the undeveloped northern beaches north of the island. The localized profile steepening and accelerating sand loss at Applicant's seawall is caused by waves hitting the vertical seawall, then rebounding-- causing removal of sand at the foot of the wall and steepening of the offshore profile. This localized sand loss and erosion has been aggravated by the original placement and alignment of Applicant's seawall. 7/ The seawall protrudes further seaward than adjacent seawalls or bulkheads. 8/ This protrusion, together with the wall's irregular shape, disrupts the otherwise straight shoreline and acts as a headland: an abutment which concentrates wave energy and longshore currents and causes accelerated erosion and sand loss in the immediate area. The effects of the northerly longshore drift and the localized sand loss have been dramatic: between 1974 and 1980 the sandy beach in front of Applicant's seawall has receded landward 50-60 feet. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney, Sharma; P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, 1-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7.) In addition, the shoreline of Little Hickory Island is gradually and inexorably eroding. This is due to long-term backyard erosion, a natural )process by which barrier islands gradually migrate landward. (Testimony of Sharma, Tackney, Truitt.) II. Applicant's Solution: Place a Rock Revetment in Front of the Seawall In October, 1980, Applicant applied for a DNR permit to place a rock revetment along the existing seawall. By January, 1981, DNR's Bureau of Beaches and Shores determined that all of the documentation required by its rules 9/ had been submitted and the application was complete. Subsequently, the Applicant agreed to several design changes suggested by DNR and agreed to a permit condition requiring it to dedicate a travel easement to assure continued public access to beaches north of its property. As so modified, DNR proposes to issue the requested permit. (Testimony of Truitt; R-1, -R-11, R-12.) The proposed permit, with conditions, is contained in Respondent's Exhibits R-1, R-11, and R-12. 10/ The proposed shore protection structure is described as a rock toe-scour revetment to be placed along the seaward face of Applicant's existing seawall. The revetment extends 7 feet in the shore-normal direction and approximately 600 linear feet in the shore-parallel direction. It will consist of lime-rock boulders of various sizes stacked on top of each other. The top layer of rocks will be the largest, 75 percent of them weighing greater than 500 pounds. The rock revetment will rest on a layer of Filter-X mat to help stabilize the underlying sand. The revetment's elevation will range from 0.0 feet (NGVD) 11/ at the toe of the seawall to -0.5 feet (NGVD) at 7 feet seaward. Its slope will be no greater than 3 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit. The mean high waterline will intercept the revetment-seawall interface at a maximum elevation of approximately +1.5 feet (NGVD). (R-1, R-11, R-12.) III. The Effects of the Proposed Revetment The proposed revetment will fulfill its primary purpose: it will protect the Applicant's seawall by reducing the amount of sand that is scoured and removed from its face and it will add significant structural stability to the wall. It will provide these benefits because its sloping surface will intercept and dissipate waves which would otherwise hit and rebound off the vertical seawall. Because wave deflection energy will be lessened, steepening of the offshore profile will be reduced and accelerating longshore currents will be slowed. It will also protect the seawall against storm, but not hurricane, damage. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney.) However, the proposed rock revetment will not stop the migration of sands from the southern to the northern reaches of Little Hickory Island; the northward flowing longshore currents will continue. Neither will the revetment protect Applicant's property against long-term background erosion; the entire island will continue its steady easterly retreat to the mainland. Scouring at the ends of the existing seawall will be reduced, but not eliminated. Eddy currents at the ends of the revetment will cause some localized scouring to take place. Wave and water action will take its toll on the revetment; it will require periodic repair and rebuilding in the years ahead. (Testimony of Sharma, Tackney, Truitt.) Although the testimony is conflicting, the weight of the evidence is that the proposed revetment will not adversely affect adjacent beaches and the offshore profile. 12/ While localized scouring will not be eliminated, the evidence indicates that the rates will be lessened--that the existing erosion problems will be mitigated, not aggravated. With reduced localized scouring, longshore currents will not accelerate, and the offshore profile will not deepen at increasing rates. The expert witnesses agreed that, at least for the short term, the proposed revetment will protect the existing seawall against at least three-year storm conditions. (Testimony of Tackney, Truitt, Sharma.) While the revetment will not accelerate or contribute to the erosion of adjacent lands, it will impair the public's use of the beaches in front of and to the north of the Applicant's seawall. Because the revetment will protrude 6 to 7 feet seaward from the seawall--intercepting the mean high waterline--the public will be precluded from traversing the beaches in front of Applicant's property. That narrow corridor of wet-sand beach now permits dry passage only during low tide. With placement of the rock revetment on that passageway, it will become impassable to most people who use the Little Hickory Island beaches. 13/ (Testimony of Sharma, Member of the Public.) Generally, rip-rap revetments, such as that proposed by Applicant, do not eliminate erosion or cause sand to accrete. Rather, they tend to increase erosion and escarping beyond that which would occur if a shoreline is left in its natural, unaltered condition. (Testimony of Sharma, Truitt, Tackney.) IV. DNR Coastal Construction Permits: Practice and Policy There may be alternatives to the proposed revetment which will not endanger the Applicant's upland structure or block the public's access to beaches in front of and north of Applicant's property. 14/ DNR does not require the consideration of shore protection alternatives when it processes coastal construction permit applications. Neither, in its view, is public access to adjacent beaches a matter of regulatory concern in this licensing process. 15/ At the staff level of DNR, the sole consideration is engineering design of the proposed structure: At the level of staff of the Bureau of Beaches and Shores there are no other con- siderations other than simply engineering judgments on the appropriateness or other considerations of the design. I have no idea what the governor and cabinet or exec- utive director may consider. (Tr. 170.) This view of the agency's duty helps explain why DNR has never denied an application to construct a shore protection revetment, although it has suggested design modifications, as was done in this case. (Testimony of Truitt.) V. Interests of Objectors to Proposed Revetment Project DNR requires applicants for coastal construction permits to provide a map showing the location of the proposed erosion control structure and the shoreline for at least 1,000 feet on each side. Applicants are also required to provide a list of the names and addresses from the latest county tax role of all riparian property owners within 1,000 feet. It is DNR practice, in accordance with its rule, Section 165-24.07, Florida Administrative Code, to mail notice of a proposed project to those riparian property owners. By rule, such interested persons or objectors to a proposed project have the right to appear and make their positions known to the Governor and Cabinet at the time the agency decision is made. Id. (Testimony of Truitt; R-1.) Petitioners, Casa Bonita I and II Condominium Associations, Inc., and Seascape Condominium I and II Associations, Inc., assert that the proposed revetment will adversely affect their rights as riparian owners, that it will cause erosion of their shorelines; they also allege that it will prejudice their recreational use of sovereignty lands--the public's beaches lying below the line of mean high water. Relative to the site of the proposed revetment, Casa Bonita I Condominium Association, Inc., lies 1,350 to 1,400 feet south; Casa Bonita II Condominium Association, Inc., 670 feet south; Seascape Condominium I and II Associations, Inc., lie immediately adjacent to the site. (Testimony of Tackney; R-1, R-14.) No evidence was presented to establish that intervenor Lee County is a riparian property owner within 1,000 feet of the proposed revetment. The Lee County Board of County Commissioners were, however, notified of the instant application and given an opportunity to object. The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact; to the extent such findings are incorporated in this Recommended order, they are adopted; otherwise they are rejected as irrelevant to the issues presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Bonita Beach Club Condominium Association, Inc., for a coastal construction permit be GRANTED, subject to the agreed-upon conditions described above, including the dedication of a travel easement allowing the public to circumvent the 600-foot rock revetment. 21/ DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500050 requested water from one (1) withdrawal point. Said withdrawal is for public supply. This application is for an existing use. The center of withdrawals will be located at Latitude 28 degrees 07' 49" North, Longitude 82 degrees 26' 22" West in Hillsborough County, Florida. Total continuous acreage is 59.4 acres. The use is for not more than 29,000,000 gallons of water per year and not more than 91,650 gallons of water during any single day to be drawn from the Floridian Aquifer. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune in the issues of May 28 and June 4, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The application and map of the premises, the legal description, the receipt of certified nail, the copy of the Notice and the affidavit of publication were received without objection and marked Exhibit 1. Copy of the franchise application to the Health Department regarding the laboratory analysis on the public water supply was introduced into evidence and received without objection and marked Exhibit 2. The parties agreed to file a joint stipulation as follows: The agreement that a flow meter be installed. That monthly readings be submitted to the District staff at the Headquarters office. That applicant supply evidence that the individual lots will be restricted from having private wells. A copy of the joint stipulation was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 14, 1975. Said stipulation encompassed the following: That applicant, Groveland Developments, Inc. install a flow meter of the propeller type on the well; take monthly readings, and send them into the District monthly. Said stipulation did not encompass the third (3rd) condition agreed to at the hearing, to-wit: That evidence would be supplied that individual lots to be developed in conjunction with this application be restricted from having private wells thereon. Witnesses were duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Grant Application No. 7500050 for a consumptive-us permit for the quantities of water applied for conditioned upon the items enumerated in the joint stipulation and further conditioned upon the submission by the applicant evidence showing that the individual lots will be restricted from having private wells thereon. August 22, 1975 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: T. Ahern, Esquire Staff Attorney southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Mr. George Szell, Hydrologist Permit Section Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Groveland Developments, Inc. Post Office Box 578 Lutz, Florida 33549 Mr. Frank Ripa Housel & Martinez, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors Post Office Box 9215 Tampa, Florida 33674 Attachment to the Recommended Order STATE OF FLORIDA
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00450 is for a consumptive use permit from 10 wells located in Hillsborough County, to be used for public water supply for the City of Temple Terrace. The permit seeks to withdraw 2.028 million gallons a day average annual withdrawal and 4.564 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal. The sought for withdrawal may affect other wells by drawdown of an average of 1" in a surrounding well. Such a drawdown will not seriously and adversely affect the surrounding wells. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of a type acceptable to the district on all withdrawal points covered by the permit. That the applicant shall record the pumpage on a weekly basis and shall submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly beginning January 15, 1977. All individual connections supplied by withdrawals permitted will be metered. Records of meter readings will be made available to the district upon request. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980.
The Issue Whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District proved that Alan R. Behrens signed a pleading, motion, or other paper in this proceeding for an “improper purpose,” and, if so, whether sanctions should be imposed pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Alan R. Behrens has resided and owned property at 4740 Southwest Armadillo Trail, Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida, since 1985. There is a two-inch free-flowing artesian well used for domestic purposes on this property. Mr. Behrens’ well is approximately 150 feet deep and draws water from the Intermediate aquifer. The well currently has no pumping mechanism, and Mr. Behrens relies on an unaided artesian flow to produce water, which at times is inadequate. In prior administrative cases and the case involving Has-Ben Groves, Mr. Behrens is concerned that the withdrawal of water in the amounts requested by others from areas near his property will impair his ability to draw adequate amounts of water from his well. Mr. Behrens stated that his purpose in challenging the Has-Ben Groves WUP “is to receive assurances that any proposed use is not going to adversely impact [his] well. That’s [his] general biggest, main goal.” He feels that he did not receive assurances from the District; therefore, his only option was to request a hearing. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder as Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code. The District has the statutory duty to review and approve or deny applications requesting consumptive water use permits. The Has-Ben Groves WUP Application On January 27, 2003, the District issued a notice of final agency action for approval of Water Use General Permit No. 20012410.000 issued to Has-Ben Groves. The WUP authorized annual average groundwater withdrawals of 31,100 gallons per day (gpd) to be used for irrigation of Has-Ben Groves’ 40-acre citrus grove. (Peak monthly withdrawals of 254,300 gpd and withdrawals for crop protection at 1,015,200 gpd were authorized.) Tomlinson previously owned the Has-Ben Groves’ 40 acres. The District previously permitted the well on the Has-Ben Groves 40 acres when Tomlinson owned the property. The Tomlinson well was previously permitted for 77,000 gpd on an annual basis, but the permit expired. Thus, Has-Ben Groves applied for a new WUP. The Has-Ben Groves permitted well site is located in Hardee County and is approximately 16 miles from Mr. Behrens’ artesian well in DeSoto County, and is expected to draw approximately 94 percent of its water from the Upper Floridan aquifer. Did Mr. Behrens sign a pleading, motion,or other paper for an improper purpose? On January 20, 2003, Mr. Behrens, by letter, asked the District to be advised of any agency action regarding five WUP applications, including the Has-Ben Groves application. In this letter, Mr. Behrens also requested, what he characterized as “public information,” “what the predicted drawdown to the intermediate and Floridan aquifers are.” He inquired further: “Please make sure the hydrologist includes this information. I have previously asked for this basic information; please do not force me to take legal action against SWFMD per the Sunshine law & other public information laws.” (Emphasis in original.) Mr. Behrens was copied with the District’s “Final Agency Action Transmittal Letter” sent to Has-Ben Groves on January 27, 2003. According to Mr. Behrens, “legal action” meant the filing of a petition requesting an administrative hearing. He felt that it was his only option to receive information and assurances. In particular, Mr. Behrens wanted the District to create and provide him with drawdown contours and modeling even if the District believed it was unnecessary. See Endnote 1. By letter dated January 29, 2003, the District, by Pamela A. Gifford, CLA, Office of General Counsel, responded to Mr. Behrens’ request for ‘predicted drawdown’ information and stated in part: “First, please be advised, the District does not prepare ‘predicted drawdown’ for all water use permits. Second, to ask for ‘predicted drawdown’ for permits, you are making a pubic records request. The District does not accept anticipatory public record requests. In other words, when the District receives a public records request, it will search for existing records responsive to the request as of the date of the public records request. . . . Third, the District will not create a record to respond to a public records request. If a ‘predicted drawdown’ exists, it will be provided to you, if it does not, it will not be created to answer your request.”1 By letter dated January 31, 2003, Mr. Behrens responded to the District’s January 29, 2003, letter referred to above and expressed his understanding that he could “expect the results of drawdown modeling to be included in Notices of Agency Action that [he] receive from the District.” Mr. Behrens requested the name of the District office and the hydrologist who reviewed the Has-Ben Groves WUP application; the location of the file; a statement that it was “apparently a new withdrawal”; a request to identify the amount of water coming from the Intermediate and Floridan aquifers; a query as to why the withdrawal would “be cased to only a depth of 120 feet; won’t this mean that much of the water will be drawn from the intermediate?” Mr. Behrens also requested “a copy of the drawdown modeling results (map).” Mr. Behrens advised that it was “very important that new groundwater withdrawals do not lower [his] well level further, because [he is] relying completely on artesian free-flowing pressure; every inch of level reduction creates further hardship for [him].” (During his deposition, Mr. Behrens felt that the District could produce the information on a “voluntary” basis in order to give him “assurances up front.”) By letter dated February 10, 2003, the District, by Ms. Gifford, responded to Mr. Behrens’ January 31, 2003, letter and advised him “that drawdown modeling will not be included in Notices of Agency Action that you receive from the District. The only way that you will receive the drawdown modeling is if the District has records related to the modeling at the time you make a specific public records request for same. For example, if you make a public records request today for drawdown modeling, the District will only provide records to you that are in our files as of today. You would have to make a subsequent public records request to get any records that were received or created by the District after today’s date.” (Emphasis in original.) Ms. Gifford also advised Mr. Behrens that he was being provided with “copies of documents that are responsive to [his] public records request dated January 31, 2003.” Mr. Behrens was provided with a copy of the Has-Ben Groves General Water Use Permit Application which indicated, in part, that the application was “new” as opposed to a “renewal” or “modification”; the location of the well site; that Has-Ben Groves intended to irrigate 40 acres for citrus; and that the construction date of the well was in “1960.” The word “existing” is written on the line describing, in part, the casing diameter, depth, and pump capacity. See Finding of Fact The name “Phillippi” is handwritten on page one of the application. (Michael Phillippi is a professional geologist and employed with the District for over nine years. He had a pre- application telephone conversation with the applicant for the Has-Ben Groves WUP.) A “Water Use Permit Evaluation Worksheet” was also enclosed which included, among other information, the names “Lucille” and “Deborah” and the initials of two persons. The record does not indicate that Mr. Behrens followed up with the District regarding the Has-Ben Groves application after receiving the District’s February 10, 2003, letter and enclosures. On February 19, 2003, Mr. Behrens filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging the District’s preliminary decision to approve the WUP. The District determined that the Petition was timely filed, but not in substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.201(2), governing the initiation of administrative proceedings. The District issued an Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice on February 27, 2003. On March 12, 2003, Mr. Behrens filed an Amended Petition for Formal Hearing. Mr. Behrens alleged that the withdrawal to be authorized by the WUP “would use huge quantities of water from the intermediate aquifer, even though water from the Floridan aquifer is completely suitable for citrus irrigation”; is “very close” to Mr. Behrens’ “property and well”; and the “cone of depression in the Intermediate aquifer that would be caused by the new use will cause a reduction in Petitioner’s water level and pressure and impair the ability of his well to produce water.” (Mr. Behrens also alleged that “[t]he proposed well would be eight inches in diameter, 920 feet deep, and cased to only 120 feet.” See Finding of Fact 15.) Mr. Behrens also alleged that the District refused to provide certain information, such as predicted drawdown to area wells. He also raised numerous disputed issues of material fact. On May 23, 2003, the District deposed Mr. Behrens. During his deposition, Mr. Behrens was asked to identify all facts and documents or sources of information he relied on in making the allegations in the Amended Petition. Mr. Behrens testified that the challenged water use withdrawal “seems like a very excessive amount”; “is [c]lose enough to have an impact on [his] well”; “is going to have a drawdown, is going to have an impact on the aquifer” and he has “a well on the aquifer”; that “these wells are going to have a drawdown and they’re going to draw down [his] well”; and that his position, that the Has-Ben Groves well will have a drawdown impact on his well, is based upon “[s]cience and facts and common sense” and “the evidence is self-evident.” Mr. Behrens has “done no studies.” Rather, he relies on information, such as the documents he introduced into evidence and his knowledge about the area and the District, to support the allegations in the Petition and Amended Petition. See, e.g., Findings of Fact 22-23. He does not have enough money to hire experts. He relies on the District’s hydrologists for the information he requests and for assurances. Yet, Mr. Behrens did not contact any District hydrologist to discuss his concerns before he filed the Petition and Amended Petition. See also Findings of Fact 26-28. On June 17, 2003, Mr. Behrens responded to the District’s Interrogatories, which requested Mr. Behrens to identify all facts he relied upon in making his assertions, including all documents prepared or reviewed in connection with such assertions. Mr. Behrens stated that no specific documents were prepared or reviewed in connection with his assertions made in paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition, and that the assertions in paragraph 6 were “pure truth – there’s no need to go searching to prove the obvious!” (Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition alleged: “The proposed new groundwater withdrawal would use huge quantities of water from the Intermediate aquifer, even though water from the Floridan aquifer is completely suitable for citrus irrigation.”) During the final hearing, Mr. Behrens claimed that prior to filing his Petition, he relied on his experience and the information he maintains regarding the District’s identification of water use problems, and the District’s March 2000 Horse Creek Draft Resource Evaluation Report, the “Water Resources in Jeopardy” report published during the early 1990’s, and the 1992 Recommended Order in Alan R. Behrens, et al. v. Consolidated Minerals, Inc. and Southwest Florida Water Management District, et al., Case Nos. 92-0953-92-0957, 1993 WL 944120 (DOAH April 20, 1993; SWFWMD Nov. 30, 1994), in which Hearing Officer Daniel M. Kilbride found that Mr. Behrens was substantially affected by the District’s then proposed renewal and modification of an existing WUP held by Consolidated Minerals. 1993 WL 944120, at *4. (In interrogatory responses, Mr. Behrens also identified a 1986 potentiometric surface map of the Intermediate aquifer, among other maps he might identify.) These documents do not provide information relevant to whether the challenged Has-Ben Groves water withdrawal meets the conditions for issuance of a WUP or would lead a reasonable person to allege that the challenged Has-Ben Groves water use and well would have an adverse impact on Mr. Behrens’ use of his well. Before filing his initial Petition and during the interval before he filed his Amended Petition, Mr. Behrens did not contact or speak to District staff who reviewed the Has-Ben Groves WUP application or District staff in the Bartow Service Office (the District service office responsible for permitting matters in Hardee County) to obtain information concerning the Has-Ben Groves permit application or to discuss his concerns regarding whether the proposed water use to be authorized by the WUP would adversely affect his well. But see Finding of Fact 13, which indicates that on January 31, 2003, Mr. Behrens posed several questions to the District, prior to filing his Petition, which apparently were left unanswered. It appears Mr. Behrens did not pursue this inquiry until he served the District with Interrogatories on May 29, 2003. Mr. Behrens did not review the District’s “work file” after filing his Petition. In his Proposed Final Order (PFO), Mr. Behrens provided a detailed chronology and analysis of the factors he considered that caused him to file prior challenges to District action and his challenge to the District’s intent to approve the Has-Ben Groves WUP. He has mistrusted the District over time and has had little faith that the District understands his “unique circumstance” and will protect his well from adverse impacts resulting from the issuance of WUPs. See, e.g., (T. 95- 96, 98, 100.) He notes in his PFO that it was not until the Has-Ben Groves case that he “started to have trust in the District staff’s reliance on regional well monitoring data (as its sole source of cumulative impact analysis).” According to Mr. Behrens, the District provided him with information during discovery from which he derived reasonable assurances. He also felt that based on his experience, he “did not contact the permit reviewers in this matter because, from experience, he knew he could not trust them to provide the necessary assurances with a few comments over the telephone.” Yet, because of his financial inability to hire experts, Mr. Behrens relies on the expertise of the District’s hydrologists for assurance that his well will not be adversely impacted. See, e.g., (T. 112) (District Exhibit 13, pp. 41-42, 55, 58-61.) Stated otherwise, Mr. Behrens wanted the District staff to provide him with proof of reasonable assurance and he filed the Petition and Amended Petition because he felt he did not receive appropriate proof. If this final hearing went forward, his intent was to ask questions of the District’s hydrologists regarding many of the documents in his possession and to ask “District staff, under oath, about specific matters related to the protection of his well and the intermediate aquifer, in general,” presumably as he had done in the Basso and Boran cases, for example. See, e.g. (District Exhibit 13, p. 59-60.) Then, the ALJ, after hearing all of evidence, would decide whether reasonable assurance was provided. Prior to and after Mr. Behrens filed his Amended Petition, the District maintained Regional Observation and Monitoring Program (ROMP) wells that provide cumulative monitoring information concerning the Intermediate and Floridan aquifer water levels throughout the District. ROMP well data are available to the public upon request. (In response to a question posed by Mr. Behrens during the final hearing, Mr. Balser stated that ROMP well data do not give absolute assurance or reflect “[e]xactly what is happening in the geology under [Mr. Behrens] property.” Mr. Balser stated that he “would have to do testing of [his] property. But this is the best guess we can make looking at it from a regional view.”) It is more than a fair inference that Mr. Behrens was familiar with ROMP well data and their application in specific cases as a result of his participation in prior administrative cases. See pp. 4-5, supra. He did not request ROMP well data available from the District prior to filing his Petition and Amended Petition, although he asked for the quantity of groundwater which was expected to be withdrawn from the Intermediate and Floridan aquifers. See Conclusions of Law 48- 50. District WUP information and other records are available for public inspection, including the use and permitting history of the water withdrawal challenged by Mr. Behrens in this proceeding. If Mr. Behrens had inquired of the District prior to filing his Petition and Amended Petition, Mr. Behrens could have learned that the well on the Has-Ben Groves property had been in existence as early as the 1960’s for citrus irrigation, was first permitted around 1974, had previously been authorized by the District for withdrawals of as much as 77,000 gpd, was expected to draw approximately 94 percent of its water from the Upper Floridan aquifer, and there was no reasonable basis to conclude that withdrawals of 31,100 gpd from the Has-Ben Groves well would cause any adverse impact to his well, which draws water from the Intermediate aquifer. Stated otherwise, at the time he filed his Petition and Amended Petition, Mr. Behrens had no reasonable factual basis to allege that withdrawals of 31,100 gpd from the Has-Ben Groves’ well, located approximately 16 miles from his well, would have an adverse impact on his use of water from his well. (An applicant for a WUP is required to provide, in part, reasonable assurance that the water use “[w]ill not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D- 2.301(1)(i).) On June 30, 2003, Mr. Behrens filed a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” and responded, in part, to the District’s Motion for Summary Recommended Order, but not the District’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Behrens stated that he withdrew his Amended Petition because he obtained information that he did not have when he filed his Amended Petition and that addressed his concerns about impacts to his well. He claimed, in part, that being informed of the District’s plan to set minimum levels for the Intermediate aquifer had allayed his fears that he would be without an artesian free-flowing water supply. However, the challenged WUP did not address or involve the setting of minimum flow levels. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Behrens did not make a reasonable inquiry regarding the facts and applicable law. Using an objective standard, an ordinary person standing in Mr. Behrens’ shoes would not have prosecuted this claim if a reasonable inquiry had been conducted. Stated otherwise, Mr. Behrens did not have a “reasonably clear legal justification” to proceed based on his limited inquiry. Mr. Behrens signed the Petition and Amended Petition for an “improper purpose.” The District’s Request for Sanctions The District proved that its lawyers expended approximately 98.8 hours in responding to the challenge brought by Mr. Behrens and that the District incurred $426.25 in costs. An hourly rate of $125.00 per hour is a reasonable rate. The hours expended by District lawyers were reasonable. The costs incurred were reasonable. The District requests that sanctions be imposed in the amount of $12,350.00 for attorney's fees and $426.25 in costs. For the reasons more fully stated in the Conclusions of Law, based on the totality of the facts presented, the imposition of a sanction against Mr. Behrens in the amount of $500.00 (for costs and a small portion of fees) is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Application for consumptive use permit No. 75-00225 is a request for an existing use to be withdrawn from the Floridan Aquifer from two different wells. These two wells are located in the Hillsborough Basin and in Polk County. The property contiguous to the wells encompasses approximately 80.9 acres. The water is to be used for citrus processing and disposed of off site. The permit seeks, for average daily withdrawal, 2.98 million gallons per day for one well and 1.566 million gallons per day for the other well for a total average daily withdrawal of 3.864 million gallons per day. For maximum daily withdrawal the permit seeks 4.096 million gallons per day for one well and 2.792 million gallons per day for the other well for a total maximum daily withdrawal of 6.888 million gallons per day. The amount of water sought to be consumptively used by this application greatly exceeds the water crop of the subject lands owned by applicant. Mr. John C. Jennings and Mr. William Sunderland, owners of property adjacent to the Kraft property, appeared in their own behalf and stated that they felt that their wells were being hurt because of the large quantities of water pumped by Kraft. They did not attempt to offer expert testimony nor did they claim to be hydrologists. They did note that each had substantial problems with their wells running out of water.
Recommendation It does not appear that the district has had a reasonable opportunity to examine the objections and comments of Messers. Jennings and Sunderland with regard to the effect of the applied for consumptive use on their property. These objections were apparently raised for the first time at the hearing. As noted in paragraph 6, if the wells of Messers. Jennings and Sunderland are substantially affected in an adverse manner by applicant's use of such large quantities of water, such a use would not seem to be a reasonable, beneficial use as is required for permit unless further conditions were placed upon the permit. Therefore, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District staff further investigate the effect of the applied for consumptive use on the wells located on the property of John C. Jennings and William Sunderland prior to the Board taking formal action on this application. ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water Management District P. 0. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Douglas T. Moring, Esquire Kraftco Corporation Kraftco Court Glenview, Illinois 60025
The Issue The appellant contends that the Planning Commission "did not base its decision on specific standards or criteria [set forth in the zoning regulation] as required. Nor was there any competent substantial evidence presented that would support the Planning Commission's findings."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence of record submitted with this appeal, the findings of fact of the Planning Commission are rejected and the following substituted: The proposed use constitutes a marina pursuant to section 9.5-4(M-5) of the Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations, and it must, therefore, be reviewed as a major conditional use. The proposed development complies with all applicable Monroe County land development regulations. The proposed development is limited to two fueling docks, one 9' x 16'4" and the other 13' x 12'8", and one fueling pump. The proposed development does not include provisions for boat storage, boat ramps, or liveaboard docking. The proposed development is not expected to generate additional vehicular traffic nor, as a result, demand additional on-site vehicular parking due to its exclusively water-oriented nature. The proposed development does not include provisions for additional outdoor lighting. The proposed development includes provisions for a five-year water quality monitoring program which contains adequate recommendations for spill containment, including provision of a containment kit and use of absorbent carpeting on the dock surface, as well as corrective measures to be undertaken by the applicant in the event of water quality deterioration. Coordination with the United States Environmental Protection Agency is necessary to insure that the proposed water quality monitoring program follows the guidelines of this agency. The proposed development is located in the vicinity of a designated critical habitat of the American crocodile, and the presence of the West Indian manatee in the area is documented. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have offered recommendations to mitigate the secondary impacts of the proposed development on these species of endangered wildlife, including the installation of an educational display and restrictions on the provision of additional marina facilities. Additional conditions and restrictions are appropriate and may be imposed pursuant to sections 9.5-61 and 9.5-63 of the Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations. Limitations are particularly necessary to minimize the impacts of the proposed development upon neighboring residential uses and the canal, in consideration of the water-oriented nature of the use.
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of The Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate action that should be taken by the Petitioner. Petitioner contends that the Respondent participated in board of directors' meetings regarding the Golden Lakes Village condominium, without first posting notice of the meetings and without maintaining minutes of the meetings as required by the provisions of The Condominium Act. Respondent denies the allegations.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Planned Communities, Inc., is the developer of a condominium known as Golden Lakes Village, Phase B. The affairs of Golden Lakes Village are administered by a board of directors that is controlled by the developer. There are three members of the board. Two are selected by the developer, and one by unit owners within the condominium. The bylaws of the condominium provide that meetings of the board of directors shall be open to all unit owners and that notice of meetings shall be posted conspicuously at the condominium property forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. The bylaws provide that a quorum of the directors means a majority of the entire board. The bylaws require that minutes of all meetings of the board of directors be kept. The condominium association maintains a minutes book. There are minutes from nine board of directors' meetings since 1979. Four of these meetings had as their purpose consideration of proposed budgets. Four were organizational meetings to elect officers. One was a special meeting called to consider a proposal to engage the services of a management company. Minutes were not kept for any other meetings of the board of directors that were conducted from 1979 until the present, neither was there any posting to advise unit owners of these meetings in advance. There were numerous meetings of the Board of Directors of Golden Lakes Village, Phase B, other than those that were properly noticed and for which minutes were taken. During these meetings, matters affecting the condominium were discussed. Many of the meetings were conducted on a very informal basis when the unit owners' representative on the board contacted one of the developer's representatives and asked for a meeting. Among the matters discussed were repairs to facilities, additional facilities, budget, and the like. It does not appear that business was conducted in this manner so as to hide the meetings from unit owners. Rather, the purpose appears to have been to conduct operations in a simple manner and to allow the unit owners' representative on the board ready access to the developer's representatives. While the motives of the developer do not appear to have been bad ones, conducting the meetings without first posting notice and without keeping minutes violated the provisions of the condominium bylaws.
The Issue This proceeding concerns an Intent to Issue a dredge and fill permit given by the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") to Respondent, Edmund Burke ("Burke"), for construction of a retaining wall and wooden pile-supported bridge crossing a portion of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida. The ultimate issues for determination are whether Petitioner has standing to challenge the proposed DER action, and if so, whether the proposed agency action complies with the requirements of Sections 403.91 through 403.938, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edmund Burke, on January 15, 1988, filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") application number 431441608 for a permit to construct a permanent, pile supported, wooden bridge approximately 80 feet long and 10 feet wide connecting the mainland with an island in the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida. The bridge was to span a 50 foot canal or creek ("channel") in the River. One of two retaining walls was to be located on the mainland peninsula. The other retaining wall was to be located on the island (the "initial project"). Between January 15, 1988, and April 28, 1989, the initial project was modified by Respondent, Burke, to satisfy DER concerns over potential impacts, including secondary impacts, relevant to the application. The width of the bridge was reduced from 10 feet to 6 feet. The retaining wall initially planned at the point where the bridge intersects the island was eliminated. The retaining wall on the mainland side of the bridge was relocated above mean high water. Sixty feet of the proposed bridge runs from mean high water to mean high water. An additional 10 feet on each end of the bridge is located above mean high water. The project remained a permanent, pile supported, wooden bridge (the "modified project"). The Intent to Issue, dated April 28, 1989, indicated that the modifications required by DER had been made, that the modifications satisfied DER concerns relevant to the initial project, and that DER intended to issue a permit for construction of the modified project. The elimination of the retaining wall obviated any necessity for backfill on the island. The reduction in the width of the bridge virtually eliminated the secondary impacts on the surrounding habitat, resulted in less shading of the water, and precluded vehicular traffic over the bridge. The final modification that was "necessary in order for [DER] to approve this application" was the reduction in the width of the bridge from 10 feet to 6 feet. Petitioner's Exhibit 17. DER's requirement for this final modification was communicated to Mr. Cangianelli in a telephone conversation on April 6, 1989 (Petitioner's Exhibit 18), and memorialized in a letter to Respondent, Burke, on April 14, 1989 (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). The final modification was made, and the Intent to Issue was written on April 28, 1989. Petitioner's Case. Property commonly known as Harbor Estates is adjacent to the site of the modified project. A constructed harbor and contiguous park are located within the boundaries of Harbor Estates. Both are used by residents of Harbor Estates and both are proximate to the site of the modified project. The harbor entrance and site of the modified project are located on opposite sides of a peninsula approximately 40 feet wide and approximately 125 feet long. Boats operated by residents of Harbor Estates that can navigate under the modified project need only travel the length of the peninsula, a distance of approximately 125 feet through the channel, in order to reach the harbor entrance. Boats operated by residents of Harbor Estates that cannot navigate under the proposed bridge must travel around the island, a distance of approximately 1800 feet in the main body of the St. Lucie River, in order to reach the harbor entrance. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that prior to the construction of the bridge the channel was navigable by boats not capable of passing under the bridge after the bridge was completed. Petitioner, Harbor Estates Associates, Inc., submitted no evidence to show facts necessary to sustain the pleadings in the Petition concerning the inadequacy of modifications required by DER. Of Petitioner's 26 exhibits, Exhibits 1-19, 24 and 25 were relevant to the initial project but were not material to claims in the Petition concerning the inadequacy of the modifications required by DER. Petitioner's Exhibit 20 was cumulative of DER's Exhibit 6B. Petitioner's Exhibits 22 and 26, respectively, concern a 1980 bridge permit and a Proposed Comprehensive Growth Management Plan for Martin County, Florida. Petitioner offered no expert testimony in support of the pleadings in the Petition including assertions that: the modified project will have a direct adverse impact upon water quality and the welfare or property of others; the channel is navigable by deep-draft motor vessels; the modified project will result in shoaling that will have to be corrected at the expense of Harbor Estates; the modified project will result in prohibited destruction of mangroves; or that the modified project will cause any of the other specific adverse effects described in the Petition. The testimony of fact witnesses called by Petitioner was not material to Petitioner's claims that modifications required by DER were inadequate. The testimony of Bob Nicholas was relevant to allegations of prior violations but was not dispositive of any issue concerning the adequacy of modifications required by DER. The testimony of William Burr was admitted as rebuttal testimony relevant to precedents in the general area of the modified project but failed to address the adequacy of modifications required by DER. Petitioner consistently demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the applicable law, the proper scope of the formal hearing, and the distinction between argument and evidence. Petitioner repeatedly attempted to establish violations of laws not relevant to the proceeding including local laws and other environmental laws. Petitioner attempted to establish issues by arguing with witnesses during direct and cross examination, and by repeatedly making unsworn ore tenus representations of fact. There was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact in this proceeding because Petitioner failed to show facts necessary to sustain the pleadings. Petitioner presented no evidence refuting Respondent, Burke's, showing that the modifications required by DER were adequate to assure water quality and the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others. Evidence presented by Petitioner was not material to the issue of whether the modifications required by DER were adequate for the purposes of the law applicable to this proceeding. Therefore, Petitioner participated in this proceeding for a frivolous purpose, primarily to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or approval of the proposed activity. Respondents' Case. The island to be accessed by the modified project is approximately 2.5 acres in area and contains mostly wetland. The island is approximately 900 feet long. The portion of the island that is beyond DER permit jurisdiction is less than 200 feet long and less than 50 feet wide. The site of the modified project is located in Class III waters. Respondent, Burke, provided adequate assurances that portions of the modified project not extending over open water will be constructed upon property owned by him. The single retaining wall to be constructed at the southeastern terminus of the modified project will be constructed landward of DER jurisdiction. The modified project permits neither the installation of water or electrical conduits to the island nor any excavation, filling, or construction on the island. Respondent, Burke, must provide notification to DER before any such activity is begun. The bridge will accommodate no vehicular traffic larger or heavier than a golf cart. Golf cart access is necessary in order to accommodate a physical disability of Respondent, Burke. The modified project employs adequate methods to control turbidity, limit mangrove alteration on the island, and limit potential collisions with manatees. Vegetation, including mangroves, will not be removed. Incidental, selective trimming of vegetation will be allowed to create access to the island. The single retaining wall to be constructed on the mainland will be located landward of mangroves. Turbidity curtains will be used during construction to minimize short term water quality impacts. The modified project requires turbidity screens to be installed if there is any indication of sedimentation. No mechanical equipment will be located on the island during construction. No boats will be moored at the site of the modified project. The modified project will cause no significant downstream shoaling or silting. The site of the modified project is located approximately 15 feet from an existing fishing platform. No significant shoaling has been associated with that platform. The impacts associated with the modified project are similar to the impacts associated with single family docks in the area. No significant shoaling has been associated with such docks. The modified project is not a navigational hazard. The elevation is sufficient to accommodate small boats, canoes, and row boats. Reflective devices are required to alert night boat traffic of its presence. There is adequate clearance under the bridge to prevent obstruction. DER reviewed all applicable rules and criteria in considering the modified project. The modified project will have no adverse effect upon public health, safety or welfare, or the property of others. The modified project will not adversely impact the conservation of fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The modified project will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The modified project will not adversely impact fishing value or marine productivity in the area. The modified project will have no adverse impact upon recreational values in the vicinity. The modified project was reviewed in a manner that is customary for similar projects reviewed by DER. It is common practice for DER employees, as they did in this case, to rely upon opinions of other DER professionals in formulating an intent to issue. Other projects within DER jurisdiction in the general geographic area of the modified project and within the same region were considered in DER's review process. Other docks and marinas have been constructed and are proposed for construction within the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Bridges including pedestrian bridges have been and are proposed to be constructed in Martin County. DER did not require a hydrographic study because the modified project was considered a minor project. DER review took into account the intended future use of the island property and DER's past experience with Respondent, Burke. As part of its review, DER reviewed a conceptual bridge to a single family residence on the island which would not require any fill or construction of retaining walls. In addition, DER considered previous violations on the island under Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.070, 17-4.160, and 17-4.530 in connection with an earlier permit that expired before the initial project was begun. Respondent, Burke, provided reasonable assurances that he is the owner of the site of the proposed project. Respondent, Burke, signed DER's property ownership affidavit and submitted a survey. DER's Intent to Issue does not authorize any construction in any area within the jurisdiction of DER other than the modified project. The Intent to Issue constitutes compliance with state water quality standards. DER has not received any requests for a jurisdictional determination in the general geographic area of the modified project. No enforcement action has been initiated by DER or at the request of a third party against Respondent, Burke, for alleged violations of DER rules.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order on the merits issuing the requested permit and awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs in accordance with this Recommended Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of April, 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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 April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Although most of Petitioner's proposed findings were cast in the form of "fact", they were in substance argument and rejected accordingly. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Included in part in Finding 1 Findings as to ownership are rejected as beyond the jurisdiction of the undersigned. Finding as to the late filed exhibit is rejected as irrelevant. 2-4, 10-12, Rejected as either irrelevant 16, or not supported by the record. 5 and 6, 37, 40 Rejected as unsupported by 42 the record. 7, 8, 15 Rejected as irrelevant 17, 21-29 and immaterial 9, 13, 14, 18-20 Rejected as immaterial 30-33, 35 and 36 37(a), 38, 39, 41, 48 20(A) Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial except the last sentence is included in Finding 13 34 Included in Finding 12 Rejected as not supported by the record, hypothetical and immaterial. Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent, Burke, has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Respondent. Burke's, Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 15 and 16 Included in Finding 1 17, 26, 27 Included in Finding 2 18, 48 Included in Findings 15 and 16 19, 30, 31, 42 Included in Finding 13 20, 21, 44 Included in Findings 4 and 14 22, 23, 25, 32 Included in Finding 17 24 Included in Finding 16 25, 36-38 Included in Finding 17 Included in Finding 18 Included in Finding 3 Included in Finding 10 Included in Finding 19 35, 39, 43 Included in Finding 20 40, 41 Included in Finding 11 45-47 and 49 Included in Finding 16 51 and 52 Included in Findings 6-8 54 Included in Finding 5 and 8 50 and 53 Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Respondent, DER, has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 2 Included in Findings 1 and 2 3 Included in Finding 10 4 and 5 Included in Finding 16 6, 9 Included in Finding 2 7 and 8 Included in Findings 9 and 11 10 Included in Finding 13 11 Included in Finding 15 Included in Finding 17 and 14 Included in Finding 16 COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Patricia E. Comer Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Patricia V. Bartell Qualified Representative 615 S.W. St. Lucie Street Stuart, FL 34997 J. A. Jurgens Jones, Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Findings Of Fact Application No. 75-00196 is a request by the Standard Sand and Silica Company, for a consumptive water use permit. This application is for an existing use involving withdrawal from one well. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 1.6925 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 2.16 million gallons per day. The sought-for withdrawal will not exceed the water crop as defined by the district, with the withdrawal consumptively using only 35 percent of the water crop. The water will be used on site for the washing of sand. Mr. Clifton W. Golden is an adjacent landowner who testified that he was afraid of salt water intrusion and that a sink hole might develop because of the vast quantities of water taken from the aquifer by the applicant. He does not feel that the issuance of a permit would be consistent with the public interest. He presented no hydrological data showing that issuance of the permit would adversely affect his property. Mary Fausteen Thompson is a property owner adjacent to the site from which the water will be taken. She has had problems in the past with Standard Sand and Silica Company apparently discharging excess water on to her property. She thinks those problems may be occurring again, causing some of her property to be flooded. The sought-for consumptive use will not significantly induce salt water intrusion. Except as otherwise noted in the findings of fact, none of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.A.C., will be violated. Several letters of objections have been received in addition to the objectors noted above. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: That no off-site runoff be permitted by the applicant. That flowmeters be placed on the well and quarterly reports made to the district.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Application No. 75-00196 be granted with the conditions set forth in paragraph 7 above. ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Eugene W. Harris Standard Sand and Silica Co. P.O. Box 35 Davenport, Florida 33837 Mrs. Mary Fausteen Thompson Box 82-C, Evans Road Polk City, Florida Mr. Clifton W. Golden 800 Oriole Drive Virginia Beach, Florida 23451 Mr. John C. Jones Executive Director Florida Wildlife Federation 4080 North Haverhill Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
