The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether the Petitioner has the requisite experience necessary in order to qualify to take a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator certification exam.
Findings Of Fact On May 11, 1989, Petitioner, Albert Galambos, submitted an application to Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER"), to take the prerequisite examination necessary for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. On May 20, 1989, Helen Setchfield, Certification Officer for DER mailed to the Petitioner a Notice of Final Order of Denial of Petitioner's Application for Examination and Certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. The Notice of Final Order of Denial stated that Petitioner was ineligible to sit for the examination and/or was ineligible for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator because his "actual experience is in an occupation which does not qualify as actual experience as an operator of a treatment plant as defined in Section 17-16.03, Petitioner has worked at the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department ("Authority") for 17 years. His current position is Water and Sewer Mechanical Operations Supervisor, a position he has held since 1983. This position entails actual onsite operational control of the equipment and mechanical processes of the Authority's water production plants and overseeing all maintenance of equipment at the Authority's three regional water treatment plants and the smaller interim plants, developing safety procedures for the operation of equipment, training plant personnel in the mechanical operation of the equipment, establishing maintenance schedules and maintaining those records, and taking samples as necessary to determine proper equipment functioning, performing or overseeing the loading of chemicals and the connecting of chlorine cylinders, and the recharging of these systems. He assists the certified operators in remedial action if some aspect of the plant is not functioning properly, but he has no supervisory authority over the certified operators. Petitioner is held responsible by the Division Director for the smooth running of the equipment at the Authority's water treatment plants. He prepares reports, logs and records regarding the mechanical equipment and operations of the plant. Petitioner supervises and manages 36 employees who are mechanics, electricians and laborers. From 1979 to 1983, Petitioner was a plant maintenance foreman for the Authority. This position included responsibility for supervising and performing skilled mechanical tasks on a variety of mechanical equipment at the water plants. From 1976 to 1979, Petitioner was a plant mechanic at the Authority. This position was skilled work at the journeyman level in the installation, repair, and maintenance of mechanical equipment at the water plants. Between 1974 and 1976, Petitioner worked in an unclassified position doing what a diesel plant operator does at the Authority. This position involved responsibility for the operation of large diesel engines used to drive large pumps and related equipment. From 1972 and 1974, Petitioner was a semiskilled laborer with the Authority. This position involved heavy manual work requiring limited skills in various maintenance tasks. Petitioner has never served as a drinking water treatment plant operator nor been licensed as a drinking water treatment plant operator at any classification. Petitioner has not previously applied for, nor obtained any water treatment plant operator certification. Petitioner has successfully completed the required course work for Class A operator certification. Petitioner is a high school graduate and has successfully completed the required coursework for certification. These activities yield three years and four months of constructive experience towards certification. Petitioner's experience prior to 1983 did not constitute actual experience because in those positions, Petitioner did not have operational control of a drinking water treatment plant. Even if Petitioner's current position was accepted as "actual experience" (a determination which is specifically not resolved here,) the combination of Petitioner's constructive and actual experience would be less than the twelve years of experience required for certification as a Class A operator. Thus, Petitioner has failed to prove that he meets the experience requirement necessary for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. Petitioner's current position is supervisory and he has a great deal of maintenance experience gained through his various positions at the Authority. Petitioner's current position affords him the opportunity to learn about many aspects of operating a treatment plant efficiently by conducting inspections of the treatment plant processes, monitoring of the treatment plant processes, and adjusting the treatment plant processes. However, the evidence did not establish that Petitioner manages the treatment plant processes as required to constitute actual experience under the existing rules. It is unclear from the evidence presented whether Petitioner's day-to- day onsite experience at the plants constitutes the actual operational control of a water treatment plant. It would appear that Petitioner's current position does not allow him experience in managing the overall treatment process. However, further evidence and/or a better understanding of Petitioner's job responsibilities could alter this observation. In view of the disposition reached in this case, that issue need not be addressed further at this time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order denying Petitioner's application of May 10, 1989, for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of January 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 3rd day of January, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has owned and operated a water vending machine (Respondent's Machine) located at the Sunshine Key Resort on U.S. Highway 1 in Sunshine Key, Florida. On September 8, 1996, following the Department's receipt of a laboratory report, indicating that a previous sample of vended water taken from Respondent's Machine was "contaminated with coliform," Jose Padron, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Department, and Armando Escoto, a Sanitation and Safety Supervisor (for Dade and Monroe Counties) with the Department, visited the location of Respondent's Machine to collect another sample for testing. During their visit, Padron and Escoto observed the following, as their written inspection report reflects: "area around machine filthy"; "self-closing door not working"; "water dispensing area filthy"; "water spout dirty with rust & mold"; "no permit posted"; and "no required consumer information posted." Based upon these observations, they prepared a "stop use" order directing Respondent "to withhold [the machine] from . . use subject to further instructions from an authorized agent of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services." The order contained the following "Notice to Responsible Management Official": NOTICE TO RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL This STOP SALE, USE OR HOLD ORDER is EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY and is immediately appealable or enjoinable. An appeal may be instituted by filing a petition with the appropriate district court of appeal, S.120.59(3), S.120.68, Florida Statutes. The petition must be filed with the Division of Food Safety, 3125 Conner Boulevard, Room 279, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 and a copy with the appropriate court of appeal, within 30 DAYS from the date this ORDER is filed with the Division of Food Safety at the above address. The appeal must be conducted in accordance with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. An action for injunctive relief may be filed in the appropriate circuit court. WARNING: Removal of items ordered withheld from sale or use or the removal of the order and/or tags attached to such items is a violation and punishable under the law applicable. Padron and Escoto "red-tagged" Respondent's Machine (thereby rendering it inoperable) and posted on it the "stop use" order. The following day, September 9, 1996, Donald Epstein, Respondent's president, removed the "red tags" and "stop use" order from the machine. Padron returned to the location of Respondent's Machine on September 30, 1996. He noted that the "red tags" and "stop use" order that had been placed on the machine on September 8, 1996, had been removed and that the machine was "plugged in and back in business" in violation of the "stop use" order. He also observed that the machine's "water spout [was] dirty and rust[y]," the "machine [was] not cleaned and sanitized," and the "machine ha[d] no permit(s) posted." Based upon these observations, Padron prepared a second "stop use" order. He then "red-tagged" the machine again and posted on it the second "stop use" order. He also issued a Notice of Violation alleging that Respondent had violated Section 500.172, Florida Statutes, by virtue of its having "broken" the September 8, 1996, "stop use" order. Padron conducted a follow-up inspection of Respondent's Machine on October 28, 1996. He found that the machine had been "cleaned and sanitized." Accordingly, on November 11, 1996, he issued a Release Notice advising Respondent that the previously issued "stop use" orders had been vacated and that Respondent was free to put its machine back in service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation of the Act alleged in the Administrative Complaint and fining Respondent $2,000.00 for having committed said violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1997.
The Issue Whether the rules promulgated by the Department of Environmental Regulation require the Respondent to employ the services of a state certified water system operator to operate the water systems at the two business locations involved in these proceedings.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was responsible for the operation of two water systems. One water system is located on Highway 92 West, Winter Haven, Polk County. The other water system is located on State Road 37 South, Mulberry, Polk County. The restaurant and bar business operated at the Winter Haven location is known as the Rainbow Club. Customers eat food and drink beverages prepared with water from the on site water system. The system serves at least twenty- five individuals daily, at least sixty days out of the year. The convenience store business operated in Mulberry serves ice tea, juices, and coffee to customers which is prepared with water from the on site water system. The system serves at least twenty-five individuals daily, at least sixty days out of the year. During the recent past, the Respondent retained a certified operator to meet the state requirements. He was not satisfied with the operator for the following reasons: (1) He had to show the man how to chlorinate the water. (2) The operator took the required chlorine samples from water that had not been chlorinated. (3) Visits were not made to the site as scheduled. (4) The pump at one of the establishments was harmed by the certified operator. (5) The expense of four hundred dollars a month for the testing of three sites operated by the Respondent was too much money. The Respondent wants to be able to chlorinate the water and maintain the systems himself. He has professional experience regulating the chemical balance of water in swimming pools. The samples he turned into the lab himself were good. The Respondent also wants to keep the old well next to the convenience store in Mulberry. He disagrees with the Department's request that he abandon the well because he needs it for an adjoining piece of property. This well is used for lawns, not for the convenience store business. The Department is amenable to the Respondent maintaining his own systems if he is certified to do so. The next examination is scheduled for November 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Responsible Growth Management, Inc., is a not-for- profit corporation conceived and organized for the purpose of monitoring local governments within the geographic boundaries of Lee County for compliance with the requirements of the Florida Growth Management Act. Its members are residents of Lee County. Some of its members obtain their potable water from sources protected by Lee County Ordinance No. 89-30, as amended by Ordinance 90- 40 and 90-46, collectively referred to as the Wellfield Protection Ordinance (WPO). Other members obtain their potable water from sources the Petitioner contends are not protected by the WPO. The Petitioner contends that, for several reasons, the WPO is not consistent with the Lee County comprehensive plan. The Lee Plan Goal 41 of the Lee County comprehensive plan (the Lee Plan) provides in pertinent part: GOAL 41: GROUNDWATER. To protect the county's groundwater supplies from those activites having the potential for depleting or degrading those supplies. OBJECTIVE 41.1: WELLFIELD PROTECTION. By 1990 the county shall adopt a wellfield protection ordinance to provide regulations protecting the quality of water flowing into potable water wellfields. POLICY 41.1.1: The proposed wellfield protection ordinance shall be based on reliable technical data to ensure that adequate protection is provided. POLICY 41.1.2: The wellfield protection ordinance shall be amended whenever better technical data is developed and whenever additional potable wellfields are proposed. POLICY 41.1.3: The staff hydrogeologist shall review and comment on all development applications near public utility potable water wellfields, with particular attention to proposed land uses within a 10-year travel time from the well- heads. Goal 85 of the Lee Plan provides: GOAL 85: WATER QUALITY AND WASTEWATER. To ensure that water quality is maintained or improved for the protection of the environ- ment and people of Lee County. OBJECTIVE 85.1: Maintain high water quality, meeting or ex- ceeding state and federal water quality standards. POLICY 85.1.1: Sources of water pollution shall be identi- fied, controlled, and eliminated wherever feasible. POLICY 85.1.2: New development and additions to existing development shall not degrade surface and ground water quality. POLICY 85.1.3: The design, construction, and maintenance of artifical drainage systems shall provide for retention or detention areas and vegetated swale systems that minimize nutrient loading and pollution of freshwater and estuarine systems. POLICY 85.1.4: Developments which have the potential of lower- ing existing water quality below state and federal water quality standards shall provide standardized appropriate monitoring data. POLICY 85.1.5: New developments shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality standards. POLICY 85.1.6: No garbage or untreated sewage shall be dis- charged into coastal and interior surface waters. POLICY 85.1.7: The county shall initiate a wellfield protec- tion program to prevent the contamination of shallow wells by pollutant generating develop- ment including surface water runoff (see Goal 41). POLICY 85.1.8: Valid permits and inspection shall be required prior and subsequent to drilling operations for wells, elevator shafts, foundation holes, and test borings. POLICY 85.1.9: The county shall participate in a program to plug improperly constructed wells which are detrimental to ground water resources. Goal 87 of the Lee Plan provides in pertinent part: GOAL 87: WATER RESOURCES. To conserve, manage, protect, and improve the natural hydrologic system of Lee County to insure continued water resource availability. OBJECTIVE 87.1: WATER SUPPLIES. Insure water supplies of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment, based on the capacity of the natural systems. POLICY 87.1.1: Natural water system features which are essen- tial for retention, detention, purification, runoff, recharge, and maintenence of stream flows and groundwater levels shall be iden- tified, protected, and managed. POLICY 87.1.2: The county shall recognize and encourage water and wastewater management, provided that such management does not exceed the natural assimi- lative capacity of the environment or appli- cable health standards. Appropriate water and wastewater management includes, but is not limited to, groundwater and aquifer recharge, spray or drip irrigation, gray-water systems, agricultural production, and other recycling techniques. POLICY 87.1.3: Freshwater resources shall be managed in order to maintain adequate freshwater supplies during dry periods and to conserve water. POLICY 87.1.4: Development designs shall provide for maintain- ing surface water flows, groundwater levels, and lake levels at or above existing conditions. POLICY 87.1.5: The county shall cooperate with the United States Geological Survey, South Florida Water Management District, and state agencies to develop an area-wide water resources plan emphasizing planning and management of water resources on the basis of drainage basins; and addressing the needs of the existing and potential built environment, natural hydro- logic system requirements, and freshwater flow impacts on estuarine systems. POLICY 87.1.6: The county shall continue to support a moni- toring program of existing baseline conditions of water resources. POLICY 87.1.7: The county shall cooperate fully with emer- gency water conservation measures of the South Florida Water Management District. The WPO Lee County Ordinance 89-30 provides for potable water wellfield protection. It establishes wellfield protection zones and sets out a protection zone map: showing the location on the ground of the outer limits of protection zones for present public utility potable water supply wells and wellfields which are permitted to pump 1,000,000 gallons of water per day or more. The Florida Cities-Waterway Estates Wellfield shall not be included within the protections established by this ordinance or depicted on the Protection Zone Maps. Chapter 10 of the ordinance is a "sunset provision" confirming that the ordinance was adopted "for the purpose of providing interim protection to existing potable water wellfields which are permitted to pump one million gallons of water or more per day" and explaining: The County is engaged in the creation of a Raw Water Management Authority to insure the protection of the public potable water supply. Potable water wellfields make up a portion of the available public potable water supply. In adopting this ordinace, the Board has taken the first step toward creating such an author- ity and providing an overall program for the protection of the public water supply. The wellfield protection ordinance is conceived as a part of that program. In order to insure that the wellfield protec- tion efforts of the County are incorporated into any overall program to protect the public potable water supply this ordinance shall expire and be of no further force and effect as to any acts occurring on or after September 1, 1991. The data and analysis supporting the Lee Plan clearly was based on the assumption of a 1 MGD threshhold. 5/ Section 4.05 of the Ordinance provides: Certain existing or proposed public and quasi-public land uses and activities may be declared exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance by the Board of County Commission- ers. This exemption shall be granted only upon a finding made by the Board in a public meeting that the existing or proposed land use or activity serves a public need which overrides the intent and purpose of this Ordinance and that it would be economically impractical or scientifically impossible for the land use or activity to comply with the requirements of this Ordinance or be relo- cated to an area outside of the protection zones established by this Ordinance. When declaring such an exemption, the Board of County Commissioners shall limit it to the extent necessary to enable the existing or proposed public or quasi-public land use or activity in question to be conducted within a protection zone while still serving the intent and prupose of this Ordinance to the extent which is economically practical and scientifi- cally possible. The Board may attach any con- ditions to the grant of any exemption that it deems appropriate. Section 3.01 of the Ordinance states: Four types of Protection Zone[s] have been established using scientific criteria relating to the physical characteristics of the water supply aquifer and the transport gradients caused by either natural forces or induced pumpage of the wellfields (see Appendix A)." The transport times associated with the Pro- tection Zones are designed so as to allow adequate time to carry out mitigating proce- dures to prevent wellfield contamination in the event of spillage of any Regulated Substance. Section 3.01.A. establishes and defines Protection Zone 1 as: "All land situated between the well(s) and the water table aquifer 6-month travel time zone demarcation." Section 3.01.B. establishes and defines Protection Zone 2 as: "All land situated between the well(s) and the planar geometric union of the largest of the following three travel time zones: Water table aquifer 1-year travel time zone demarcation. Lower Tamiami 1-year travel time zone demarcation. Sandstone 1-year travel time zone demarcation. Section 3.01.C. establishes and defines Protection Zone 3 as: "All land situated between the well(s) and the planar geometric union of the largest of the following three travel time zones: Water table 1-year travel time zone demar- cation and the water table aquifer 5-year travel time zone demarcation. Sandstone aquifer 1-year travel time zone demarcation and the Sandstone aquifer 5-year travel time zone demarcation. Lower Tamiami 1-year travel time zone demarcation and the Lower Tamiami 5-year travel time zone demarcation. Section 3.01.D. establishes and defines Protection Zone 4 as: "All land situated between the well(s) and the planar geometric union of the largest of the following three travel time zones: Water table 5-year travel time zone demar- cation and the water table 10-year travel time zone demarcation. Sandstone 5-year travel time zone demarca- tion and the Sandstone 10-year travel time zone demarcation. Lower Tamiami 5-year travel time zone demar- cation and the Lower Tamiami 10-year travel time zone demarcation. Section 3.02.B. of the Ordinance provides essentially that, where the location of property and buildings is within more than one protection zone, the most restrictive protective zone applies. Section 4.04 of the Ordinance prohibits liquid waste and solid waste disposal in Protection Zones 1, 2, and 3. In those zones, it also prohibits wastewater effluent disposal, except for public access reuse of reclaimed water and land application (under the conditions set forth and as defined in Chapter 17-610, Part III, F.A.C.). As for the exception, it provides: "Where public access reuse is permitted the chloride content shall be no greater than 500 mg/l." In Protection Zones 1 and 2, it also prohibits "the use handling, production, or storage of Regulated Substances [defined in Section 4.03 of the Ordinance] associated with land uses or activities regulated by this Ordinance in quantities greater than those set forth in Section 4.02.A." and "[e]arth mining within a five hundred foot (500') radius of an existing wellhead." The only prohibition in Protection Zone 4 is against "any activity regulated by this ordinance which stores, handles, uses, or produces any Regulated Substance, in quantities greater than those set forth in Section 4.02.A., which does not obtain a valid operation permit as set forth in Section 6.02." Thus, the Ordinance does not by its terms prohibit landfills, sludge disposal or rapid rate percolation ponds in Zone 4. Section 4.03 of the Ordinance, entitled "Regulated Hazardous or Toxic Substances," defines regulated substances in part in terms of federal and state regulations that are referenced, but not reproduced, in the ordinance. Section 4.02 of the Ordinance provides that it applies only to a particular land use or activity, whether that land use or activity is classified as a residential or commercial use, when either the aggregate sum of all quantities of any one Regulated Substance, or the aggregate sum of all Regulated Substances, on a given parcel or in a certain building exceeds one hundred and ten (110) gallons if the substance is liquid, or one thousand, one hundred and ten (1,110) pounds if said substance is solid. It also provides that the Ordinance applies to all storage facilities for petroleum products which are not regulated by Section 376.317, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Section 4.04 of the Ordinance also provides that, within the protection zones: "Any stormwater or surface water discharge . . . shall conform to existing S.F.W.M.D. and F.D.E.R. rules or as they may be amended or replaced." Under Section 4.04 of the Ordinance, "partially treated sewage from residential septic tank systems" are not regulated in any of the protection zones. Section 4.05.B.5. of the Ordinance provides an: Exemption for Retail Sales Activities. Retail sales establishments that store and handle Regulated Substances for resale in their original unopened containers shall be exempt from the prohibition in Sub-Sections 4.04.A.1. and 2. provided that those estab- lishments obtain an Operating Permit pursuant to Section 6.02. No operating permit is re- quired in Protection Zones 3 and 4. Other Relevant Facts The WPO's Coverage. The support documentation in support of the Lee Plan was based on the assumption of a 1 MGD threshhold. The evidence as a whole does not suggest that was it contemplated at any time prior to adoption that the Lee Plan would require a wellfield protection ordinance that protects all potable water wellfields. 6/ Although the documentation in support of the Lee Plan focuses on wellfields permitted to pump 1 MGD or more and serves an indication that the Lee Plan does not require all potable wellfields to be covered by a protection ordinance, nothing in the Lee Plan or the supporting documentation establishes a clear intention to require the same protections for all wellfields permitted to pump 1 MGD or more. The focus of the WPO is on the protection of wellfields from contamination from the ground surface. Two wellfields permitted to pump more than 1 MGD are not covered by those protections. They pump from deep aquifers. The confining layers above those aquifers protect them from contamination from the ground surface. Other parts of the WPO, and other regulatory programs, require that abandoned wells that could possibly serve as a conduit for contamination into those aquifers be properly grouted so as to prevent contamination from the ground surface. As a result, they are adequately protected. 7/ The Florida Cities-Waterway Estates wellfield pumps from both the surficial aquifer and from a deeper aquifer known as the mid-Hawthorn. The confining layers above the mid-Hawthorn aquifer protect it from contamination from the ground surface. Other parts of the WPO, and other regulatory programs, require that abandoned wells that could possibly serve as a conduit for contamination into the mid-Hawthorn be properly grouted so as to prevent contamination from the ground surface. As for the wells pumping from the surficial aquifer, no party presented evidence on which findings of fact can be made on the issue whether it is fairly debatable to exclude the Florida Cities- Waterways wellfield from the WPO's protections against contamination from the ground surface. There was no evidence on which a finding can be made as to why they were excluded from the greater protections the WPO affords to other wellfields permitted to pump 1 MGD or more. 8/ The evidence was that 90% to 95% of Lee County's potable water supply is either covered by the WPO, with its 1 MGD threshhold and exclusion of the Florida Cities-Waterway Estates wellfield, or pumps from deep aquifers that do not need the WPO's protections from contamination from the ground surface. The Department of Environmental Regulation's so-called G regulations adopted in 1986 utilize a 100,000 gallon a day threshhold for coverage. This threshhold was selected to coincide with the jurisdiction of, and to extend coverage to all wells requiring a permit from, Florida's water management districts. The G-I regulations were successfully challenged and still are not in effect. The federal Environmental Protection Agency recently has criticized the G Although it is written in general terms to leave open the possibility of other similar applications, the evidence reflects that the primary purpose of the Section 4.05 exemption for "certain existing or proposed public and quasi- public land uses and activities" is to acknowledge and permit consideration to be given to the practical impact of possible future expansion of the regional airport located in Lee County. Since there are wellfields in the vicinity that possibly could be impacted by such an expansion, the exemption acknowledges that it might be more sensible, feasible, practical and economical to replace the wellfields than to move the regional airport. If this happens and, on a case- by-case basis, the County utililizes the exemption provision, it may be necessary to phase out the wellfields and to allow some degradation of parts of the wellfield, subject to close monitoring pending complete replacement of the wellfields. Alleged Inadequate Regulation of Pollution Sources. Rock and sand mine operations, which are prohibited within 500' of a wellhead, create open, water-filled holes in the ground. As the Petitioner correctly points out, mining operations can thereby create direct conduits that can lead contaminants to underlying aquifers. But there is evidence in the record to justify the WPO's treatment of rock and sand mines on several bases: first, these mines are regulated on a case-by-case basis through a permitting process; second, mines that have been permitted are relatively shallow and reach into, but do not penetrate, the layer confining the aquifers in the vicinity of the mines that are sources of potable water; third, the County has required as a condition of these permits that the pits be prohibited from serving as storm water retention ponds in the future so as to prevent contaminants from gaining entry to the potential conduit; and, finally, the evidence provides assurances that, even if contaminants somehow find their way into the pits, their concentrations would be low enough that sufficient "head" to penetrate the confining layers would not be generated. The WPO does not prohibit "zones of discharge." A "zone of discharge" is a deliberate decision on the part of a regulatory agency to utilize a limited part of the groundwater as part of the process of diluting contaminants. There was some expert testimony that, in a general and theoretical or academic sense, the concept of a "zone of discharge" is inconsistent with wellfield protection. They are not permitted in DER's G The WPO permits landfills, sludge disposal and rapid rate infiltration ponds in Protection Zone 4 (delineated by the ten-year travel time). The evidence was that landfills, at least, are subject to Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and other regulation and permitting requirements that would provide adequate wellfield protection. There was no evidence or argument presented by any party to clarify how the other activities--sludge disposal and rapid rate infiltration ponds--are regulated. The Petitioner's evidence in general did not address the existence or absence of regulations (both County and other regulatory agencies) pertaining to the various activities of which it complains to rule out the possibility that they might meet the objectives and policies of the Lee Plan. The WPO does not contain its own stormwater regulations. Instead, it provides: "Any stormwater or surface water discharge . . . shall conform to existing S.F.W.M.D. and F.D.E.R. rules or as they may be amended or replaced." The Petitioner offered, as evidence in support of its position that the DER and SFWMD stormwater regulations are inadequate, expert testimony to the effect that the DER and SFWMD regulations are "performance standards," not "directed to groundwater monitoring, and it's not quality impact related." A "performance standard" requires certain things to be done with stormwater in the expectation that groundwater contamination would be eliminated or minimized. The Petitioner's witnesses related that DER decided that "protection of public water supply has to be protected to above and beyond a performance standard" and opted for specific water quality criteria in its G-I groundwater. But nothing in the Lee Plan requires utilization of the G-I rule approach, and the Petitioner's expert did not opine that failure to do so would render the WPO inconsistent with the Lee Plan. The Section 4.05.B.5 retail sales exemption presents a risk of contamination of a wellfield, but the risk is low. In all likelihood, it would take a fire or some other similar catastrophe for the possibility of actual harm to a wellfield to materialize from the small risk involved. Other County Measures Relevant to the WPO. The County has several programs, other than the WPO, and in addition to the Raw Water Management Authority mentioned in the WPO, 9/ that impact wellfield protection. It has a program to encourage (and in some cases require) the reduction and elimination of the use of septic tanks and package sewage plants. It is building a new sewer district. It has taken over the from DER the function of inspecting the installation of underground storage tanks and the remediation (clean up and repair) of tanks storing liquid petroleum products in an attempt to do the job better. There also was evidence that the County has restricted density in potential future wellfield locations and their recharge areas to one unit per ten acres. (The Petitioner's own witness testified that, other than an outright ban on septic tanks, density reduction is the only way to address the problem of septic tanks.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner has the requisite experience necessary for certification by Respondent as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator.
Findings Of Fact On May 9, 1989, Petitioner, Allen T. Segars, in an attempt to enhance his professional status, applied to Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. Respondent reviewed Petitioner's application and denied it for failure to demonstrate the requisite twelve years of experience in the operation, supervision and maintenance of a drinking water treatment plant. Since June 30, 1969, Petitioner has been employed by the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) in several capacities each dealing with drinking water treatment. However, Petitioner has never served as a drinking water treatment plant operator nor been licensed as a drinking water treatment plant operator at any classification. WASA is composed of three regional drinking water treatment plants and nine interim plants servicing portions of South Florida with a total average production of 320 million gallons per day. From June 30, 1969 through March 21, 1982, Petitioner worked with the electrical component of WASA. For seven of those years, he worked as an electrician. He was then promoted to be an electrical supervisor which position he held for five years. His duties while working in the electrical operation involved performing preventative maintenance, installing and repairing equipment and supervising the personnel working with him in the electrical area. This experience is not in the management of a drinking water treatment plant and does not qualify as actual experience therein. On March 22, 1982, Petitioner was promoted to his current position of Water Production Superintendent to oversee the employees and the entire drinking water treatment operation of WASA. He remains on call twenty-four hours a day and is actually on the job approximately forty-five hours per week. He begins a typical day around 6:00 A.M. by contacting each of the plants to determine their capacity levels and to find out if any problems exist. If the operation is normal, Petitioner begins his daily process of visiting each plant. He begins at the Hialeah Treatment Plant which houses his office. At each stop, Petitioner goes over the operational log with the treatment plant supervisor. He inspects the facility. He collects samples and spot tests the results. If an adjustment is necessary, he prescribes the remedy or goes over it with the operator on duty. He assesses the chemical inventory and places necessary orders. Petitioner also makes repairs and adjustments; he carries his own repair tools. Petitioner performs most all of the functions of the treatment plant supervisor. Added to his responsibilities are the administrative duties of being the Water Production Superintendent. On the average, these administrative duties encumber less than eight hours of his normal forty-five four week Although Petitioner's current position is supervisory in nature, in fact, it is a technical and operational position. Petitioner participates at most all levels of the operation of the drinking water treatment process. In each position that Petitioner has held with WASA, he has been involved in onsite, on-hands activity with the facilities and equipment controlling the operation of WASA. For the seven years and one month that Petitioner has served as Water Production Superintendent, his work has been actual experience in the operation supervision and maintenance of a drinking water treatment plant. Petitioner is a high school graduate and has successfully completed 128 hours of classroom and laboratory work in a course approved by Respondent. Petitioner has also completed 16 classroom hours in a course pertaining to cross connection control in a treatment plant. These activities yield three years and five months of constructive experience. The combination of Petitioner's total experience accounts for ten years and six months of the twelve years of experience required for classification as a Class A operator. Thus, Petitioner's activity fails to meet the experience requirement necessary for certification as a class A drinking water treatment plant operator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application of May 9, 1989 for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of November 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 7th day of November 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3705 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6. Addressed in paragraph 6. Addressed in paragraph 5. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Addressed in paragraph 6. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 6. Addressed in paragraphs 3 and 8. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. Addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6. Addressed in paragraph 4.- Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. Subordinate to the result reached. Conclusion of law. Subordinate to the result reached and addressed in paragraph 10. Addressed in paragraph 8. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Alice Weisman, Esquire Robert A. Sugarman, Esquire Sugarman & Susskind, P.A. 5959 Blue Lagoon Drive Suite 150 Miami, Florida 33126 Cynthia K. Christen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent engaged in construction contracting without a license as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of construction contracting pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over the unlicensed practice of construction contracting pursuant to sections 455.227, 455.228, and 489.13. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was the owner of Advanced Connections, LLC. Neither he nor his company is licensed, registered, or certified to perform construction contracting services in Florida. Respondent holds only certification to perform backflow preventer testing. At the heart of this case is whether Respondent may perform backflow preventer repair without a license, certification, or registration. Facts Related to Work Performed It is undisputed that Respondent performed repair of backflow preventers for customers in Tallahassee, Florida. On July 25, 2014, Respondent performed a backflow prevention assembly test on two existing backflow preventers at Old Enrichment Center located at 2344 Lake Bradford Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Respondent provided an invoice to Old Enrichment Center following the backflow test, which described the work performed as follows: “I was able to repair both units and they are Functioning [sic] properly. I had to replace one additional part on, AS #10896, the #2 check cage was cracked. Thank you For [sic] your business. Don’t forget to cover the backflows.” The invoice reflected that Respondent was compensated $343.00 for the worked performed and materials. On August 20, 2014, Respondent performed a backflow test on an existing backflow preventer for Li-Ping Zhang at a property located at 2765 West Hannon Hill Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32309. Respondent provided an invoice to the customer describing the outcome of the test, and he provided an estimate for repair as follows: Invoice: Thank For this opportunity to serve you. The unit is failing. The #1 check valve is leaking across it. That means it is not holding pressure. The Manufacture of flowmatic no longer makes parts for your unit. But my supplier does have a repair kit available. Due to the Fact are no longer made for your device it may be better to have the unit replaced with a Wilkins 975-XL. Please See Quote * * * Quote for repair: Part: Complete Rubber Kit-$30.00 Labor: This unit may not be repairable due to the fact that there is a limited supply of parts. If there is damage to the #1 Check. I will not be able to repair the unit. If that happens I can return the parts but a labor charge would still remain. Please call with any questions. Thank you. (Quoted text from invoice without correction of grammar.) Respondent ultimately performed the repair on August 25, 2014. The invoice issued to Li-Ping Zhang reflected service provided as “[t]he repair was a success. The unit is Passing [sic]. Paid Cash $115.00 8.25.14 — signed Ian.” Both invoices include the Respondent’s company name, Advanced Connections, LLC. There was no evidence presented of financial or property harm caused by Respondent’s actions. On or about February 2, 2015, Petitioner received a complaint from City of Tallahassee filed against Respondent for his repair of backflow preventers in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner commenced an investigation into Respondent’s actions through its unlicensed activity investigation unit. At the conclusion of the investigation, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint alleging Respondent engaged in construction contracting without a license. Respondent disagrees with Petitioner and argues that he is eligible for an exemption under section 489.103(9), commonly known as the “handyman” exemption. Life-Safety Matter Respondent’s eligibility for the exemption hinges upon whether repair of a backflow preventer is considered a life- safety matter. The Florida Building Code provides minimum standards for building construction to “safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare.” See § 101.3, Florida Building Code, Building. The Florida Building Code, Plumbing, applies to “the installation, alteration, repair and replacement of plumbing systems, including fixtures, fittings and appurtenances where connected to a water or sewage system . . . .” See § 101.4.3, Florida Building Code, Building. The plumbing chapter of the Florida Building Code defines a backflow preventer as a device or means to prevent backflow of water from flowing from one system into the potable water system.2/ A potable water supply system shall be maintained in such a manner so as to prevent contamination from non-potable liquids, solids, or gases being introduced into the potable water supply through cross-connections or any other piping connections to the system. § 608.1 Building Code, Plumbing. To further explain the purpose of backflow preventers, Petitioner offered Frank Hagen as a plumbing expert. Mr. Hagen, who has 42 years of plumbing experience, has been licensed in Florida since 1981 and is also licensed in Georgia. He holds a certification in backflow preventer testing (issued by the University of Florida TREEO Center) and backflow preventer repair. Mr. Hagen has regularly conducted on-the-job plumbing training for 36 years. Mr. Hagen was accepted as a plumbing expert. Mr. Hagen testified that a backflow preventer is a life-safety device. He explained that this reference is accepted throughout the plumbing industry because the backflow preventer protects water systems by preventing chemicals and poisons from entering the public water system. Mr. Hagen provided examples of potential outcomes if a backflow preventer fails (e.g., three children died as a result of drinking water from a water hose where poison in the sprinkler system contaminated the water). Mr. Hagen also testified that only a licensed plumber is authorized to perform backflow repairs. Mr. Hagen’s testimony is credible. John Sowerby, P.E., a licensed professional engineer for 35 years, who previously worked in the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Source of Drinking and Water Program, also testified regarding the nature of backflow preventers. He testified that backflow preventers protect public health because they prevent contamination of potable water systems (i.e., water that is satisfactory for human consumption). Mr. Sowerby’s testimony is also found to be credible. Respondent’s testimony that a backflow preventer is not a life-safety fixture, is not supported by the evidence. Respondent testified that backflow preventers are “plumbing fixtures” that are installed between the public water supply line and the private water supply line. Respondent also testified that if a backflow preventer fails, it could cause contamination of the public water supply and public health would be at risk. More importantly, the applicable building codes and the testimony of Mr. Hagen and Mr. Sowerby establish that backflow preventers prevent contamination of public water supply and protect public health. Given that backflow preventers safeguard public health by protecting the public water supply, they involve life-safety matters. The Department has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $415.95 related to this matter. Ultimate Findings of Fact Respondent’s repair of a backflow preventer on a water service line is a life-safety matter and as a result, Respondent is not eligible for an exemption under section 489.103(9). The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent’s repair of a backflow preventer at the two properties referenced herein constituted the practice of construction contracting without a license. As a result, Respondent is guilty of unlicensed contracting, as charged in Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of section 489.13(1), as alleged in Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Imposes an administrative fine of $6,000 ($3,000 for each count); and Requires Mr. Tuttle to pay the Department’s investigative costs of $415.95. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 October, 2016.
The Issue The disputed issues are as follows: Whether the proposed Water Conservation Plan is sufficient to meet the requirements of the District rule; Whether the proposed pumping will adversely affect wetlands and wetland vegetation in contravention of District rule; Whether the permit applicant has provided reasonable assurance of entitlement to the requested permit as required by the District rule; and What limiting conditions pursuant to Rule 40C-2.381, F.A.C., should be imposed on the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP).
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Commission was created by the legislature pursuant to Public Law 67-1754 in combination with Public Law 85-503. Its principal office is located in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida. The Commission is charged with maintaining a water supply and providing wastewater treatment and electrical power. The District is an agency created pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in charge of regulating, among other things, consumptive uses of water in a 19 county area of the State of Florida, including all of Volusia County. The geographical boundaries of the District are described in Section 373.069(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Vernon and Irene Beckham are property owners of the property proposed for the construction of the new State Road 44 wellfield. Volusia City-County Water Supply Authority is a cooperative created by interlocal agreement in accordance with Section 163.01, Florida Statutes (1991), which party made no appearance at the Formal Administrative hearing but adopted the position of the Commission. Nassau is an individual residing at 4680 Cedar Road, New Smyrna Beach, Florida. THE APPLICATION The present service area of the Commission encompasses approximately 43 square miles, of which only about 15 square miles of the service area are located in the City of New Smyrna Beach. On August 8, 1984, the District issued Consumptive Use Permit No. 2- 127-0214NG to the Commission for its Glencoe and Samsula wellfields, which permit would expire in seven years. The combined authorized withdrawal of the existing wellfields is 5.2 mgd on an average day and 8.31 mgd on a maximum day. In December 1990, the Commission submitted its Consumptive Use Permit Application to renew the existing permit, including the development of an additional water supply wellfield. This application also sought an increased allocation to meet projected demand for the Commission's service area. The total allocation sought was 5.59 mgd on an average day and 8.31 mgd on a maximum day. However, the District has recommended 5.29 mgd on an average day and 7.62 mgd on a maximum day by 1998. The source of the water for all three wellfields is the Floridan aquifer. The Floridan aquifer can produce the volumes of water requested based on the past pumpage from the Samsula wellfield and the Glencoe wellfield. The Glencoe wellfield has been in operation since early 1950. The Samsula wellfield has been in operation since 1982. The Commission has never exceeded the currently permitted withdrawals as measured by annual, daily, or peak basis. WATER DEMAND Approximately 75% of the demand is related to residential consumption. Approximately 10% of the demand is related to commercial and industrial consumption. Approximately 7% of the demand is related to irrigation. Lastly, approximately 8% of the demand is for miscellaneous consumption, including loss that occurs in the treatment process itself. Gross water use in the area served by the Commission is about 138 gallons per person per day. The approximate 103 gallons per person per day (net) used by residences is small as compared to other providers of potable water. The present population of the Commission's service area is approximately 31,570 customers. The projected 1997 population of the Commission's service area is 40,680. The Commission's population projections were obtained by methods consistent with the District's Permit Manual. VI. PERMIT CRITERIA Water Conservation Plan The Commission has submitted a complete Water Conservation Plan. The implementation of that plan is a condition of the permit. The Water Conservation Plan includes a customer audit program of the system to determine how much water is pumped and where the water goes once it is distributed. The customer audit program involves employees of the Commission discussing the historical water usage with the customer, detection of leaks, installation of water restrictors, and the prevention of freezing pipes in the wintertime. The Commission encourages reduced consumption through the water meter charges. Larger meters use more water than smaller meters. The monthly charge for the larger meters is higher thereby encouraging the use of smaller meters. The Water Conservation Plan includes a pressure monitoring program to detect leaks in the system. The program has been implemented. The system pressure monitoring plan measures the pressure in different zones around the Commission's service area and, should a large main burst, an alarm is triggered. Repair of that water main would occur immediately. The Water Conservation Plan includes an analysis of the economic, environmental and technical feasibility of using reclaimed water in Commission's Exhibit No. 14, Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater Conceptual Planning Document. The Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater Conceptual Planning Document involves four major phases of construction starting in 1991 with completion in 1995. The first phase is underway. As part of the reuse plan, the Commission is modifying the wastewater treatment plant to accept reuse water. The construction is 99 percent complete. A total cost for that is approximately 1.5 million. The Commission will be replacing some freshwater irrigation sources with reclaimed water. The Commission has valid DER permits for this use of reclaimed water. As part of the reuse plan, the Commission has entered into construction contracts to serve the municipal golf course, the landscape at city hall and city parks with wastewater. The transmission and distribution lines will be completed before October 1992. The cost is approximately $700,000. Other phases of the reuse plan include construction of the major infrastructure inside and outside the city for reuse distribution. Total investment is in excess of five million dollars. Major customers along the route have been identified to increase the demand on the reuse system. The Water Conservation Plan includes an employee awareness program and an educational program as well as a time frame to implement those programs. The Commission has a public relations program to inform the customers about water conservation which includes newspaper publications concerning reading water meters, xeriscaping, and methods to reduce water consumption and the time/temperature machine which has prerecorded messages. The Commission has a program for educating the public and encouraging xeriscaping or the use of drought resistant foliage. Xeriscaping is implemented at the wastewater lift stations. The Commission has used direct mailing to provide water conservation information to customers. The Commission has a program for inspecting and replacing defective meters. If a meter malfunctions, the replacement reduces the system losses and accurately records water usage. The Commission has a program to monitor unmetered uses, which includes reporting from users such as the fire department of their unmetered use. On a monthly basis, the fire department reports its water usage as calculated by its operation schedule. The Commission is using the lowest acceptable quality water source, including reclaimed water, for certain types of needs such as irrigation of golf courses. The Water Conservation Plan addresses the use of treated effluent to minimize withdrawals of groundwater. Issues Related to Reasonable Assurance Hydrogeology The Floridan aquifer occurs at approximately 100 feet below the land surface throughout Volusia County. It's overlain by approximately 100 foot of sandy and clayey material collectively called the Clastic aquifer or the surficial aquifer. The proposed SR 44 wellfield site is underlain by an approximate 900- foot depth of freshwater of the Floridan aquifer. In the high recharge area of the Deland Ridge, water moves rapidly into the surficial aquifer and recharges the Floridan aquifer. A regional groundwater gradient extends from the Deland Ridge towards the east. There is a volume of water in the Floridan aquifer that is constantly moving from the west to the east to replenish water that is being withdrawn. Based on the regional movement of the Floridan aquifer and the nature of the Floridan aquifer, the water that is being replenished by the withdrawal is mainly coming from the Floridan aquifer with some contribution from the surficial. Another way to determine the source of the water is by geochemical analysis. The source of the water for this use is characterized as freshwater category number three meaning that it is Floridan aquifer water that is replenishing the water that is being withdrawn and not surface water that is going directly into the Floridan aquifer system. Aquifer Tests The aquifer performance test at the SR 44 wellfield shows that the aquifer is able to produce the volumes of water requested. The depths of the proposed wells, and APT test well, at the SR 44 wellfield is 250 feet below land surface or 150 feet into the Floridan aquifer. The APT at the SR 44 wellfield site provided for the collection of data to show what happens to the water levels while the aquifer is stressed. The second APT at the SR 44 wellfield site tested the Floridan aquifer at a depth of 750 feet below land surface. The section of the Floridan aquifer tested was 500 feet thick. The second APT and geophysical logs showed that there were not any additional flow zones below the upper Floridan aquifer which would yield additional water. Prior to the pump recovery test at the Samsula wellfield, the wells were pumping at 2.59 million gallons per day for a couple of days prior to shutting them off. For a period of five days, four wells in the vicinity of the Samsula wellfield were monitored by the District for water level recovery. The actual observations and the predicted drawdowns in the model correlated well. Drawdown does occur at homeowners' wells when the Commission's Samsula wellfield is pumping, but it does not interfere with existing legal users based on the District rules. The drawdown will not cause a ten percent reduction in the withdrawal capability of the homeowner's well. Computer Modeling The PLASM model simulates the response of the surficial and Floridan aquifers to pumping. The computer model oversimplifies the nature of the surficial aquifer by characterizing the layer as a solid homogeneous type of a system, basically being all sand. In reality, there are some shell and clay layers or hardpan. The transmissivity or the ability to transmit water through the aquifer for surficial aquifer sand ranges between 1,000 up to about 12,000. The transmissivity in the model is 5,000 gallons per day per foot (gpdpf) for Layer 1 which was reasonable. In Layer 2, the data from the APT produced a value of 50,000 gpdpf and a leakance value, or value that would correspond to water that moves from the surficial aquifer down to the Floridan aquifer, of 0.0012 gpdpf. This 50,000 and 0.0012 values are reasonable numbers for this area of Volusia County. The PLASM model is an accepted model for simulating pumpage. In the PLASM model, the transmissivity was varied in two different directions, but it averaged 50,000 gpdpf in the Floridan aquifer system. In the Floridan aquifer system, water is going to be moving based on the transmissivity of the aquifer and a leakance value from the surficial aquifer. The water primarily flows in a horizontal direction. There is a component of vertical movement. The difference between the horizontal movement and the vertical movement is an order of magnitude. There's an order of magnitude difference between the 50,000 gpdpf and the 0.0012 gpdpf which shows that the majority of the water is coming from a horizontal direction. There is some vertical movement. The vertical movement is not only from above, but because of the Floridan aquifer there is also vertical movement from below. When a well is pumping water, the water is being replenished mostly from the horizontal direction and from the lower direction in the same aquifer system, with some contribution downward based on the leakance value from above. This is demonstrated or shown by a small predicted drawdown in the surficial aquifer and that predicted drawdown is basically two orders of magnitude less than the drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer. Proposed Recommended Withdrawal Rates The proposed recommended withdrawal rate from the SR 44 wellfield is 1.43 mgd for average daily flow. With the proposed recommended withdrawal of 1.43 mgd at the SR 44 wellfield, the maximum drawdown in the surficial aquifer is approximately 0.34 feet. With the proposed recommended withdrawal of 1.43 mgd at the SR 44 wellfield, the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer is approximately ten feet. A withdrawal of 1.93 mgd at the SR 44 wellfield site would result in a maximum drawdown in the surficial aquifer of 0.7 feet and in the Floridan aquifer of thirteen (13) feet. The proposed recommended withdrawal rate from the Samsula wellfield is 1.93 mgd for average daily flow. With the proposed recommended withdrawal of 1.93 mgd at the Samsula wellfield, the maximum drawdown in the surficial aquifer is approximately seven tenths (0.70) of a foot. With the proposed recommended withdrawal of 1.93 mgd at the Samsula wellfield, the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer is approximately seventeen (17) feet. The proposed recommended withdrawal rate from the Glencoe wellfield is 1.93 mgd for average daily flow. Under the existing permit, the Samsula wellfield is withdrawing at the higher rate of approximately 2.59 million gallons per day. The volumes of water requested from both the Samsula wellfield and the SR 44 wellfield have been reduced from what was originally proposed by the Commission. The reduced allocation for the Samsula wellfield will improve groundwater elevations and thereby reduce groundwater impacts. Water Quality The state water quality standard for public drinking water is 250 milligrams per liter (mg/l) chlorides. For water supply systems where the chloride level is below 250 mg/l, the District uses that level to determine whether or not the pumping is going to cause significant saline water intrusion. The proposed use cannot cause the water quality to exceed 250 mg/l in chlorides. The water quality data from the existing Samsula and Glencoe wellfields shows that none of the wells or trends from the indicate that they are either above 250 mg/l or trending in a degradation mode toward 250 mg/l. The water quality in the wells is stable without degradation of the water quality in either of the Glencoe wellfield or the Samsula wellfield. The water quality data collected during the APT at the SR 44 wellfield showed that the chlorides were below 250 mg/l and that during the test, there was no change or a trend of becoming salty. An independent study used geophysical methods to determine the depths below land surface where high concentrations of saline water exist. That depth was at approximately 1200 feet below land surface. Proposed Permit Conditions The Commission accepts the conditions of the permit as proposed in the Commission Ex. 10-B. The proposed conditions require the Commission to limit the withdrawals per wellfield as specified and to monitor each production well with a flow meter, monitor the groundwater levels, monitor the surface water conditions, monitor rainfall, and monitor the wetlands. The proposed permit conditions and the County's ombudsman program adequately address the possible impacts of the proposed wellfield on existing users. The monitoring will be able determine the impact of the wellfield on those users. The Commission accepts the condition to mitigate for interference with existing legal users in compliance with the proposed permit conditions. The Volusia County ombudsman program provides the method of investigating and resolving issues related to interference of the proposed wellfield operation with existing legal users. The Commission will participate in this program. The Commission's purchase of the property is contingent upon obtaining the consumptive use permit. The Commission will own the site as shown on various exhibits. The drainage pattern of Tiger Bay is northerly for most of the basin. A canal located north of the area provides the primary drainage for Tiger Bay. A small drainage area within Tiger Bay of approximately 90 acres drains south into the SR 44 wellfield site. Some of the drainage does come through the two 30-inch culverts under SR 44, and both commingle with the wetlands that are on the site as well as drain into a ditch located along the Ranchette Road. The maximum capacity at ideal conditions for those two culverts would be approximately 300 CFS, cubic feet per second. The entire Tiger Bay drainage basin is approximately 13,000 acres. The volume of surface water which can flow from Tiger Bay is 13,000 cfs. That volume could not flow through the culverts at SR 44 without overtopping the road. Ecology The upland communities surrounding the Samsula wellfield are primarily pine flatwoods and mixed pine forested areas. The proposed 1.93 mgd average day withdrawal quantity being recommended by the District for the Samsula wellfield will not adversely affect these upland communities because: (a) the upland communities do not rely on inundated or saturated conditions so the proposed consumptive use will not adversely affect the hydrology these upland communities rely on; and (b) the magnitude of the predicted drawdown will not cause a shift in vegetation meaning a change in the types of plants that already exist there. The wetland communities surrounding the Samsula wellfield site consist of cypress dome and bay swamp communities. With the projected drawdowns information for the Samsula wellfield, there will not be significant adverse impacts to uplands or wetlands that would be identifiable based upon the projected wellfield withdrawal rates as recommended by the District. Any potential for impacts has been reduced in that the current pumpage rates are projected to decrease. The proposed 1.93 mgd average day withdrawal quantity being recommended by the District for the Samsula wellfield will not cause the water table to be lowered such that these wetland communities will be significantly and adversely affected for the following reasons: The wetlands in the area of the Samsula wellfield lie in a sloped terrain. Underlying the site is a soil area known as a spodic horizon or a hardpan layer. The spodic horizon is an area where there is a deposition of organics and it has a different chemistry than the surrounding soils. The spodic horizon, when saturated, acts as a semi-impervious or impermeable layer which causes impedance of water as it goes through. This spodic horizon in the area of the Samsula wellfield is typically two feet below the soil surface. The predicted drawdown will not cause water levels to be dropped such that in normal wet season conditions, which is the time when hydrology to a wetland is most important, the spodic horizon will still be saturated so that water is coming into the wetlands through rainfall directly, as well as rainfall that falls on the adjacent uplands and moves laterally through the soils to the wetland above the spodic horizon. Thus, the spodic horizon will prevent a shift in the "water budget" of these wetlands such that the wetlands will not be harmed by the proposed use. The wetlands systems surrounding the Samsula wellfield are primarily densely forested systems with a fairly substantial accumulation of organic or muck type soils in the surface. The soils assist these wetlands in retaining moisture which provides a "built-in system" for the wetlands to withstand fluctuations in hydroperiods. The wetland systems surrounding the Samsula wellfield appear to have an altered hydrology. The identifiable impacts are ditches or shallow swales along State Road 44. The wetlands south of 44 in the vicinity of wells one, two and three have been bisected by roads and there are swales cut adjacent to those roads. The power line that runs north-south has cut off and eliminated half of a cypress wetland south of 44 and about half of a cypress wetland north of 44. It is possible that these ditches and roads may have caused the altered hydrology in these wetlands. It cannot be concluded that the current Samsula wellfield operation has caused this altered hydroperiod. However, the drawdown that is predicted to occur at the Samsula wellfield under the proposed 1.93 mgd average day withdrawal being recommended by the District is much less than the drawdown that is occurring from the current pumpage at this wellfield. The projected drawdowns from the proposed three wellfield configurations indicate less potential for impacts than the current two wellfields as far as Samsula is concerned. Thus, even if the wetlands surrounding the Samsula wellfield have been affected in any way by the current pumpage rate, the reduced drawdown rates that will result from the 1.93 mgd average day proposed pumpage rate will greatly improve this condition. Other than slight alteration along the edge of SR 44, the wetlands in the vicinity of Samsula wells five and six have not been significantly altered. No changes in vegetation and no apparent changes in hydrology occur in those areas. The cypress wetland north of SR 44 has a drainage ditch emerging to the east. Another wetland immediately north of SR 44, north of well four, is adjacent to the road and the roadside swale or ditch in that vicinity. The species of wildlife identified are ones that are adapted to altered conditions. Abundant wildlife is generally found living in association with improved pastures and close proximity to man. Most of the wetlands in the area of the Samsula wellfield, north and south of SR 44, are in improved pasture or where roads and power lines have been cut. There was evidence of impacts to the wetlands and some drainage. The edge of the cypress dome north of SR 44 has blackberries and other weedy type species along the margins of it. The wetland immediately southeast of well one at the Samsula wellfield was a healthy bay dominated area with ferns underneath. The lichen line on the trunk of the tree and the mosses indicate that the water has been up to or near the historical high within the past season or two. Otherwise, the lichens would grow at the base of the tree. At the Samsula wellfield site, there are no wetlands within the inner drawdown contour of 0.7. There are some wetlands between the 0.7 and the 0.5 contours. The upland communities in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield are primarily pine flatwoods and improved pasture. In the pine flatwoods areas, the soils indicate that the water table extends from a height of 0.5 feet below land surface and down to a hardpan layer. The water table in the pine flatwoods fluctuates between the hardpan and 0.5 feet below land surface. The proposed 1.43 mgd average daily withdrawal which is being recommended by the District for the proposed SR 44 wellfield will not significantly and adversely affect these upland communities because these upland communities are not reliant on inundated or saturated conditions, and the proposed consumptive use will not cause a shift in hydrology such that the vegetation found in these communities will no longer be there. The wetland communities in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield consist of cypress sloughs and cypress domes which also have herbaceous areas with them. The cypress dominated wetlands are on the northeastern portion of the site and the northwestern portion of the site extending down through the central and southeastern part of the site. Cypress dominated wetlands occur on the southwestern border with one in the east-central portion of the site. Between the cypress dominated wetlands and pine flatwoods are grass prairies. The Commission determined the hydroperiod of the wetlands using vegetative physical evidence or biological indicators, such as lichen lines and mosses, and soil physical evidence from soil probes, which are indicators of long-term and sometimes short-term changes. The wetland on the east-central portion of the proposed SR 44 wellfield site inundates to approximately six and one half inches. In the dry season, the soils dry out to 0.15 feet below land surface. In the wet prairie or wet grassy area, the water table seasonally fluctuates between the hardpan layer of 2.2 feet bls and a tenth or two-tenths of an inch above the surface as based on adventitious roots growing from a St. Johns wort plant species. The water table fluctuations explain the seasonal high and the seasonal low water elevations. The factors which most influence the wetlands and their hydrology are subsurface flow during the wet season, the runoff and direct rainfall. The proposed 1.43 mgd average daily withdrawal for the proposed SR 44 wellfield will not significantly and adversely affect these wetland communities because these wetlands are also underlain by a spodic horizon which, as in the case of the Samsula wellfield wetlands, functions to provide lateral movement of water into the wetlands. The predicted drawdowns for the proposed SR 44 wellfield will not lower the water levels in these wetlands so as to prevent the spodic horizon from performing this function. The recommended withdrawal rate of 1.43 mgd for the proposed SR 44 wellfield reduces the opportunity for impacts. The part of the wellfield site where the greatest drawdown of 0.34 feet occurs is the furthest away from the majority of the wetlands on the site. However, the wetland and soil types on the surface layer are different than the wetland and soil types found at the Samsula wellfield site. The District is recommending a pumpage rate for the proposed SR 44 wellfield that would result in a maximum .34 feet of drawdown in the surficial aquifer while recommending a pumpage rate that would result in a maximum .7 foot drawdown in the surficial aquifer for the Samsula wellfield. The wetlands at the proposed SR 44 wellfield site do not have the dense canopy as well as the accumulation of muck soils in the surface that the wetlands at the Samsula site have. Additionally, the wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield site include herbaceous systems which tend to be shallower systems, not as deeply set as the forested cypress systems are, and therefore tend to be more sensitive to changes that occur in the top couple of inches of soil which is above the spodic horizon. Thus, the wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield would be significantly and adversely affected if the Commission were permitted to withdraw water at a pumpage rate that would result in a drawdown of greater that .34 feet. The drawdowns upon which the evaluation of potential wetland impacts are based are predicted drawdowns. Monitoring and Proposed Conditions To provide additional assurance, the District has recommended a series of permit conditions, numbered 31 through 45 on the Commission Ex. 10-B, that will require the permittee to conduct extensive groundwater and surface water monitoring, as well as vegetative monitoring in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield and the Samsula wellfield site. Condition number 31 identifies the overall program of wetland and ground and surface water monitoring. Condition number 32 requires the permittee to install surficial aquifer monitoring wells in the vicinity of the wellfield sites. These monitoring wells will be constructed below the spodic horizon and inside and outside the "area of concern" which is the area within the tenth of a foot drawdown contour at the wellfield sites. This condition will enable the District to analyze how the proposed use is affecting the overall groundwater levels unaffected by the spodic horizon. Placing these wells both inside and outside the area of concern will allow the District to determine if any change in groundwater levels is due to the wellfields or normal climatic patterns. Condition number 33 will allow the District to obtain a constant record of information to analyze what trends are occurring in the wetlands in the wellfields and to have sufficient data during normal climatic variations of the wet and the dry seasons to determine the presence of a trend. The required period of record collection, defined in this condition as the shorter of one calendar year or one consecutive wet to dry season, is a sufficient period of record collection because the purpose of this condition is to obtain a picture in time of the existing conditions in the wetlands surrounding the wellfields during the dry season and the wet season. Condition 33 requires the permittee to submit an annual hydrologic report to the District. This is a sufficient time period of reporting because the purpose of the report is to allow the District to accumulate and assess an entire year's of data or the entire dry to wet season variation. With the annual report, any adverse wetland vegetation changes can be detected prior to any permanent harm to the wetlands. Condition number 34 requires the permittee to install shallow piezometers and staff gauges in the monitored and referenced wetland areas. The monitored wetlands are the wetlands inside the "area of concern." The referenced wetlands are outside the "area of concern." Condition number 34 will allow the District to analyze the hydrology above the spodic horizon. This in turn will allow the District to evaluate the hydrology of the monitored wetlands against the hydrology of the referenced wetlands to determine if any adverse impacts are occurring in the wetlands due to the wellfields' operation. Condition Number 35 requires the permittee to submit surveyed cross- sections of each of the monitored wetlands and the referenced wetlands. This condition will allow the District to receive a linear view of both the monitored and referenced wetlands so that when the District receives the groundwater and surface water information required by condition number 34, it can assign that information to a picture, and know what the wetlands look like under varying water conditions. Condition number 36 requires the permittee to select referenced wetlands similar to the wetlands that are going to be monitored in the area of concern. This will ensure that the reference wetlands match vegetatively and hydrologically with the wetlands that are being monitored within the area of concern. Condition number 37 requires the permittee to install rain gauges at both wellfield sites. This will allow the District to compare rainfall to groundwater information and determine what the relationship is between water levels in the surficial aquifer and the amount of rainfall that has occurred. Condition number 38 requires the permittee to monitor, on a weekly interval, the water levels in each of the monitored wetlands and in the referenced wetlands and submit annual reports of this data. Condition number 39 requires the permittee to install continuous recorders on the staff gauges and piezometers in the reference and monitored wetlands. The information gathered will provide the District with detailed records of the water fluctuations in these wetlands systems relative to rainfall input. Condition number 39 requires the permittee to submit annual reports of the information gathered to the District. The annual report will allow the District to determine if any adverse trends are occurring in the wetlands. No permanent adverse change could occur to the wetlands communities surrounding either wellfield before the District receives this annual report. Condition number 40 requires the permittee to conduct baseline water quality monitoring at each of the monitored wetlands. If any adverse change does occur to the wetlands surrounding either wellfield, and if the permittee chooses to mitigate for this adverse change by augmenting the wetland systems, then this permit condition will allow the District to ensure that the water used to augment those wetlands is of the same quality as the water currently found in those wetlands. Condition number 41 requires the permittee to initiate a baseline vegetative monitoring program of the monitored and reference wetlands at both wellfields. This condition will allow the District to have a vegetative picture of the wetlands prior to any pumpage. Condition number 42 requires the permittee to conduct a vegetative monitoring program of the monitored and reference wetlands at both wellfields with the initiation of withdrawals. Condition number 43 requires the permittee to provide a wetland similarity assessment for both wellfields. The permittee must compare the results of the wetland vegetative monitoring program each year against the baseline vegetative monitoring of the same wetland and against the vegetative monitoring of the referenced wetlands. This condition will assist the District in determining if any adverse trends are occurring in the wetlands surrounding either wellfield. Condition number 44 requires the permittee to create two duplicate reference herbarium collections of the flora present in the monitored and referenced wetlands and the adjacent upland areas. This condition will ensure that there is consistency in the vegetative identification throughout the monitoring program. Condition number 45 requires the permittee to mitigate any harm to the wetlands that is detected from the monitoring required by other permit conditions. This condition does not require any particular form of mitigation. The wellfield withdrawals at the projected rates and the suggested permit rates should not have an impact on threatened or endangered plant or animal species in the Samsula wellfield area or the proposed SR 44 wellfield area. The monitoring program will provide the data to determine on a short- term or long-term basis whether the pumpage rates are causing impacts. Potential harm can be mitigated by adjusting the quantities and locations of withdrawal. V. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS The Commission seeks fees and costs from Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.59(6), Florida Statutes (1991). Such entitlement requires a showing that the Petitioner brought this case or filed a pleading for an improper purpose. While the evidence does show that certain pleadings filed by Petitioner (or his attorney who withdrew 24 hours prior to the beginning of the hearing) may have had as one purpose the delay of the hearing scheduled for March 24, 1992, the totality of the evidence establishes that Petitioner's purposes were not improper. Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes (1991), establishes the right of any citizen of the state to intervene into "proceedings for the protection of air, water, or other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction " The actions of Petitioner in this proceeding were not clearly shown to be for delay, harassment or other improper purpose. In fact, Petitioner handled himself well as a pro se litigant after his attorney's untimely withdrawal. If anyone acted with an improper purpose in this proceeding, it was Peter Belmont, Nassau's attorney until he withdrew less than 24 hours prior to the hearing. The record shows that Belmont entered into the representation of Nassau with full knowledge that he would seek all possible delays in the proceedings. He engaged in no preparation for the hearing and he left Nassau unprepared also. Belmont's bad faith actions in this case however can only be determined and remediated by the Florida Bar, not by the undersigned through an award of fees and costs. Finally, there has been no delay in these proceedings. The petition was filed with DOAH on January 16, 1992. The District moved to consolidate it with two other pending case set for January 20, 1992. Those cases were voluntarily dismissed. An Initial Order was sent to the parties on January 21, 1992, seeking suggested dates for the hearing. The hearing was set to begin March 16, 1992, less than 60 days from the filing of the case. A one week continuance was granted and the case was heard beginning on March 24, 1992. If anything, this case has proceeded expeditiously.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a Final Order GRANTING the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach's Consumptive Use Permit, subject to the March 9, 1992 permit conditions proposed by the District (Commission's Exhibit 10-B). RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 13th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0246 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, William Nassau Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(3) and 5(10). Proposed findings of fact 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 22 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13, 15-18, 20, and 21 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed finding of fact 10 is irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-11(1-11); 13-19(15-21); and 35(12). Proposed findings of fact 12 and 20 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 32-34 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 21-31 and 36-111 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommmended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-21(22-46); 22(16); 23(7); 25(19-21); 29-31(12-14); and 32-142(43-153). Proposed findings of fact 24 and 26-28 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: William Nassau 4680 Cedar Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Nancy B. Barnard Eric Olsen Attorneys at Law St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Roger Sims Rory Ryan Lynda Goodgame Attorneys at Law Holland & Knight P.O. Box 1526 Orlando, FL 32802 Wayne Flowers, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
The Issue Whether SFP's revised application for a permit to construct a sewage treatment plant with percolation ponds should be granted or, for failure of SFP to give reasonable assurances that the plant will not cause pollution significantly degrading the waters of Gator Cove, be denied?
Findings Of Fact About 1,500 feet from Santa Fe Lake's Gator Cove, SFP proposes to build an extended aeration package sewage treatment plant to serve a "private club with restaurant and overnight accommodations," SFP's Exhibit No. l, to be built between the plant and the lake, on the western shore of Santa Fe Lake, just south of the strait or pass connecting Santa Fe Lake and Little Santa Fe Lake. The site proposed for the waste water treatment plant lies at approximately 177 or 178 feet above sea level, north of Earleton on county road N.E. 28 near State Road 200A, some three miles north of State Road 26, in unincorporated Alachua County, Section 33, Township 8 South, Range 22 East. SFP's Exhibit No. 1. Santa Fe Lake, also called Lake Santa Fe, and Little Santa Fe Lake, also called Little Lake Santa Fe, are designated outstanding Florida waters by rule. Rule 17-3.041(4)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Lake Santa Fe "is . . . the sixth largest non-eutrophic lake in the State of Florida . . . [and] the last remaining large non-eutrophic lake in Alachua County." (0.367). Recreation is a "beneficial use" of these waters. The Lakes Santa Fe are at an elevation of approximately 140 feet above sea level, and their level varies within a range of four feet. Input The proposed plant is to treat sewage generated by staff, by diners at a 150-seat restaurant, and by inhabitants of 150 lodge or motel rooms, comprising 100 distinct units. On the assumptions that 150 rooms could house 275 persons who would generate 75 gallons of sewage a day for a daily aggregate of 20,625 gallons, and that a 150-seat restaurant would generate 50 gallons of sewage per seat per day, full occupancy is projected to engender 28,125 gallons of sewage per day. This projection is based on unspecified "D.E.R. criteria; (5.35) which the evidence did not show to be unreasonable. Full occupancy is not foreseen except around the Fourth of July, Labor Day and on other special occasions. An annual average flow of between 15 and 20,000 or perhaps as low as 13,000 gallons per day is envisioned. (S.38) The proposed plant is sized at 30,000 gallons per day in order to treat the peak flow forecast and because package plants are designed in 5,000 gallon increments. Sluice-gate valves and baffling are to permit bypassing one or more 5,000 gallon aeration units so plant capacity can be matched to flow. The composition of the sewage would not be unusual for facilities of the kind planned. As far as the evidence showed, there are no plans for a laundry, as such, and "very little laundry" (S.37) is contemplated. The health department would require grease traps to be installed in any restaurant that is built. Gravity would collect sewage introduced into 2,000 feet of pipe connecting lodging, restaurant and a lift station planned (but not yet designed) for construction at a site downhill from the site proposed for the water treatment plant. All sewage reaching the proposed treatment plant would be pumped 3,000 feet from the lift station through a four-inch force main. Influent flow to the treatment plant could be calculated by timing how long the pump was in operation, since it would "pump a relatively constant rate of flow." (S.39) Treatment Wastewater entering the plant would go into aeration units where microorganisms would "convert and dispose of most of the incoming pollutants and organic matter." (S.40) The plant would employ "a bubbler process and not any kind of stirring-type motion . . . [so] there should be very little:; aerosol leaving the plant," (S.42) which is to be encircled by a solid fence. Electric air blowers equipped with mufflers would be the only significant source of noise at the proposed plant, which would ordinarily be unmanned. If one blower failed, the other could run the plant itself. A certified waste water treatment plant operator would be on site a half-hour each week day and for one hour each weekend. SFP has agreed to post a bond to guarantee maintenance of the plant for the six months' operation period a construction permit would authorize. (0.63) The proposed plant would not "create a lot of odor if it's properly maintained." Id. The specifications call for a connection for an emergency portable generator and require that such a generator be "provide[d] for this plant. . . ." (S. 43). The switch to emergency power would not be automatic, however. A settling process is to follow extended aeration, yielding a clear water effluent and sludge. Licensed haulers would truck the sludge elsewhere for disposal. One byproduct of extended aeration is nitrate, which might exceed 12 milligrams per liter of effluent, if not treated, so an anoxic denitrification section has been specified which would reduce nitrate concentrations to below 12 milligrams per liter, possibly to as low as 4 or 5 milligrams per liter. Before leaving the plant, water would be chlorinated with a chlorinator designed to use a powder, calcium hypochlorite, and to provide one half part per million chlorine residual in the effluent entering the percolation ponds. A spare chlorine pump is to be on site. The effluent would meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, would have 20 milligrams or less per liter of biochemical oxygen demand or, if more, no more than ten percent of the influent's biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids would amount to 20 milligrams or less per liter. (5.294- 295). Half the phosphorous entering the plant would become part of the sludge and half would leave in the effluent. Something like ten milligrams per liter of phosphorous would remain in the effluent discharged from the plant into the percolation ponds. (5.202). Although technology for removing more phosphorous is available (S.298, 0.170-171), SFP does not propose to employ it. Allen flocculation treatment followed by filtration could reduce phosphorous in the effluent to .4 milligrams per liter, but this would increase the cost of building the treatment plant by 30 to 40 percent; and operational costs would probably increase, as well, since it would be necessary to dispose of more sludge. (0.170-172). SFP did agree to accept a permit condition requiring it to monitor phosphorous levels in groundwater adjacent to the proposed plant. (0.63). Land Application Three percolation ponds are planned with an aggregate area of 30,000 square feet. At capacity, the plant would be producing a gallon and a half of effluent a day for each square foot of pond bottom in use. The ponds are designed in hopes that any two of them could handle the output of effluent, even with the plant at full capacity, leaving the third free for maintenance. The percolation ponds would stand in the lakes' watershed, in an area "of minimal flooding, (S.30) albeit outside the 100-year flood plain. Santa Fe Lake, including Gator Cove, and Little Santa Fe Lake are fed by groundwater from the surficial aquifer. All effluent not percolating down to levels below the surficial aquifer or entering the atmosphere by evapotranspiration would reach the lake water one way or another sooner or later. If percolation through the soils underneath the percolation ponds can occur at the rate SFP's application assumes, effluent would not travel overland into Lake Santa Fe except under unusually rainy conditions, which would dilute the effluent. Whether the planned percolation ponds would function as intended during ordinary weather conditions was not clear from the evidence, however. In the event the ponds overflowed, which, on SFP's assumptions, could be expected to happen, if peak sewage flaw coincided with weather more severe than a 25-year rainfall, effluent augmented by rainwater would rise to 179.87 NGVD (S.34), then overflow a series of emergency weirs connecting the ponds, flow through an outfall ditch, drain into a depression west of the ponds, enter a grassed roadside ditch, and eventually reach Lake Santa Fe after about a half a mile or so of grass swales. (5.69). Sheet flow and flow through an ungrassed gulley in the direction of Gator Cove (0.154) are other possible routes by which overflowing waters might reach the lake. (0.263). Since the facilities the plant is designed to serve are recreational, wet weather would discourage full use of the facilities and therefore full use of the water treatment system. Effluent traveling over the surface into Gator Cove would wash over vegetation of various kinds. Plants, of course, do take up phosphorous, but they don't do it forever, and if you leave a plant system alone, it will come to a steady state in which there is no net storage of phosphorous in the plant material. (0.166) Whether by sheet flow or by traversing swales, overland flow would reach Gator Cove within hours. Effluent traveling through the surficial aquifer would not reach the lake for at least five years. (S.238-9). It could take as long as 45 years. (0.316). In the course of the effluent's subterranean passage, the soil would take up or adsorb phosphorous until its capacity to do so had been exhausted. In addition, interaction with certain chemicals found in the soil, primarily calcium, precipitates phosphorous dissolved in groundwater. As between adsorption and precipitation, the former is much more significant: "[W]ith a three-meter distance you can expect at least 70 to 80 percent removal of phosphorous just by a a[d] sorption alone." (0.21). Precipitated phosphorous does not return to solution, unless the soil chemistry changes. (0.19) Adsorption, however, is reversible, although not entirely, because of the "hysteresis phenomenon." (0.19) Eventually, a kind of dynamic equilibrium obtains to do with the binding of the phosphorous to soil constituents, binding or precipitation of phosphorous. At some point . all of the binding sites become saturated . [and] the amount of phosphorous leaving, into the lake really, will be equal to the amount of phosphorous going into the the system. When there is no more place to store the phosphorous in the ground, then the output is equal to the input and that is called the steady state. (0.161) Although precipitation of phosphorous would not reach steady state under "conditions that render the phosphorous-containing compound insolu[]ble," (0.168) these conditions were not shown to exist now "much less . . . on into perpetuity." Id. Spring Seep A third possible route by which the effluent might reach lake waters would begin with percolation through the sand, which is to be placed on grade and on top of which the percolation ponds are to be constructed. Underground, the effluent would move along the hydraulic gradient toward the lake unless an impeding geological formation (an aquiclude or aquitard) forced it above ground lakeward of the percolationi ponds. In this event, the effluent would emerge as a man-made spring and complete its trip to Gator Cove, or directly to the lake, overland. The evidence demonstrated that a spring seep of this kind was not unlikely. Relatively impermeable clayey soils occur in the vicinity. A more or less horizontal aquitard lies no deeper than four or five feet below the site proposed for the percolation ponds. Conditions short of an actual outcropping of clayey sand could cause effluent mounding underground to reach the surface. Nor did the evidence show that an actual intersection between horizontal aquitard and sloping ground surface was unlikely. Such a geological impediment in the effluent's path would almost surely give rise to a spring seep between the pond site and the lakes. In the case of the other percolation ponds in this part of the state that do not function properly, the problem is n [U] sually an impermeable layer much too close to the bottom of the pond," (S.179), according to Mr. Frey, manager of DER's Northeast District. Phosphorous in effluent travelling by such a mixed route would be subject to biological uptake as well as adsorption and precipitation, but again a "steady state" would eventually occur. On Dr. Bothcher's assumptions about the conductivity of the clayey sand (or sandy clay) lying underneath the topsoil, the effluent would accumulate as a mound of groundwater atop the clay unit, and seep to the surface in short order; and "after a matter of probably weeks and maybe months, it would be basically of the quality of the water inside of the percolation pond." (0.278). More Phosphorous in Gator Cove The total annual phosphorous load from all existing sources "to the lake" has been estimated at 2,942 kilograms. Assuming an average effluent flow of 17,000 gallons per day from the proposed plant, "the total phosphorous load [from the proposed plant] will be 235 kilograms per annum," (0.16), according to Dr. Pollman, called by SFP as an expert in aquatic chemistry. Even before any steady state condition was reached, 20.75 to 41.5 kilograms of phosphorous, or approximately one percent of the existing total, would reach the lake annually from the proposed plant, on the assumptions stated by Dr. Pollman at 0.22-23 (90 to 95 percent removal of phosphorous in the soils and average daily flow of 30,000 gallons). Santa Fe Lake is more than two miles across and two miles long, and Little Santa Fe Lake, which may be viewed as an arm of Santa Fe Lake, is itself sizeable, with a shoreline exceeding two miles. But Gator Cove is approximately 200 yards by 100 yards with an opening into Santa Fe Lake only some 50 to 75 yards wide. (0.154). On a site visit, Dr. Parks observed "luxuriant growth of submerged plants" (0.154), including hydrilla, in Gator Cove. If a one percent increase in phosphorous were diffused evenly throughout the more than eight square miles Santa Fe Lake covers, there is no reason to believe that it would effect measurable degradation of the quality of the water. Some nutrients are beneficial, and the purpose of classifying a lake is to maintain a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. It's hard to see how 1.4 percent increase would lower the ambient quality. But . . . seepage into Gator Cove, which is a much more confined place [100 by 200 yardsj [would make it] quite probable that there would be a lowering of ambient water quality in the site . R] educed dispersion . . . in this cove would allow . . . phosphorous to build up. (0.156) Overland effluent flow to Gator Cove would increase concentrations of phosphorus there, with a consequent increase in the growth of aquatic plants, and the likely degradation of waters in the Cove, unless rapid and regular exchange of lake and cove waters dispersed the phosphorous widely, promptly upon its introduction Except for testimony that wind-driven waves sometimes stir up phosphorous laden sediments on the bottom, the record is silent on the movement of waters within and between Lake Santa Fe and Gator Cove. The record supports no inference that phosporous reaching Gator Cove would be dispersed without causing eutrophic conditions significantly degrading the water in the Cove. Neither does the record support the inference, however, that effluent moving underground into the lakes would enter Gator Cove. On this point, Dr. Bottcher testified: [T]he further away from the lake that you recharge water the further out under a lake that the water will be recharging into the lake; gives it a longer flow . . . it's going to migrate and come up somewhat out into the lake. (0.281-2) Phosphorous in the quantities the treatment plant would produce, if introduced "somewhat out into the lake" would probably not degrade water quality significantly, notwithstanding testimony to the contrary. (0.349, 354). Sands and Clays DER gave notice of its intent to deny SFP's original application because SFP proposed to place the pond bottoms approximately two and a half feet above an observed groundwater table. Placement in such proximity to groundwater raised questions about the capacity of the ground to accept the effluent. In its revised application, SFP proposes to place sand on the existing grade and construct percolation ponds on top of the sand. By elevating the pond bottoms, SFP would increase the distance between the observed groundwater table and pond bottoms to 5.2 feet. (S.256, 257). This perched water table, which is seasonal, is attributable to clayey sand or sandy clay underlying the site proposed for the percolation ponds. Between January 9, 1985, and January 17, 1985, "following a fairly dry antecedent period," (S.229) Douglas F. Smith, the professional consulting engineer SFP retained to prepare the engineering report submitted in support of SFP's permit applications, conducted six soil borings in the vicinity of the site proposed for the plant. One of the borings (TB 5) is in or on the edge of a proposed percolation pond and another (TB 4) is slightly to the north of the proposed pond site. Three (TB 1, 2 and 3) are east of the proposed pond site at distances ranging up to no more than 250 feet. The sixth is west of the proposed site in a natural depression. Mr. Smith conducted a seventh test boring under wetter conditions more than a year later a few feet north of TB 4. Finally, on September 5, 1986, during the interim between hearing days, Mr. Smith used a Shelby tube to obtain a soil sample four to six feet below grade midway between TB 4 and TB 5. 1/ The sites at which samples were taken are at ground elevations ranging from 173 to 178 feet above sea level. From the original borings and by resort to reference works, Mr. Smith reached certain general conclusions: The top four feet or so at the proposed pond site consists of silty sand, 17 percent silt and 83 percent quartz sand. This topsoil lies above a two-foot layer of clayey sand, 20 percent clay, 6 percent silt and 74 percent sand. Below the clayey sand lies a layer some eight feet thick of dense, silty sand, 23 percent silt, 7 percent clay and 70 percent sand, atop a one and one-half foot layer of clayey sand, separating loose, quartz sands going down 40 feet beneath the surface from what is above. These formations "are very heterogeneous, in the sense of the position and occurrence of the clay layers or the sandy layers . . .," (0.230) and all occur within the surficial aquifer. "There are layers of clay within it, and so perched water tables are rather common." (0.225). In March of 1986, the regional water table was some 17 feet down. SFP Exhibit 1B. Below the surficial aquifer lie the Hawthorne formation and, at a depth of 110 feet, the limestone of the Floridan aquifer. The soils above the Hawthorne formation are not consolidated. (S.254, 255). Conductivity Measurements The applicant offered no test results indicating the composition or conductivity of soils lying between the easternmost test boring and Gator Cove, some 1,200 feet distant. No tests were done to determine the conductivity of the deeper layer of clayey sand beneath the site proposed for the ponds. Tests of a sample of the topsoil in TB 7 indicated horizontal permeability of 38.7 feet per day and vertical permeability of six feet per day. On the basis of an earlier test of topsoil in TB 3, "hydraulic conductivity of the surface soils was measured to be 8.2 feet per day. . . ." SFP's Exhibit No. 1B. From this measurement, vertical hydraulic conductivity was conservatively estimated at .82 feet (9.84 inches) per day. Id. The design application rate, 2.41 inches per day, is approximately 25 percent of 9.84 inches per day. Id. The initial test done on a sample of the clayey sand, which lay beneath the topsoil at depths of 3.5 to 5.5 feet, indicated a permeability of 0.0001 feet per day. Thereafter, Mr. Smith did other testing and "made some general assumptions" (S. 235) and concluded that "an area-wide permeability of this clayey sand would be more on the order of 0.0144 feet per day." (S. 234). Still later a test of the sample taken during the hearing recess indicated hydraulic conductivity of 0.11 feet per day. SFP's Exhibit No. 10. The more than thousandfold increase in measured conductivity between the first laboratory analysis and the second is attributable in some degree to the different proportions of fines found in the two samples. The soil conductivity test results depend not only on the composition of the sample, but also on how wet the sample was before testing began. Vertical Conductivity Inferred On March 6, 1986, ground water was observed on the site about two and a half feet below the surface. SFP's expert, Mr. Smith, concluded that it was "essentially a 1.5 foot water table, perched water table over the clay." (0.422). There was, however, groundwater below, as well as above, the clay. On March 12, 1986, the water table at this point had fallen six inches. In the preceding month rainfall of 5.9 inches had been measured in the vicinity, after 5.1 inches had been measured in January of 1986, but in November and December of 1985 "there was a total of 0.6 inches of rainfall." (0.421). Later in the year, notwithstanding typically wet summer weather, no water table was measured at this point. From this Mr. Smith concluded that, once the clayey sand layer is wetted to the point of saturation, conductivity increases dramatically. If that were the case, a more or less steady stream of effluent could serve to keep the clayey sand wetted and percolation at design rates should not be a problem. But Dr. Bottcher, the hydrologist and soil physicist called as a witness for the Association, testified that the six- inch drop over six days could be attributed, in large part, to evapotranspiration. He rejected the hypothesis that the clayey sand's conductivity increased dramatically with saturation, since "the actual water table was observed . about three weeks after the very heavy rainfall had stopped" (0.290) and had probably been present for at least a month; and because the soil survey for Alachua County reports that perched water tables ordinarily persist for two months (0.227) in this type of soil. Certain soils' hydraulic conductivity does diminish with dessication, but such soils usually regain their accustomed conductivity within hours of rewetting. Dr. Bottcher rejected as unrealistically optimistic the assumption SFP's expert made about the conductivity of the clayey sand on grounds that "the conductivity that . . . [SFP] used, if you went out there you couldn't perch a water table for a month." (0.277). In these respects, Dr. Bottcher's testimony at hearing has been credited. In the opinion of the geologist who testified on behalf of the Association, Dr. Randazzo, a minimum of seven or eight additional augur borings in "definitive patterns to the northeast and to the northwest" (0.240) to depths of 15 to 20 feet, with measurements within each augur boring every two feet, are necessary to determine "how permeable the soils are and how fast the waters would move through them." (0.240). This testimony and the testimony of the soil physicist and others to the same general effect have been credited, and Mr. Smith's testimony that no further testing is indicated has been rejected. Wet Ground In the expert opinion of a geologist who testified at hearing, "it is reasonable to assume that saturation conditions of the surficial aquifer in this area can be achieved," (0.238) even without adding effluent from a wastewater treatment plant. The evidence that soils in the vicinity of the site have a limited capacity to percolate .water came not only from engineers and scientists. Charles S. Humphries, the owner of the property 150 feet from the proposed percolation site, "put a fence post line . . . every ten feet, and every ten feet [he] hit clay." (0.372). Three quarters of an inch of rain results in waters standing overnight in neighboring pastures. In parts of the same pastures, rain from a front moving through "will stay for a week or so." (0.373). It is apparent that the area cannot percolate all the rainfall it receives. This is the explanation for the gully leading down toward Gator Cove. Six-feet deep (0.377), "the gully is a result of natural surface runoff." (0.263).
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a permit to construct a wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Proposed Project Celebrity is seeking a DER permit to construct a 0.065 million gallon per day wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. The sewage treatment plant (STP) and effluent disposal system, consisting of a spray irrigation system, are to be located on the southern end of the site, away from Orange Lake. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Some underground pipes for a sewage collection system were installed at the site without an appropriate DER permit. Celebrity stopped the installation upon notice from DER that a permit was required for such installation. The permit needed for the installation of the collection system pipes was not the permit for the sewage treatment project which is being considered in this proceeding. Celebrity was penalized for its collection system violation, which was resolved with a consent order. Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) The STP is an extended aeration plant. It is designed to meet secondary treatment standards (90% removal of BOD and suspended solids from raw sewage) and basic disinfection. This type of treatment plant is very reliable. All mechanical components have a 100% backup so if a pump or blower fails, another is available to operate. The STP is designed to be capable of treating the flow from this RV park. Additionally, the facility has a holding pond for treated sewage effluent that can store five days of flow. Furthermore, because the RV park is a transient facility, it is possible in an emergency to shut down the entire plant and have people leave. By its nature, this is much more convenient in an RV park that in a residential or commercial neighborhood. The holding pond is to be lined with a 60 millimeter high density polyethylene liner, so there should be no leakage to the ground or groundwater even if there is an accident in the STP causing release of untreated sewage into the holding pond. The STP is to be maintained five days a week and must be attended for three nonconsecutive visits a week by a Class D certified plant operator. The amount of dissolved/undissolved heavy metals in the effluent is typically not a problem in domestic sewage effluent such as from the proposed RV park. To the extent that trace amounts of metals will exist, the STP will remove some heavy metals from the effluent during the treatment process and entrain them in the sludge (which will be taken to appropriately licensed landfill). There is no possibility of effluent leaking or discharging from the plant to directly discharge to Orange Lake, even if the STP completely malfunctions. Although the proposed STP is not a highly sophisticated plant, reasonable assurances have been provided that the STP will comply with DER's requirements for secondary treatment and basic disinfection and proper operation. Effluent Disposal System (Spray Irrigation System) Phase I of the effluent disposal system (spray irrigation system) is 3.66 acres in size, with an additional 1.7 acres designated if Phase II is implemented. Approval under this permit authorizes only the 3.66 acres on Phase I. Numerous separate sprinkler heads will spray the treated effluent on the field. The heads can be separately controlled and shut down. The sprayfield is sited on the southwestern corner of the 75-acre site and is separated hydrologically from the Orange Lake drainage basin by the "break" referred to in Paragraph 4 above. Therefore, surface water drainage in the area of the sprayfield drains away from the lake and does not connect back to the lake. The permitted loading rate is 1.7 inches per week, or approximately 24,000 gallons per day at full capacity. This amount corresponds to only approximately 170% of natural rainfall, but is more evenly distributed and controlled. After uptake of nutrients by green plants and evaporation (evapo- transpiration), the average amount of treated effluent that will percolate below the "uptake zone" to the surficial aquifer (to the extent that such exists on the site) is 0.3 to 0.4 inches per week. The surficial water table in the area of the sprayfield generally flows to the north toward the lake, although the flow is not immediately direct toward the lake. The Floridan Aquifer (which is beneath the intermittent surficial water table) in the area of the sprayfield generally flows away from the lake to the south and southeast. There are four sinkholes on the 75-acre site, although none of these four sinkholes have been identified on the 3.66-acre sprayfield. The four sinkholes on the 75-acre site and the majority of sinkholes in the area are "subsidence sinkholes." These sinkholes do not result in an open void down to the limerock after the collapse forming the sinkhole, but instead continue to have unconsolidated material above the limerock, even though a depression forms on the surface. One of the sinkholes has standing water within it and could possibly represent a connection with the lake water table or the Floridan Aquifer, but that sinkhole is separated hydrologically from the sprayfield site by the "break" across the property. There will generally be a slight increase in hydrologic conductivity through a subsidence sinkhole, since the unconsolidated material on the surface remains and is loosened. In some cases there may be even less hydrologic transmissivity due to a "jamming up" of the unconsolidated material, and in some cases there may be an increase in transmissivity when the unconsolidated material falls into an even less consolidated state. A "lineament" may exist on the 75-acre site. A lineament is a fracture zone, which indicates an increase in ground water transmissivity, resulting in an increase in solution of limestone and therefore indicating a more likely location for sinkhole formation. If a sinkhole develops within the sprayfield and if the sinkhole results in an increased area of ground water transmissivity, it could be a conduit for treated effluent to reach the surficial aquifer or Floridan Aquifer. Sinkholes which may form on the site are subject to being repaired with impervious material which prevents their becoming routes of contamination to the aquifer. In addition, the loading rate of any single sinkhole that forms within the spray irrigation field is so light and so easily shut down that there is a high confidence rate that no new sinkhole will act as a conduit for even the small immediate discharge over the area of the new sink to reach the Floridan Aquifer. A spray irrigation effluent disposal system is appropriate for this area which is subject to sinkhole formation. Spray irrigation allows dispersal of the effluent over a large area as opposed to a percolation pond which concentrates in the percolation area and therefore increases the chance of sinkhole formation and the chance of larger amounts of effluent reaching the Floridan Aquifer if all the intervening safeguards should fail simultaneously. In addition, the repair of any sinkhole forming within the sprayfield is simplified by the ability to simply shut off the sprinkler head or heads affecting that sinkhole while repair is being effected. Permit conditions further limit excessive effluent application rates by limiting the amount of flow, prohibiting application during storm events, and requiring monitoring of the flow. Spray irrigation is a common method of effluent disposal which generally has fewer problems than use of percolation ponds. No evidence has been presented that discharge from the sprayfield will cause violations of groundwater quality standards or violations of surface water quality standards, including the Outstanding Florida Water requirements in Orange Lake. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed effluent disposal system will not violate DER water quality standards or other applicable DER rules. Standing Petitioner Suto could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if it causes pollution to Orange Lake since she uses the lake for nature photography. Additionally, she resides to the southeast of the proposed sprayfield and has concerns over contaminated ground water reaching her property and affecting her drinking water. Petitioner Riley could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if there is pollution to the Floridan Aquifer since she lives southeast of the proposed facility and has two drinking water wells on this property. Additionally, Petitioner Riley is a user of Orange Lake and therefore could be substantially affected by the proposed facility if it impacts the lake. Petitioner Solomon could be substantially affected by the proposed project if the project impacts Orange Lake since Mr. Solomon earns his living on the lake as a commercial fisherman and bass fishing guide.
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 granting to Celebrity Resorts, Inc., a permit to construct a wastewater treatment facility and spray irrigation disposal system subject to the conditions set forth in the Intent to Issue. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2722 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(1); 5(2); 6(4); 7(5&6); 8- 12(7-11); 13(12); 14(13); 15(14); 16(15&16); 17(17); 18(18); 19-21(20-22); and 22-27(26-31). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 28 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4-6(1-3); 7-13(5-11); 14(12); 15-17(13-15); 18(17); 19(18); 20-26(19-25); 27-32(26-31); and 33-35(32- 34). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Delcie J. Suto, Pro Se 2400 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Carol B. Riley, Pro Se 2250 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Crawford Solomon, Pro Se 1303 N.W. 186th Place Citra, FL 32113 Karen English 3680 West Highway 318 Citra, FL 32113 Marilyn Nehring P. O. Box 481 Orange Lake, FL 32112 John Monsees 2400 NW 165 Street Citra, FL 32113 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, 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
Findings Of Fact Background In 1983, Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. (Concerned Citizens), an intervenor in this case, filed a petition toe initiate rulemaking for single source reclassification of groundwater under the existing provisions of Rule 17-3.403, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In this manner, Concerned Citizens sought to have existent potable waters in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties classified Class G-I groundwater, and to thereby provide them the most stringent water quality protection accorded groundwaters of the state. At a public meeting in February 1985, the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) deferred action on the petition of Concerned Citizens, and directed the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) to review the existing G-I rule, prepare proposed revisions, and present its recommendations to the ERC. Following the ERC directive, the Department held numerous public meetings and workshops to explore different approaches to groundwater protection. As a consequence, it prepared the proposed revisions to Rules 17-3.021, 17-3.403, 17-3.404, and 17- 4.245, F.A.C., at issue in these proceedings. On October 31, 1986, the Department duly noticed the proposed rules in volume 12, number 44, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice interested parties that a public hearing would be held on December 16, 1986, before the ERC. 1/ On December 16-17, 1986, the ERC held a public hearing at which time it considered the rules recommended by the Department. During the course of this meeting, the ERC approved and adopted the rules with certain changes. These changes were duly noticed in volume 13, number 3, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 16, 1987. Petitioners and Intervenors Petitioners, Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc., and Alliance for Rational Groundwater Rules (Case No. 86-4492RP), and Petitioners Aloha Utilities, Inc.; Interphase, Inc.; Phase 1 Homes, Inc.; A.C. & R., Inc.; Tahitian Development, Inc.; Great Cypress Mobile Village, Inc.; and Barrington, Ltd. (Case No. 86- 4705R), filed timely petitions to challenge the validity of the proposed rules, which petitions were consolidated for hearing. Petitions for leave to intervene were granted on behalf of Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.; Florida Land Council, Inc.; and Pasco County. These Intervenors' interests were aligned with those of petitioners. Petitions for leave to intervene were a1so granted on behalf of West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority and Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. These Intervenors' interests were aligned with those of the Department and the ERC. Petitioner, Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc. (Adam Smith), is the owner/developer of a 3,800-acre development of regional impact (DRI) to be known as Trinity Communities. This development, which has been in the acquisition and planning stages for almost 5 years, is currently undergoing DRI review and Adam Smith anticipates that it will receive its development order by September 1987. The Trinity Communities development is located predominately in Pasco County, with just over 250 acres of its lands located in Pinellas County. These properties are predominately open pasture land, and are bordered on the north, east and west by roads and on the south by Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. As proposed, the Trinity Communities development will include 1100 acres of parks, golf courses, and other open areas. The remaining lands will be developed to accommodate 9500 dwelling units, as well as industrial and commercial uses to service the community, over a 20-year period. At today's market value, the property represents an investment of approximately 28 million dollars. Abutting the Trinity Communities development is the Eldridge-Wilde Well Field. This well field is covered by consumptive use permits issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and contains major public community drinking water supply wells as defined by the rules at issue in this proceeding. Of these wells, 5 are located within 9.63 feet and 181.5 feet of the proposed development's property line, and 5 are located with 204.72 fee and 297.5 feet of its property line. Petitioner, Alliance for Rational Groundwater Rules (Alliance), is an association of landowners who united to educate themselves about the proposed rules. The proof failed, however, to establish whether Alliance had ever elected any officers or directors, or the magnitude of its membership. Consequently, the proof failed to establish that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, were substantially affected by the proposed rules, and that the relief requested by it was of a type appropriate for it to receive on behalf of its members. Petitioner, Aloha Utilities, Inc. (Aloha Utilities), is a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide water and sewer service to two separate service areas in southern Pasco County. Currently, Aloha Utilities operates an 850,000 gallon per day (gpd) sewage treatment facility (Aloha Gardens) and a 1.2 million gpd sewage treatment plant (Seven Springs). It also operates 10-11 producing wells, at least 7 of which are permitted by SWFWMD to withdraw at least 100,000 gpd. One of these wells is located approximately 1/4-1/2 mile from an Aloha Utility sewage treatment plant. At least 3 of Aloha Utilities' wells which are permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd or more, will service or are servicing the Riverside projects and Aloha Gardens Unit Number 12 project discussed infra. Consequently, the proof establishes that Aloha Utilities operates a major public community drinking water supply system as defined by the subject rules. The Aloha Gardens facility is under a Department order to expand its effluent disposal capacity. To satisfy the Department's order and the need for increased disposal capacity, Aloha Utilities commenced condemnation proceedings 8-12 months ago to secure the needed property. While the condemnation proceeding is not yet completed, Aloha Utilities has already expended considerable sums for engineering studies and attorney's fees in its efforts to acquire the property. That property is located approximately 1/2 mile from an existing well that is permitted for an average daily flow of at least 100,000 gpd. The effluent disposal capacity of the Seven Springs facility is also being expanded to meet existing and future demand. In April 1987, Aloha Utilities acquired a 27-28 acre parcel of land immediately adjacent to its existing facility. Upon these lands, Aloha Utilities proposes to construct percolation ponds, a rapid rate land application effluent disposal process. As sited, these ponds would be located 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from a well permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. 2/ Petitioners, Interphase, Inc., Phase 1 Homes, Inc., and Tahitian Development, Inc., are corporations with common management which are developing three separate but geographically proximate projects in Pasco County. These projects will be, or are, serviced by Aloha Utilities. Interphase, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 100- acre tract known as Riverside Village Unit Number Four. This property is currently being developed to include 57 acres dedicated to single family use and 43 acres dedicated to multifamily use, and will require the installation of stormwater facilities and underground sewage transportation facilities. Two wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more are located 1/2 mile and 1/3 mile, respectively, from this development. Interphase, Inc., is also the owner of a 17-acre parcel of vacant land in Pasco County that is zoned commercial. This property is located within 400 feet of Aloha Utilities' Seven Springs sewer treatment plant, and its development will require the installation of underground sewage transportation facilities. Phase 1 Homes, Inc., is the owner/developer of a project known as Riverside Village Townhouses. This project is fully developed and is currently serviced by Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development are two wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Tahitian Development, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 40-acre tract known as Riverside Villas. Twenty of these acres have been developed and some of the units sold. The remaining 20 acres are currently under development. In developing its remaining 20 acres, Tahitian Development would be required to install stormwater drainage systems and sewage transportation lines to connect with Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development are wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Tahitian Development also owns a 40-acre parcel in Orange County which it plans to develop for light industrial uses such as an industrial park or an office complex. Such development would result in at least a 40 percent impervious surface, including building tops, within that 40-acre parcel, and require the installation of a sewage transportation system and a stormwater drainage system. Petitioner, A.C. & R., Inc., is the owner/developer of a project in Pasco County known as Aloha Gardens Unit Number 12. The project, which currently is represented by 40-50 developed lots, is located just north of the Aloha Gardens sewage treatment facility, and is serviced by Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development that is permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Petitioner, Great Cypress Mobile Village, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 149 unit mobile home park in Pasco County. Twenty of these units are completed and ready for occupancy. Completion of the project will require the installation of additional sewer lines. Located at the interior of the property is a sewage treatment plant owned by Northern Utilities which services the project, and within 600 feet of the project's boundary there is a well which services that utility. The capacity of that well was not, however, demonstrated in these proceedings, nor was it shown whether such well was part of a community water system. Petitioner, Barrington, Ltd. is a party of unknown capacity, origin, or interest. No evidence was presented on its behalf to demonstrate that its substantial interests would be affected by the proposed rules. Intervenor, Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG), a Florida corporation, is an association of Florida's electric utilities, and is composed of 37 members. The FCG has, as part of its internal organization, an environmental committee whose purpose is to participate in regulatory development and provide mutual member assistance with regard to water related matters. This committee was authorized by the FCG executive committee to participate in the development of the rules at issue in these proceedings, as well as Intervene in these proceedings, to represent and protect the interests of FCG members. The FCG participated in the development of the subject rules by the Department, and was granted full party status by the ERC during that rulemaking process. The members of FCG are owners and operators of electric power generating facilities. These facilities“ include the power plant and ancillary facilities such as substations. Incident to the operation of these facilities are wastewater discharges associated with the production of electricity and stormwater discharges. One of these facilities, Gainesville Regional Utilities' Deer Haven generating station is located across Highway 441 from a major community drinking water supply well. Intervenor, Florida Land Council, Inc., a Florid corporation, is composed of 12 primary members who own large tracts of land in interior Florida, and who are engaged primarily in agribusiness. The Land Council's purpose is to protect the asset value of its members property and, because of that purpose, it is concerned with environmental regulations, growth management regulations, land use regulations, and comprehensive planning. To protect its interests, the Land Council sought leave to intervene in these proceedings. There was, however, no proof that any lands owned by any member of the Land Council were proximate to any major public community drinking water well. Intervenor, Pasco County, is the owner/operator of 25 wastewater treatment plants with capacities In excess of 100,000 gallons per day, and has under construction, or in the design stage, additional facilities with capacities in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. The construction of these new facilities will require the installation of new lines for the collection of wastewater. Pasco County's current, as well as its planned, wastewater treatment facilities will utilities a rapid rate land application effluent disposal process. Within a mile of any wastewater treatment plan operated by Pasco County can be found a major public community drinking water well as defined by the rules at issue in these proceedings. Pasco County also owns and operates wells within the county with permitted withdrawal rates exceeding 100,000 gpd, and participates in the ownership and management of their wells with permitted withdrawal rates exceeding 100,000 gpd through West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority. Pasco County currently has plans to add new production wells in the county with an average daily pumpage in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Intervenor, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (West Coast), is an interlocal government body created in 1974 to develop, store, and supply water to its member governments so that all citizens within the areas served by the authority may be assured an adequate supply of water. Member governments served by WCRWSA are Hillsborough County, Pasco County, and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. Wellfields operated by West Coast are the Starkey Wellfield located in west central Pasco County, which serves the citizens of New Port Richey and Pasco County; the South-Central Hillsborough Regional Wellfield located in south-central Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough, County; the crossbar Ranch Wellfield located in north-central Pasco County, which principally serves the citizens of Pinellas, County; the Cypress Creek Wellfild located in south-central Pasco County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and western Pasco Counties and the City of St. Petersburg; the Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough County; the Section 21 Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg; and, the Come-Odessa Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg. 3/ Each of the wellfields operated by West Coast are public community water systems, and contain wells permitted to withdraw in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Collectively, these wellfields serve a total population of 800,000 persons. Intervenor, Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. (Concerned Citizens), is a not-for-profit corporation, was chartered in 1981, and has 350 members who obtain their drinking water from operational community water supply wells permitted for over 100,000 gallons per day in Inverness, Crystal River, Floral City, Sugar Mill Woods, Beverly Hills, and Rolling Oaks, Citrus County, Florida. The purpose of Concerned Citizens is to protect the natural resources of Citrus County through planning and zoning regulations, and local and state legislation and regulations. It was granted party status by the ERC. General aspects of the proposed rules The proposed rules establish new eligibility criteria for designation of an aquifer segment as Class G-I groundwater. Under the existing rule, the ERC could reclassify an aquifer or portion of an aquifer as G-I within specified boundaries upon a finding that: The aquifer or portion of the aquifer is the only reasonably available source of potable water to a significant segment of the population; and The designated use is attainable, upon consideration of environmental, techological, water quality, institutional, and social and economic factors. Under the proposed revisions, an aquifer segment could be classified by the ERC as G-I provided it was: ...within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined aquifers or from leaky confined aquifer... and, upon consideration of: ...environmental, technologial, water quality, institutional (including local land use comprehensive plans), public health, public interest, social and economic factors. As with thee existing rule, the proposed rules require that rulemaking procedures be followed to actually designate a G-I aquifer or aquifer segment at any particular location. The scheme envisioned by the proposed rules is to provide protection to "major community drinking water supply wells", community water systems that are permitted by consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater, by preventing contaminants from entering the groundwater within a circumscribed radius of the wells. To accomplish this purpose, the proposed rules establish a methodology whereby two zones of protection would be established around such wells if they were withdrawing waters from unconfined aquifers (an aquifer exposed to the atmosphere) or leaky confined aquifers (an aquifer in which groundwater moves vertically from the water table to the top of the aquifer in five years or less). The first zone (the inner zone) would be based on a fixed radius of 200 feet. The second zone (the outer zone) would be based on a radius, calculated under the rule's methodology, of 5 years groundwater travel time. Within the inner zone, discharges would be prohibited. Within the outer zone, certain developments which discharge to groundwater would be prohibited or restricted. A major emphasis of the proposed rules is to restrict discharges to groundwater within the zones of protection. For example, the rules eliminate the zone of discharge within the zones of protection, and require that new discharges to groundwater of treated domestic effluent meet the groundwater criteria specified in rule 17-3.404, F.A.C., prior to discharge. 4/ Additionally, such wastewater treatment facilities would be required to pre-treat industrial wastewater, provide daily monitoring to insure proper treatment plant process control, and provide 24 hour a day attendance of a wastewater operator under the general supervision of a Class A certified wastewater operator. New underground lines for the transport of domestic raw wastewater would be required to be constructed so that no more than 50 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per mile per day could leak into the ground. Within the 5 year zone of protection, there are no restrictions on stormwater discharges for residential developments. However, discharges from new stormwater facilities serving an area forty acres or larger with a forty percent impervious surface, excluding building tops, are required to monitor the discharge. Construction and operation of new sanitary landfills would be prohibited. As previously noted, to be eligible for reclassification as a G-I aquifer, the aquifer or aquifer segment under consideration must be leaky confined or unconfined. Whether the aquifer is leaky confined or not will be determined through application of the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae contained in the proposed rules, and the zones of protection will be established by reference to the "r" formula contained in the proposed rule. To date, neither the Department nor any party has applied the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae to identify wells hat are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers, nor has anyone delineated any zones of protection by application of the "r" formula. The Department has, however, identified those areas of the state at which it is likely that major community drinking water supply wells are withdrawing from such aquifers. Based on this identification, the Department has contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to "map" the Middle-Gulf region (Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties) by applying the "Vv" and "Tv" formulas to each well permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd or more to determine if it is withdrawing from such aquifers and, if so, to delineate proposed zones of protection around such wells or wellfields through application of the "r" formula. The USGS is currently mapping the Middle-Gulf region. Pertinent to this case, the Department has identified all of Pasco and Pinellas Counties, the northern half of Hillsborough County, and most of Orange County including Orlando, as areas within which wells are most probably withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers, and for which aquifers the Department will seek G-I reclassification. Under the circumstances, the parties have established, except as heretofore noted, that there is a reasonable likelihood that the proposed rules will substantially affect their interests. The rule challenge The gravamen of the protestant's challenge is that certain definitions and formulae continued within the proposed rule are vague, ambiguous, or not supported by fact or logic. The Protestants' also challenge the adequacy of the economic impact statement. The Protestants concerns are addressed below. Definitions Rule 17-3.021, as amended, would define "Confined Aquifer", "Leaky Confined Aquifer", and "Unconfined Aquifer", as follows: (7) "Confined Aquifer" shall mean an aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable beds or by beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself. For the purpose of G-I, it shall mean an aquifer confined from above by a formation(s) which restricts the movement of groundwater vertically from the water table to the top of the confined aquifer for a period of more than five years * * * (16) "Leaky Confined Aquifer" shall mean, for the purposes of G-I, an aquifer confined from above by a formation(s) which allows groundwater to move vertically from the water table to the top of the leaky confined aquifer in five years or less. * * * (34) "Unconfined Aquifer" shall mean an aquifer other than a confined aquifer. For the purpose of G-I it shall mean an aquifer other than a confined or leaky confined aquifer. 5/ Protestants contend that the definition of "confined aquifer" and "leaky confined aquifer" are vague and meaningless because they are "defined by use of the phrase being defined". Accordingly, they conclude that proposed rule 17-3.021(7) and (16) must fall because they are without thought and reason, irrational and vague. Protestants further contend that since the definitions of "confined aquifer" and "leaky confined aquifer" are flawed, proposed rule 17-3.021(34), which defines unconfined aquifer, must also fall. The Protestants' contentions are not persuasive. If one were restricted to the definition of "confined", "leaky confined" and "unconfined" aquifer to glean their meaning, the rules might be considered vague. However, these definitions are, as they specifically provide, "for the purpose of G-I" and they must be read in context with the balance of the rule. When so read, it is apparent that "top of the confined aquifer" or "top of the leaky confined aquifer" is the top of the aquifer that has been calculated as confined or leaky through manipulation of the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae. Under the circumstances, the subject definitions are not vague, arbitrary or capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(20) provides: "New Discharge" shall mean, for the purpose of G-I, a discharge from a new installation; or a discharge from an existing permitted installation that has been altered, after the effective date of G-I reclassification, either chemically, biologically, or physically or that has a 211 22 different point of discharge, and which causes a significantly different impact on groundwater. Protestants contend that the definition of "new discharge" is vague, arbitrary and capricious because existing installations would be classified as new dischargers, and subject to the more stringent requirements of the proposed rules, whether the alteration of their discharge significantly improved or adversely affected groundwater. As proposed, the rule would so define new discharge, and it is not vague or ambiguous. The proof demonstrated, however, that the Department only proposed to define, as new dischargers, those existing installations whose altered discharge caused a significantly different negative impact on groundwater. The Department conceded this point, and offered no proof to demonstrate the reasonableness of classifying existing installations that improve their discharge as new discharges. Under the circumstances, proposed rule 17-3.021(20) is arbitrary and capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(35) defines "underground storage facility or underground transportation facility as follows: "Underground storage facility" or "underground transportation facility" shall mean that 10 percent or more of the facility is buried below the ground surface. This proposed rule is, however, only pertinent to proposed rule 17-4.245, which addresses the permitting and monitoring requirements for installations discharging to groundwater. Pertinent to this case, proposed rules 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d) establish construction requirements for the following facilities within the five year zone of protection: Underground storage facilities. An underground storage facility includes any enclosed structure, container, tank or other enclosed stationary devices used for storage or containment of pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S. or any contaminant as defined in Sect ion 403.031(1), F.S. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to include septic tanks, enclosed transformers or other similarly enclosed underground facilities.... Underground facilities for transportation of wastewater or pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S. or any contaminant as defined in Section 403.031(1), F.S. excluding natural and liquified petroleum gas. Underground facilities for transportation of waste effluent or pollutants or contaminants include piping, sewer lines, and ducts or other conveyances to transport pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S., and contaminants as defined in Section 403.031(1), F.S.... Protestants contend that the proposed rules are contained in two separate chapters of the Florida Administrative Code with no bridge between them. Under such circumstances, they contend the rules fail to adequately define either facility in either chapter, and that the rules are therefore vague, arbitrary and capricious. Protestants' contention is not persuasive. Proposed rule 17-3.021(35) defines "underground storage facility" or "underground transportation facility" as meaning that 10 percent or more of the facility is buried below the ground surface. Proposed rules 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d) address what type of facility is included within the terms "underground storage facility" and "underground transportation facility." Notably, Rule 17-4.021, F.A.C., provides: Definitions contained in other chapters of the Department's rules may be utilized to clarify the meaning of terms used herein unless such terms are defined in Section 17-4.020, F.A.C., or transfer of such definition would defeat the purpose or alter the intended effect of the provisions of this chapter. Under the circumstances of this case, the rules are appropriately read together. So read, the construction requirements for "underground storage facilities" and "underground transportation facilities", as required by proposed rule 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d), are applicable if 10 percent or more of the containment device used for the storage or transport of pollutants is buried below the ground surface, and the proposed rules are not vague, arbitrary or capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(39) defines "Zones of Protection" as follows: "Zones of Protection" shall mean two concentric areas around a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) drawing from a G-I aquifer whose boundaries are determined based on radii from the well or wellfields of 200 feet and five years groundwater travel time respectively. Protestants contend that the definition of "Zones of Protection" is vague, arbitrary and capricious because nowhere within the proposed rules is "G-I aquifer" defined. protestants' contention is not persuasive. Proposed rules 17-3.403(1) and (7) adequately explain what is meant by "G-I aquifer", and proposed rule 17-3.403(8) sets forth the metodology for calculating the zones of protection. The definition of "Zones of Protection", set forth in proposed rule 17-3.02(39) is not vague, arbitrary or capricious, because of any failure to define "G-I aquifer." Mapping Priorities When considering whether to reclassify an aquifer or aquifer segment as G-I, proposed rule 17-3.403(5)(e)2 requires that the aquifer or aquifer segment: Be specifically mapped and delineated by the Department on a detailed map of a scale which would clearly depict the applicable zones of protection. Maps will be grouped and submitted for reclassification generally on a regional basis. Mapping priorities shall follow the Commission directive of February 27, 1985. The remaining areas of the state will be mapped by the Department as time and resources allow. The mapping priority directive referred to in purposed Rule 17-3.403(5)(e)2a, was an oral directive of the ERC that Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties, referred to as the Middle-Gulf region, be mapped first. That directive has not been reduced to writing and, consequently, a copy thereof has never been available for inspection. Categories of G-I Aquifers and determination of zones and protection Proposed rules 17-3.403(7) and (8), respectively, set forth the eligibility criteria for reclassification as G-I aquifers and the methodology whereby the boundaries of the zones of protection are established. To this end, proposed rule 17- 3.403 (7) provides: Categories of G-I aquifers. For aquifers or aquifer segments to be eligible for potential reclassification as G-I aquifers one of the following criteria must be met: That the aquifer or aquifer segment under consideration be within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined aquifers or from leaky confined aquifers.... (b)(. reserved.) Proposed rule 17-3.403(8) provides: Determination of the boundaries of the zones of protection. (a) The boundaries of the zones of protection shall be based on radii from the wellhead or wellfield (if closely clustered, so that the five year zones of protection are overlapping) measured in 200 feet for the inner zone and five years for the outer zone. The radius of the outer zone shall be determined using the following formula: percent.x4n where Q = permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day); T = five years (1825 days); 3.14 = mathematical constant pi; r = radius (feet); h distance from the top of the producing aquifer to the bottom of the hole (feet); n effective porosity. Protestants contend that the foregoing provisions of the proposed rules are vague, arbitrary and capricious because the wells that would be subject to and around which a zone of protection would be established cannot be identified or, if identifiable, do not comport with the Department's intent or interpretation. Protestant's concerns are not without merit. To be eligible for consideration as a G-I aquifer, proposed rule 17-3.403(7) requires that the aquifer segment be within the zones of protection of a "major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s). Proposed rule 17- 3.021(17) provides that "major public community drinking water supply" shall mean: those community water systems as defined in Section 17-22.103(5), F.A.C., that are permitted by consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater. Community water system" is defined by Section 17-22.103(5) as: a public water system which serves at least IS service connections used by year- round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. Facially then, the proposed G-I rules are applicable to "community water system" that hold a consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater", and which are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers. Notably, the rule does not ascribe the 100,000 gpd permitted rate of withdrawal to each well, but to a permit held by a community water system. Accordingly, under the literal reading of the proposed rules, each well covered by the consumptive use permit would be subject to a zone of protection regardless of its individually permitted rate, so long as it was withdrawing from an unconfined or leaky confined aquifer. While there may be legitimate reasons to designate zones of protection around wells, regardless of their individual permitted rate when the community water system holds a consumptive use permit to withdraw groundwater at a 100,000 gpd average, the Department advanced none. To the contrary, the Department contended that zones of protection were only to be established around a well that was permitted to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater. Under the circumstances, the provisions of proposed rules 17-3.403(7) and (8) are arbitrary and capricious. 6/ The "Vv" and "Tv" formulae Proposed rule 17-3.403(7)(a) prescribes the methodology where by vertical travel time will be calculated, and therefore whether a particular aquifer will be classified as confined or leaky confined. To this end, the proposed rule provides: ... Determination of vertical travel time for leaky confinement will be by application of the following formulae: Vv= Kv h/nl where: Vv= vertical velocity (feet/day). Kv= vertical hydraulic conductivities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials (feet/day). h= head difference between water table in the surficial aquifer and the potentiometric surface of the producing aquifer (feet). n = effective porosities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials. 1 = distance from the water table to the top of the producing aquifer (feet). Tv= 1/Vv 365 where: Tv= vertical travel time (years). 1 = same as above. Vv= same as above. The "Vv" formula and the "Tv" formula are valid formulae, and are commonly used by hydrogeologists to calculate the vertical velocity and vertical travel time of groundwater. As proposed, the formulae present a reasonable methodology for computing the vertical velocity and vertical travel time of groundwater if the well is producing from one aquifer. The formulae cannot, however, as hereafter discussed, be reasonably applied if tee well is producing from multiple aquifers or if another aquifer intervenes between the surf aquifer and the producing aquifer. While not the most prevalent occurrence in the state wells in the Middle-Gulf regions often do penetrate more than one aquifer and do produce water from more than one aquifer. The rule defines the "Kv" element of the "Vv" formula as the "vertical hydraulic conductivities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials (feet/day)." This is a reasonable definition and will produce a scientifically valid result provided the well does not penetrate multiple aquifers. Should the well penetrate multiple aquifers, the values derived for vertical velocity ("Vv") and vertical travel time ("Tv") will not be accurate since the hydraulic conductivities of the intervening aquifers are not, by the rule definition, factored into the calculation of "Kv". Under such circumstances, whether an aquifer was classified as confined or leaky confined would not be determined by a valid "Kv" but, rather, by chance. Protestants also contend that the rule is vague, arbitrary and capricious because it does not specify the methodology by which "Kv" is to be calculated. There are, however, methodologies commonly accepted by hydrogeologists to derive a scientifically valid "Kv", whether the well penetrates one or more than one aquifer. The infirmity of the rule is not its failure to specify a methodology, but its to include data necessary to produce a meaningful result. The rule defines the "n" element of the Vv formula as "effective porosities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials." This is a reasonable definition and will, though the application of commonly accepted methodologies, produce a scientifically valid result. 7/ The rule defines the element "Delta h" in the Vv formula as the "head difference between the water table in the surficial aquifer and the potentiometric surface of the producing aquifer (feet)", and defines the element "1" as the "distance from the water table to the top of the producing aquifer (feet)." These elements are utilized in the formula to calculate a gradient, and must be measured using the same points of reference to yield a meaningful result. To this end, the proof demonstrates that the definitions are reasonable since they utilize the same points of reference, and that when applied in accordance with accepted hydrogeologic practice will produce a scientifically valid gradient. (See Department exhibit 7). Protestants contend, however, that the definitions of "Delta h" and "1" are vague, arbitrary and capricious because they do not specify when the measurements should be made, do not define "producing aquifer", and do not define "top" of the producing aquifer. For the reasons that follow, Protestants' contentions are found to be without merit. While a water table is a dynamic surface subject to frequent, if not daily fluctuation, resulting from variations in rainfall and the demands of man, and while a potentiometric surface is likewise a dynamic elevation that changes with time and season, protestants failed to demonstrate that there was any particular date or dates that would be most appropriate to make such calculations. Rather, protestants contended that unless such measurements were taken contemporaneously, any derivation of "Delta h" and "1" would not be reliable. While such might be the case, the rule does not mandate a divergence from the accepted hydrogeologic practice of taking such measurements contemporaneously. While the rule does not define "producing aquifer," it is an accepted hydrogeologic term and not subject to confusion. The only confusion in this case was the introduction of the issue of multiple producing aquifers and protestants' contentions that this rendered the Vv formula vague, arbitrary and capricious since it did not factor in such a consideration. Protestants' contention does not, however render the term "producing aquifer" vague. The sole purpose of the Vv and Tv formulas are to determine whether the aquifer from which water is being produced is leaky confined. To establish this, the formulae are applied to calculate whether the vertical travel time is five years or less. If a well is withdrawing water from more than one aquifer it may be necessary to calculate Vv and Tv for each aquifer to discern which of those aquifers are within the 5 year vertical travel time threshold, and therefore subject to G-I reclassification. To this end the rule is not vague, and would adequately address the multiple producing aquifer scenario. While the rule doe not define "top" of the producing aquifer, this term is an accepted hydrogeologic term and is not subject to confusion. In application there may, however, be disagreements among hydrogeologists as to where this line should be established because geologic boundaries are fine gradations, and not sharp lines which would lend themselves to the designation of precise points of reference. This is not, however, a failure of the rule, but a peculiarity of nature, and is subject to scientific proof. Notably, protestants did not demonstrate that "top" of the producing aquifer could be defined with reference to a fixed point. Under the circumstances, "top" of the producing aquifer is a reasonable reference point. Zones of Protection Proposed rule 17-3.408 provides: Determination of the boundaries of the zones of protection shall be based on radii from the wellhead or wellfield (if closely clustered, so that the five year zones of protection are overlapping), measured in 200 feet for the inner zone and five years for the outer zone. The radius of the outer zone shall be determined using the following formula: QT 2 3.14 hn where Q = permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day); T = five years (1825 days); 3.14 = mathematical constant pi; r = radius (feet); h distance from the top of the producing aquifer to the bottom of the hole (feet); n effective porosity. For the purpose of this calculation the following effective porosities for representative Florida aquifers will be used: Floridan .05 Sand and Gravel .2 Biscayne .15 Surficial .2 The Department shall use more site-specific values for "Q", "n", or "h" when available for designation of the zones of protection by the Commission. Proposed rule 17-3.403(8)(a) provides that the inner zone of protection shall be based on a radius from the wellhead or wellfilled, as appropriate, of 200 feet. While denoted as an arbitrary radius, the 200 foot radius was not derived without fact or reason. Rather, it was a result reached at the workshops after consideration of existing regulations that establish buffer zones of 200-500 feet between a public water supply and a pollution source. Conceptually, the 200 foot zone was adopted because it is so small and so close to the well that it essentially constituted a zone of protection of the well head by preventing contaminants from moving into the well opening directly or the annular space around the well casing. Accordingly, the 200 foot zone has a reasonable basis. Its actual delineation is, however, as flawed as that of the five year zone discussed infra. The "r" formula defines the outer zone of protection, and calculates it as a radius equal to the distance groundwater would flow in five years toward the well. The basis for the "r" formula is the formula used to calculate the volume of a cylinder. That formula, V = pi r2 h, yields a simple volumetric measurement without any consideration of velocity. By the introduction of the element "n" (effective porosity), the "r" formula introduces a velocity component which would, properly applied, produce a radius equal to the distance groundwater would flow in 5 years. 8/ As proposed, however, the rule would establish a meaningless line around a well. Under the proposed rule, the Department would calculate "r" based on specified effective porosities ("n") for the Floridan, Biscayne, sand and gravel, and surficial aquifers absent site specific data. The Department is, however, under no requirement to generate site specific data, and currently is mapping the Middle-Gulf region based on the values established by the rule. Absent chance, the areas mapped will bear no relationship to groundwater travel time. The lithology of an aquifer and the surrounding layers is varied and diverse, and directly affects the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. By assuming "n", the "r" formula ignores the varied lithology, and produces a radius that would seldom, if ever, represent the actual rate at which groundwater moved toward any well. 9/ The zone thus circumscribed is an illusion since the groundwaters and contaminants within it may move at a rate significantly greater than or less than 5 years travel time. Notably, the Department has conducted no study or test to validate its proposed methodology. The element "Q" in the "r" formula is defined as the "permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day)." Protestants contend that such definition is vague, arbitrary and capricious because the Department proposes to rely on consumptive use permits issued by the various water management districts to derive "Q", and such permits would not necessarily provide the requisite data. While the proof demonstrates that "Q" cannot always be derived by reference to a consumptive use permit, this does not render the definition of "Q" vague, arbitrary, or capricious. Rather, "Q" is a factual matter, and subject to a factual derivation through reference to consumptive use permits and other site specific data. The element "T" in the "r" formula is defined as "five years (1825) days." By its inclusion, the Department proposes to circumscribe the outer zone of protection at five years groundwater travel time. The concept of a zone of protection is premised on the theory that restrictions should be placed on discharges to groundwater within an area proximate to a public water supply for public health and safety concerns. The five year standard, which is found throughout the rules, was based on the theory that if a contaminant was introduced to groundwater a period of time should be allowed to discover the contamination and remove it or make provision for an alternate water supply before the contaminant reached the public water supply. The five years proposed by the rule was not, however, founded on fact or reason. During the workshops that under scored the proposed rule, the time factor was the subject of considerable discussion and ranged from less than two years to greater than ten years. Based on its own in-house search, the Department initially proposed a 10-year standard. That search revealed that it took 10 to 15 years between the time a contaminant was discovered and cleanup could commence, and between seven and eight years between the time a contaminant was introduced into groundwater and it discovery. Notwithstanding the results of its own in-house search, the Department, in the face of debate, elected to "compromise" and propose a five-year standard. Such standard was not the result of any study to assess its validity, and no data, reports or other research were utilized to derive it. In sum, the five- year standard was simply a "compromise", and was not supported by fact or reason. As previously noted, the lithology of an aquifer and the surrounding layers is varied and diverse, and directly affects the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. The effective porosity of those materials in the Floridan aquifer canvary from to .4 at various places. The rule proposes, however, to use an effective porosity for the Floridan aquifer of .05 to establish "r." The value ascribed to "n" is a critical value, as previously discussed in paragraph 65. It also has a profound impact on the aeral extent of the zone of protection. For example, assuming "Q" equals 3 million gallons and "h" equals 600 feet, an "n" of .02 would result in a radius of 4,406 feet or 1,400 acres, an "n" of .03 would result in a radius of 3,578 fee or 934 acres, an "n" of .05 would result in a radius of 2,787 feet or 560 acres, and an "n" of .2 would result in a radius of 1,393 feet or 140 acres. While an effective porosity of 05 for the Floridan aquifer may be a reasonable value at a particular site, it is not a value that can be reasonably ascribed to the Floridan in general. For this reason, and the reasons heretofore set forth, the rule's specification of an effective porosity of .05 for the Floridan aquifer is unreasonable. Proposed rule 17-3.403(8)(a), sets forth the manner in which the zones of protection will be drawn around a well or wellfield. That proposed rule provides: For well fields whose individual zones of protection overlap due to clustering, a single zone of protection will be calculated in the following manner: Using the permitted average daily withdrawal rate of the wells with overlapping zones of protection, the area on the surface overlying the aquifer equal to the sum of the areas of the five year zones of protection of the individual wells, shall be used to define the area which encircles the perimeter of the wellfield. In cases where a zone of protection of a single well protrudues beyond the calculated perimeter or when the configuration of the wellfield is irregular, the perimeter will be shaped to accommodate the configuration. The surface are encircling the perimeter of the wellfield shall not exceed the total surface area of the overlapping zones of protection for individual wells. In the case of unclustered wells within a wellfield, individual zones of protection around each well will be calculated. As previously discussed, the proposed G-I rules are facially applicable to "community water systems" that hold a " consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater," and which are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers. Under proposed rule 1773.403(8)(a), the five-year zone of protection would be drawn around each of these wells. If the wells are located so close to each other that the five year zones of protection are overlapping (clustered), those wells would be deemed a wellfield by rule definition and a five year zone of protection would be established around it. The proposed rule's description at how to determine and configure a zone of protection around a wellfield is however, vague and ambiguous. While the rule provides that when the configuration of the wellfield is "irregular", the perimeter will be shaped to accommodate the configuration", it sets forth no standard by which the perimeter will be established. Effectively, the rule vests unbridled discretion in the Department to establish the configuration of a wellfield. The Economic Impact Statements Pursuant to the mandate of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, the Department prepared economic impact statements for the proposed revisions to Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The economic impact statements were prepared by Dr. Elizabeth Field, the Department's chief economist, an expert in economics. Dr. Field developed the economic impact statements by examining the proposed rules and discussing their potential impact with Department staff. Additionally, Dr. Field attended the public workshops that were held concerning the proposed rules, and solicited input from those participants. The Florida Home Builders Association and the Florida Petroleum Council submitted data for her consideration, but none of the petitioners, although some were represented at such workshops, responded to her requests for information. The economic impact statements prepared by Dr. Field to address the proposed rules conclude that, apart from the cost to the Department for mapping, there are no direct costs or economic benefits occasioned by the rules. Dr. Field's conclusion was premised on the fact that the proposed rules only establish the eligibility criteria for reclassification of an aquifer to G-I and the standards for discharge to that aquifer. Under the proposed rules, further rulemaking would be required to actually designate a specific aquifer as G-I, and delineate a zone of protection. 10/ Pertinent to this case, proposed rule 17-3.403, provides: The intent of establishing G-I eligibility criteria is to determine which aquifer or aquifer segments qualify for potential reclassification to G-I aquifers. Adoption of these criteria does not imply nor does it designate aquifer or aquifer segments as G-I. Such designation can only be achieved through reclassification by the Commission after eligible segments have been mapped by the Department. (6)... the following procedure shall be used to designate Class G-I aquifers: Rulemaking procedures pursuant to Chapter 17-102, F.A.C., shall be followed; Fact-finding workshops shall be held in the affected area; All local, county, or municipal governments, water management districts, state legislators, regional water supply authorities, and regional planning councils whose districts or jurisdictions include all or part of a proposed G-I aquifer shall be notified in writing by the Department at least 60 days prior to the workshop; A prominent public notice shall be placed in an appropriate newspaper(s) of general circulation in the area of the proposed G-I aquifer at least 60 days prior to the workshop. The notice shall contain a geographic location map indicating the area of the zones of protection and a general description of the impact of reclassification on present and future discharges to groundwater. A notice of a G-I workshop shall be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly prior to the workshop(s). At least 180 days prior to the Commission meeting during which a particular zone of protection will be considered for reclassification, the Department will provide notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly and appropriate newspaper(s) of the intended date of the Commission meeting. The Commission may reclassify an aquifer or aquifer segment as a G-I aquifer within specified boundaries upon consideration of environmental, technological, water quality, institutional (including local land use comprehensive plans), public health, public interest, social and economic factors. When considering a reclassification an aquifer or aquifer segment shall: ....(Be within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined or from leaky confined aquifers.).... Be specifically mapped and delineated by the Department on a detailed map of a scale which would clearly depict the applicable zones or protection. Maps will be grouped and submitted for reclassification generally on a regional basis. Mapping priorities shall follow the Commission directive of February 27, 1985. The remaining areas of the state will be mapped by the Department as time and resources allow. (Emphasis added). While, if and when applied, the proposed rules would certainly have a direct economic impact as a consequence of a reclassification of an aquifer to G-I and the designation of a zone of protection, as well as the standards for discharge to that aquifer, such costs at this stage are not direct or are not quantifiable. When mapped and the zones of protection identified, a reasonable assessment of the economic cost or benefit of the proposal can be addressed. This is specifically reserved by the Commission whereby its decision to reclassify an aquifer as G-I will, pursuant to proposed rule 17-3.403(6) follow rule making procedures and be based on consideration of economic factors. This result obtains whether the affected party is a small business or some other entity. In reaching the conclusion that the economic costs or benefits of the proposed rules, apart from the cost of mapping, do not at this stage have a direct or quantifiable impact, I have not overlooked the "announcement effect" that is occasioned by the announcement of a governmental agency to regulate an activity. Such announcement certainly has a chilling effect on the community that may reasonably be impacted. The economic impact is, however, speculative or not quantifiable in the instant case. Further, the proof does not demonstrate any incorrectness or unfairness in the proposed adoption of the rules occasioned by the EIS prepared in this case.
