The Issue The issue is whether Sarasota County's application for a permit authorizing the construction of a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery well system at the Central County Water Reclamation Facility in Sarasota, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On September 14, 1999, the County, through its Utilities Department, filed with the Department an application for a permit to construct a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) test well and monitor well system at its Central County Water Reclamation Facility, 79005 South McIntosh Road, Sarasota, Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. On July 19, 2001, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to issue Permit No. 160882-001-UC. The permit authorizes the County to construct one test well to determine the feasibility for the storage and recovery of reclaimed water from the Suwannee Limestone of the Upper Floridan aquifer system at a depth of between 500 and 700 feet below land surface. Also, the County is authorized to construct three monitor wells, one into the target storage zone, the second into the first overlying transmissive unit, and the last into the overlying Arcadia Formation. The storage capacity of the test well is projected to be between one and two million gallons per day. On August 10, 2001, Petitioner, who is a citizen of the State of Florida, resides in Tallahassee, and is a long- time employee of Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., filed her verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) under Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In her Petition, she generally contended that the permitting would have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the water of the State because the proposed injectate (being placed in the well) will not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, may be harmful to human health, and will violate the minimum criteria for groundwater. She also contends that the permit application was not signed by the proper signatory and that the Department failed to require the County to first drill an exploratory well (as opposed to a test well). While these allegations were not sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner's substantial interests were affected by the proposed permitting, they were deemed sufficient (subject to proof at final hearing) to satisfy the pleading requirements of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Water Reuse Generally Water reuse is the use of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Because of Florida's continuing population growth and occasional water shortage, the use of reclaimed water is an important conservation tool. Indeed, in 2002 the Legislature showed strong support for water conservation and reuse by amending Section 403.064(1), Florida Statutes, and adding language which states that "the reuse of reclaimed water is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while sustaining natural systems." To this end, the County has filed its application for the purpose of using reclaimed water for such lesser uses as irrigation so that the existing high quality fresh groundwater can be used for higher and better purposes such as drinking water for the general public. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) has also encouraged the use of reclaimed water by providing funding for this type of program to induce utilities to move forward with reuse programs. In addition, the Department has been proactive in promoting the reuse of water throughout the State in order to conserve water resources. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a reuse program encouraged by the Legislature, Department, and District. It involves the storage of water underground in a suitable formation, through a well, during times when water is available to put into the well, and then recovery of that stored water from the well during times when it is needed for some beneficial purpose. Put another way, an ASR operates like an underground storage tank. Water is placed into the ASR wells (by means of pumping) during recharge periods when it is raining and there is no demand for reclaimed water. When the water is pumped into the well, a stored water bubble is created by using buffer zones made of water with more salinity than the stored water. These buffer zones are designed so that there can be full recovery of the stored water. The recovery rate is generally around 100 percent. There are three ways to store reclaimed water: surface ponds, storage tanks, and ASR. The ASR storage method is the most efficient method of storing reclaimed water, and it has significant environmental, utility, and economic benefits. The ASR method has no impact on wetlands and ecosystems, and unlike pond storage (and to a lesser degree storage tanks), it does not require the use of large surface areas and is not affected by evapotranspiration and seepage. (There is typically a 60 percent loss of water due to evaporation in surface storage areas.) It also results in cost savings (up to a 50 percent reduction in capital costs) and avoidance of wetlands impacts. One of the goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan is to maximize the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. Because other storage methods have proved to be inefficient, ASR is the County's preferred storage method to meet this goal. At the time of the final hearing (August 2002), there were at least fifty-six ASR systems operating outside the State of Florida (and around one hundred more in various stages of development) and eleven ASR systems successfully operating in the State, the first one having been established in 1983. At that time, there were also two ASR test programs underway in the area, including one in the Englewood Water District, a few miles to the south of the proposed project, and the Northwest Hillsborough ASR program, which is located just north of the County. Also, ASR systems are located in Manatee County and near the Peace River, which is in the same storage area being proposed here. Therefore, the County has the benefit of drawing upon twenty years of experience with this type of system. The Permit The County began an informal water reuse program in 1988, when it first used effluent disposal for irrigation purposes at a local golf course. A formal program (the Reuse Master Plan) was commenced in 1994; however, the County still lacks the storage capacity to meet the seasonal demands of its reuse customers.3 Without storage, any excess water must be discharged and lost. In order to meet the County's goal of maximizing reclaimed water use, it must be able to adequately store reclaimed water. Due to projected population growth and issues concerning management of limited resources, in 1997 the County began considering the use of ASR as a means to better manage its reclaimed water supply and demand for those facilities which serve the North County Reuse System. If all necessary permits are obtained, the County intends to use reclaimed water from its Central County wastewater facility. Currently, that effluent receives advanced tertiary treatment with deep bed filtration and high level disinfection. The proposed test well will be approximately 700 feet deep; at that depth, the injection (or storage) zone will consist of the Suwannee Limestone formation of the Upper Floridan aquifer system. The storage zone is brackish, with the water quality or salinity having about six times the acceptable degree of salinity for a drinking water source. It is anticipated that the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the injection zone will be greater than 3,000 TDS. If water quality at the proposed injection zone is greater than 3,000 TDS, this fact will be revealed during the construction of the test injection well and during the various tests to be conducted during construction. (Assuming this level of TDS is found, then at that point the County would have to provide reasonable assurance that the water reclamation facility is providing full or principal treatment to the domestic waste.) The evidence establishes that there is some level of transmissivity in the confining layer overlying the proposed injection zone. That is to say, there is some small degree of connectivity between the proposed injection zone and the aquifer above it. The actual level of transmissivity will be determined based upon tests run during the construction of the first monitor well. The effluent produced from the County's water reclamation facility meets drinking water standards. If the plant is unable to produce effluent that meets or exceeds the applicable water quality standards, this issue is an operational concern which can be addressed in a permit modification authorizing operational testing. Under the Department's permit process, if the construction permit is approved, the County will construct a monitor well to obtain more site-specific information concerning such things as the geology, hydrology, and water quality at the site. (At this point, while the County has published literature sources and regional geologic information from two nearby ASR systems using the same storage area to rely upon, it has no specific data for the very small parcel where the well will be constructed.) Once the information is obtained, an engineering report is prepared and submitted to the Department. That report contains a wide array of technical data, including construction data, hydrogeologic data, formation samples, water quality samples, hydraulic data, core data, Packer data, and geophysical data. This information is then used by the Department (and a special advisory committee called the Technical Advisory Committee) to evaluate whether the site can be authorized for cycle testing and later for operational purposes. If cycle testing is appropriate, the County must then request a modification to its construction permit to authorize cycle testing of its ASR well. That modification, and any others that may be warranted by the new information, are "final agency action subject to the procedural safeguards contained in Chapter 120, F.S." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.100(2). When the test injection well is constructed and eventually placed into operation, monitor wells will be used to monitor background water in both the injection zone and in the two aquifers overlying the proposed injection zone. However, until further Department approval is obtained, no injection of reclaimed water is authorized; the permit being sought here authorizes only the construction of the well itself. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.640(1)(a) requires that the County obtain a separate operation permit after the construction permit has been issued and testing completed. Criteria and Standards for a Class V Well Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528 governs all injection wells defined as Class I, III, IV, or V wells. (In Class II wells, the injected fluids are used in connection with oil and natural gas production and are regulated by the Florida Geological Survey under Chapter 377, Florida Statutes.) The category of wells in which the County seeks a permit is a Class V, Group 3 permit, which includes all domestic wastewater wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.300(1)(e)3. A Group 3 well involves the injection of fluids that have been processed through a permitted domestic wastewater treatment plant. Even though the County is requesting a permit for a Class V well, at the request of the Department, it submitted a different (and more stringent) type of application (a "900" application) since the Department has the authority to apply "any of the criteria for Class I wells" if it believes that the well may cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of primary or secondary drinking water standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.605(2). (A Class I well is a well used to inject hazardous waste below the lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water.) In this case, the Department opted to apply certain Class I construction standards for the well, in addition to the normal standards for Class V wells. Those standards are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.400. This means that the County will be held to a higher standard than a general underground injection control permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605 contains the Class V well construction standards. For the following reasons, the County has given reasonable assurance that all criteria will be met. Subsection (1) of the rule requires that "a well shall be designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices, and the design and construction shall be approved by the Department with a permit." The evidence clearly establishes that good engineering practices have been followed by the County for the design and construction of the well. Subsection (2) requires that an applicant design and construct the well so that it will not "cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of a primary or secondary drinking water standard . . . or may cause fluids of significantly differing water quality to migrate between underground sources of drinking water." Subsection (3) is also directed at the migration of fluids. The evidence shows that the migration of fluids between aquifers will be prevented as a part of the design and construction of the ASR well program. The design chosen by the County has been proven to prevent migration of fluids between aquifers, and it will preserve the integrity of the confining beds. The combination of steel casing and cementing prevents the migration of fluids along the borehole. The well will be constructed by a Florida licensed contractor, as required by Subsection (4). The remaining criteria in the rule will be satisfied during the construction process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.620 contains reporting requirements for Class V wells. All of these requirements are included in the draft permit and will be met by the County. The Department has also included Special Condition 1(h) in the draft permit, which provides that nothing will be injected into the well that does not meet the Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard. This condition is drawn from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.307, which specifies general conditions to be included in underground injection control permits. In accordance with this condition, the County will monitor the movement of fluid to ensure that there are no violations. The County has also demonstrated that there will be no hazardous waste injection, as prohibited by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.600(1)(a). Finally, the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.630(3) do not apply at this time since the proposed permit is only for construction of a well, and not the injection of water. Class I Well Construction Standards Because the Department has imposed more stringent construction standards on the County, the Class I well construction standards found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(1) come into play. The County has demonstrated that it has complied with the requirement that the well be cemented and cased. In addition, the County has considered corrosion protection in the cementing and casing of the proposed well. Because the casing will be cemented, coating is not required. Finally, there will be no open annulus (spacing between the casings and the bore hole) in the ASR test well. Other Requirements Drilling Geophysical surveys will be conducted during the pilot hole drilling stages to collect hydrogeologic information. Further, drill stem tests will be conducted throughout the drilling, and a driller's log will be maintained. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.410(3). Casing Steel casing will be used, taking into consideration the possible corrosion of steel. The life expectancy of the well was considered, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(4)(a), and was determined to be unknown. Cement Type 2 cement will be used, which is sulfate resistant and is specifically designed for use in regions such as Florida. Testing Geophysical logs will be used during the construction and testing of the well to verify the physical conditions of the well and confirm that construction is proceeding according to the plan. Also, geophysical surveys will be conducted during pilot hole drilling stages to collect subsurface hydrogeologic information. Environmental concerns Once a drilling contractor is selected, the location for the disposal of drilling fluids will be submitted for Department approval in accordance with Special Condition 1(b) in the draft permit. Monitor well construction standards The monitor well will meet all construction requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.420. (The same standards that are applied to Class V wells are also applied to monitor wells.) General design considerations Exploratory pilot hole drilling stages will be conducted to collect hydrogeologic information, and complete sets of geophysical surveys will be performed. Because cement generates heat, temperature surveys will be run as a part of the construction sequence to verify coverage of the cement. This means that tools will be lowered into the hole after each cementing stage to verify coverage. Monitoring requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(d) requires that an applicant perform "a demonstration of mechanical integrity . . . at least once every five years during the life of the well." Details to accomplish this are found in both the application and the draft permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(f) requires that the background water quality of the injection zone and monitoring zone be determined prior to injection. The County will perform this task before injection occurs. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(g) requires that monitor wells be installed above the injection zone near the project. The County will construct three wells, as required by the rule. They will also be placed at a sufficient distance from the project, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(h), and the specific monitoring intervals are detailed in the draft permit. Reporting requirements The Department requires periodic data reports and progress reports regarding eight separate types of information. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.430(1)(a). These reporting requirements will be performed and followed. Because a Class V well may be required to be plugged and abandoned, the Department requires a plugging and abandonment report. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.625. All requirements under this rule have been met, and the County has the financial resources to accomplish this task, when required. General Class I permitting requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440 sets forth general permitting requirements for Class I and III wells. Because the Department has opted to impose certain Class I criteria on the County's application, some of the criteria in this rule apply. They include special conditions 1(a), (c), and (e) in the permit for well construction, system modification, and fluid injection, all of which have been, or will be, met by the County. In addition, the duration for the operation permit cannot exceed five years, and the County was required to submit an application for a permit which conformed with the requirements of the rule. As a part of its application, the County established an area of review for the construction permit, taking into account the zone of endangering influence. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(4). (An area of review is the area surrounding an injection well, including the area of possible endangering influence.) This requirement was met because the established area of review is one mile even though the predicted area of influence is expected to be no more than 400 feet. As a part of the preceding analysis, the County also conducted an area of review study, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440(6)(a). In doing so, the County evaluated the impact on the ASR well, and the impact the ASR well would have on the surrounding area. That evaluation determined that there are no water supply wells within the area of review. Because the construction permit only has a duration of five years, and given the County's supporting information submitted with the area of influence study, the Department has not required that the County provide a corrective action plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(5)(a). Class I well construction permit criteria All guidelines for constructing the well have been followed, and the construction of the well will not be a source of pollution. The County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will function in accordance with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62- 528. Hydrological modeling Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.405 specifies criteria for evaluating the geologic and hydrologic environment of Class I wells. The County has satisfied all criteria in the rule. Other Issues Exploratory well Petitioner contends that the Department should require the County to construct an exploratory well, as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.603(1), rather than a test well. That rule defines an exploratory well as one being "drilled for the specific purpose of obtaining information to determine the feasibility of underground injection at the proposed site." However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.450(1)(b) requires an exploratory well only "for those projects located in an area where available information is lacking concerning geologic or hydraulic confinement or existing information indicates that geologic or hydraulic confinement may be poor or lacking." For example, an exploratory well would be required in a remote area (such as certain parts of Polk County) where the Department had insufficient literature, studies, or prior history concerning the general geology across and around the site. In this case, two nearby ASR systems are located in the Englewood Water District and near the Peace River and use the same storage zone as that proposed by the County. Those systems have been operating for a number of years, and the County and Department can draw upon that experience. Given this significant regional geologic information, an exploratory well is not required. More importantly, the requirement for an exploratory well applies only to Class I well construction, and not Class V wells, and the Department properly exercised its discretion to not apply that requirement to the County's Class V application. Signature on the application and other documents Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.340(1)(c) requires that all permit applications by a local government be signed by "either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official." Also, subsection (2) of the same rule requires that "reports required by permits and other information requested by the Department shall be signed by a person described in subsection (1) of this section [a principal executive officer or the highest ranking elected official], or by a duly authorized representative of that person." Petitioner contends that these requirements were not met. The County's application was signed by James E. Caldwell, who was then the Manager of Sarasota County Utilities. At that time, Mr. Caldwell had overall responsibility for the County's utility operations. On August 27, 2002, James L. Ley, the County Administrator (and principal executive officer of the County), also executed the original copy of the application. (That is, on that date he signed the original application underneath Mr. Caldwell's signature.) By doing so, Mr. Ley cured any previous technical deficiency in the application. Responses to requests for additional information which were submitted to the Department during the review process were signed by one of the County's outside consultants. However, on January 13, 2002, Mr. Ley submitted a letter to the Department authorizing various County employees and agents to act on his behalf in processing the instant application. Accordingly, the outside consultant was a duly-authorized representative of the chief executive and was authorized to sign those documents. Satisfaction of injection criteria Petitioner also contends that before a construction permit may be issued, the County must meet all principal treatment and disinfection requirements, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-610.466 and 62-528.563. However, those rules apply to permits which authorize the injection of reclaimed water into the groundwater. Here, the requested permit does not authorize injection, and therefore those requirements do not apply. Groundwater criteria Even though Petitioner conceded at hearing that the issue of whether the construction of the proposed wells would harm the environment was not raised in her Petition, the County provided reasonable assurance that this was not an issue of concern. Adequacy of permit conditions Petitioner also suggested at hearing that the proposed conditions in the permit are insufficient. However, she failed to show in what respect they were insufficient or how they should be amended. Water quality concerns Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605(3) requires that a Class V well be constructed so that its intended use does not violate the applicable water quality standards. On this issue, the evidence establishes that the construction of the proposed test well and monitor system will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution. Indeed, a well and monitor station does not emit or discharge pollution and, if constructed according to the technical requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528, does not cause pollution. Therefore, the County's compliance with the technical requirements of the Department's regulations is reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not cause pollution. I. Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theory that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party who has participated for a "frivolous, meritless, and improper purpose" within the meaning of Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. This argument is based on the assertion that Petitioner is a non- prevailing party, that is, she failed to substantially change the outcome of the proposed final agency action which is the subject of this proceeding, and she "failed to produce any witnesses or evidence to support [her] claim that the proposed permit that was the subject of this proceeding should not be issued." While it is true that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party, she attempted to utilize the testimony of three expert witnesses previously retained by the City of Venice, a former party in Case No. 01-3516. Those subpoenas, however, were quashed on August 16, 2002, and that ruling was memorialized in an Order dated August 19, 2002, or just before the final hearing began. Without those witnesses, Petitioner's presentation was obviously limited in some respects.4 Further, until the final hearing, Petitioner assumed that evidence in support of her allegation that the injectate would harm the water quality would be admissible and relevant. (As this Recommended Order clearly points out, however, not a single drop of water can be injected into the well until a modification of the permit is obtained, and therefore such evidence is irrelevant.) During the course of the hearing, the undersigned sustained objections by the County and Department to the introduction of such evidence. This ruling had the effect of limiting the scope of the issues to be tried. Despite these limitations, her participation cannot be described as being frivolous or meritless, as claimed by the County, and it is found that she did not participate for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Permit No. 160882-001- UC authorizing the County to construct one Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery injection well and monitor well system in Sarasota County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation established in 2010 whose only members are Erika and Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt. In 2010, Petitioner purchased parcel 2009-16- 0015 in a tax deed sale. The parcel consists primarily of the submerged lands within the marina basin adjacent to the project area. Petitioner contends that the tax deed accords it ownership of the western most 130 feet of the existing ditch and that the County is not authorized to do work on that property. The City and County dispute this claim and it is now being litigated in circuit court. The City claims ownership or control of all of the project area to be addressed under the permit. The City authorized the County to apply for and construct the improvements authorized by the permit pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the County for consolidation of stormwater management responsibilities. The District is the agency charged with the responsibility of controlling water resources within its geographic boundaries and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated in rule division 40D. The County submitted the application pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the City and will construct, operate, and maintain the project if the permit is issued. The Project U.S. Highway 41, also known as Tamiami Trail, travels through downtown Sarasota. During rainy months, between Fruitville Road and Second Street, U.S. Highway 41 experiences frequent roadway flooding. At the area where U.S. Highway 41 floods and between the Quay development to the north and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the south, is a stormwater ditch that drains west into a marina basin or bayou adjoining Sarasota Bay. However, it does not directly discharge into Sarasota Bay. The ditch is an upland cut drainage ditch approximately 650 feet in length and has been in existence for decades. The ditch is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the County for the surrounding communities. Contaminants in the stormwater system are addressed under this permit. The ditch provides the only outfall for an approximately 46-acre heavily urbanized drainage basin for which stormwater is collected through the stormwater system. The stormwater is discharged into the drainage ditch through a double concrete box culvert under U.S. Highway 41 and is ultimately conveyed to a marina basin adjoining Sarasota Bay. The ditch is located in what was originally platted as the right-of-way for Eighth Street (now known as Second Street) on the Central Broadway subdivision plat within the City. Pursuant to an earlier exemption determination by the District, in 2004 the County conducted maintenance dredging on the easterly portion of the drainage ditch in an effort to remove the sediments and vegetation that had built up in the ditch over the years and reduced its flow. Since that time, the ditch has again filled in as a result of the significant amounts of sedimentation from stormwater flows entering and settling in the ditch and significant amounts of vegetation. Also, flooding on U.S. Highway 41 has become more frequent. In its current condition, the ditch is approximately eight to 12 feet wide and eight to 12 inches deep, is poorly drained due to the sedimentation and heavily overgrown mangroves and nuisance vegetation, and is tidally influenced. Accumulated sediments in the ditch are approximately four feet thick at the eastern end and become thinner at the western end of the ditch. In August 2009, staff from the City, County, District, and Florida Department of Transportation met at the site of the ditch to conduct a pre-application meeting and discuss possible ways of addressing flooding problems at this location. Aside from the ditch improvements being proposed by the County, the only other remedy is to pipe the ditch, which is cost-prohibitive and would defeat the County's goal of keeping as much desirable vegetation in place as possible. To address flooding and maintenance concerns, on September 8, 2011, the County submitted an ERP application to the District to seek authorization to dredge and undertake ditch improvements. The application identifies the ditch as being within City right-of-way. Included with the application was a letter from the City authorizing the County to apply for the ERP on behalf of the City pursuant to their interlocal stormwater agreement. At the time the application was filed, the County Property Appraiser's Office Geographic Information Systems tax parcel map showed the ditch and dredge area as being within the City right-of-way. The proposed project consists of reconstruction of the ditch with a defined channel to be lined with rip rap and geotextile fabric and the addition of two sediment sump boxes. Some of the mangroves and nuisance vegetation will be removed as necessary to construct the ditch improvements. Mangroves will be preserved where not impacted by construction. The Property Dispute Petitioner claims ownership of the western 130 feet of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. As noted above, at the time the permit application was submitted, official property records showed the existing ditch as located within City right-of-way. Therefore, the County and District had no reason to doubt City ownership or control of the ditch area. A recently filed circuit court action seeks to determine ownership of a portion of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions involving the titles and boundaries or right of possession of real property. District rules permit applicants to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the proposed project area in order to conduct the activities to be permitted. An applicant with eminent domain authority that does not have ownership or control for all property necessary for the proposed project may rely on its eminent domain authority to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. The permit will be conditioned to prohibit construction until all ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project is acquired by the permittee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.301(1)(j); BOR § 2.0. The proposed permit contains Specific Condition No. 8 which enforces this requirement. Reasonable assurance of sufficient ownership or legal control of the project area is provided by virtue of the City's and County's eminent domain authority and the fact that the proposed permit prohibits construction until the permittee acquires all necessary ownership or other legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. Notice Requirements Petitioner contends the permit should be denied because it did not receive notice of the application pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). That rule provides that when the applicant is an entity with the power of eminent domain that does not have current ownership or control of the entire project area as described in the application, the applicant shall provide the property owner(s) identified in the application with so-called eminent domain noticing, which consists of (a) written notice of District receipt of the application, and (b) written notice of agency action on the application. Persons entitled to eminent domain noticing are owners of property located within the proposed project area as identified in the county property appraiser's records within 30 days prior to the filing of the application. The purpose of the District's eminent domain noticing provision is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to owners of property subject to being condemned or otherwise acquired by the applicant for part of the project area. As originally submitted, the application proposed some activities extending approximately ten feet into the marina basin and beyond the claimed City right-of-way. The permit application did not indicate City ownership or control of submerged lands within the marina basin. Consequently, in its request for additional information (RAI), the District advised that pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b), eminent domain notices to affected landowners would be required for any proposed easements over offsite property. As part of the application process, a seagrass study was prepared which showed seagrasses and oyster beds growing in the marina basin just beyond the end of the ditch, where some construction activity was proposed. Because seagrasses were observed growing at the end of the ditch, the County responded to the RAI by scaling back the project to confine activities to the City's right-of-way. With the change in project area, offsite easements were no longer necessary for the project. Thus, the project no longer required eminent domain noticing pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). The County and District acknowledge that Petitioner did not receive eminent domain notices. Although not provided notice, Petitioner nevertheless became aware of the permit application during the course of its own application process with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for an ERP to construct a 4,760-square foot, ten-slip docking facility on its adjacent submerged lands in the marina basin. The lack of notice has not prevented Petitioner from challenging the project or has otherwise prejudiced it. Having received actual notice of the permit, Petitioner filed a timely objection and request for hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends that while it does not oppose the ditch dredging, it would have wanted an opportunity to suggest a re-design of the ditch to include a dingy dock and kayak launching facility. Although it has known of the project since at least May 21, 2012, when it filed its first petition, and probably several months earlier, Petitioner has not provided the County or District with any alternative designs to maximize the potential for recreational use of the drainage canal. There is no requirement for ERP applicants to provide alternative designs to maximize potential public recreational uses. Requiring the County to do so would impose requirements that go beyond the conditions for permit issuance. ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, a permit applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to water quality, water quantity, and other environmental resources. For activities proposed in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters, reasonable assurance must also be provided that such activities are not contrary to the public interest and do not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The conditions for issuance of an ERP are set forth in rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302. The standards and criteria in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has met the conditions for issuance in those two rules. The parties have stipulated that the project either complies with the following conditions for issuance or that they are not applicable: 40D-4.301(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), (j), and (k) and 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. Also, rule 40D-4.302(1)(c) and (d), which concerns projects located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to certain shellfish harvesting waters or which involve vertical seawalls, is not applicable to this matter. Based on the parties' Stipulation, at issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands (40D-4.301(1)(a)); will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by wetlands and other surface waters (40D-4.301(1)(d)); will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that applicable state water quality standards will be violated (40D-4.301(1)(e)); and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (40D-4.301(1)(f)). Petitioner also contends that the County has failed to give reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts, as required by rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) and (b). Water Quantity Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance be provided that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Existing and post-construction flows were modeled by the County using the accepted Inter-Connected Pond Routing model. Drainage calculations demonstrate that for the 25-year storm, the flood stage will be reduced by 1.94 feet, and for the 100-year storm event, by 1.75 feet, which will provide flood relief. Modeling results demonstrate a reduction in flood stages not just for U.S. Highway 41 but for other adjoining properties. The evidence establishes that while the project is not designed to eliminate all potential flooding, flooding during normal events will be reduced. Specifically, no adverse water quantity impacts were demonstrated with respect to Petitioner's adjacent submerged lands. Improvements proposed to the ditch will increase its storage capacity and allow water to flow more efficiently. By increasing the storage and hydraulic efficiency of the ditch without generating any additional runoff volume, the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts and will have no adverse water quantity impacts on the receiving waters. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, including adjacent submerged lands owned by Petitioner. Impact on Value of Functions Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that project activities "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District." The existing ditch provides limited ecological functions for fish and wildlife, as it contains significant levels of exotics and nuisance vegetation that provide little in the way of habitat. The removal of the nuisance vegetation, improved water circulation, and decreased sediments will be an improvement. The proposed ditch reconstruction and replanting with other vegetation will provide a more suitable habitat for younger life stages of fish such as sea trout, red fish, and hog chokers, which are species typically found in tidally influenced drainage systems. Overall, the proposed project will result in an improved habitat available for fish and wildlife. The project will retain as many of the existing mangroves as possible, thereby retaining the ecology of the mangrove wetlands. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions being provided to fish and wildlife and will actually improve the ecological functions provided by the ditch. Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that the proposed ditch alterations will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. The parties have stipulated that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in rule chapters 62-522 and 62-550. Petitioner contends, however, that reasonable assurance has not been provided concerning possible impacts relating to surface water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, the anti- degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, or the groundwater permitting and monitoring requirements of rule chapter 62-522. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the activities will adversely affect the groundwater protection provisions of rule chapter 62-522. The proposed ditch alterations do not involve activities relating to these state water quality standards. Under BOR section 3.2.4, reasonable assurance must be provided for the short term and the long term that water quality standards are not violated. As to potential construction or short-term impacts, the proposed construction work involves the removal of sediments accumulated in the ditch, reconstruction of the ditch to be wider and deeper and within a more defined course, the addition of rip rap and geotextile fabric on the ditch bottom, and replanting of the ditch banks with salt- tolerant grasses and other vegetation to provide soil stabilization and erosion control. The proposed permit addresses the potential for turbidity during construction activities to cause short-term water quality violations by authorizing a temporary mixing zone and by requiring the installation of turbidity barriers and ongoing turbidity monitoring during construction. To further minimize the potential for any water quality violation during construction activities, construction methods will include the use of cofferdams or similar techniques to provide a barrier between the open water of the marina basin and the work being constructed within the ditch, which will be undertaken in segments starting at the eastern outfall at U.S. Highway 41. These provisions adequately address the potential for any short- term water quality impacts and are consistent with BOR provisions relating to short-term water quality. As to possible long-term water quality impacts, the evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not add any additional pollutants or new pollutant source to the receiving waters and will not cause or contribute to any violation of water quality standards. To the contrary, by removing existing stormwater sediments, which are known to contain pollutants, controlling sedimentation through collection of sediments in sediment sumps, and armoring the ditch channel to prevent erosion, water quality is expected to improve. The proposed sediment sumps to be added as a best management practice are appropriately sized to handle the approximately 5,600 pounds of sediments that accumulate annually in the ditch, as determined by annual pollutant load calculations provided by the County. The sumps will be located most efficiently at the outfall where the ditch begins. Preventing sediments from entering the receiving waters is one of the best things that can be done to improve water quality in nearby Sarasota Bay. Improvements in water quality are also expected to occur as a result of the addition of rip rap that will dissipate the flow energy, thereby allowing any remaining sediments to settle down, and the geotextile fabric that will keep soil in place and not allow it to float up. The sodding and replanting of the ditch embankments will also prevent side erosion from occurring, which erosion could add sediments in the ditch. Once constructed, the ditch will be regularly maintained by the County, with sediments to be cleaned out of the sump on a quarterly schedule. Any sediments settling on the rip rap and on plant vegetation would be cleaned out as needed, as determined by regular inspections. Petitioner contends that reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, and the anti-degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, will not be violated by the proposed activities. Its expert opined that the impact of the proposed activity on state water quality standards cannot be determined because no sampling of the receiving water was conducted, the permit does not require compliance monitoring, and the existing ditch sediments were not sufficiently analyzed. The evidence establishes that it can be reasonably presumed, without compliance monitoring or sampling, that the water flowing from the 46-acre urbanized watershed served by the ditch contains sediments and other pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. Most of the expected pollutants are contained within, or settle into the sediments that are deposited into, the ditch. By removing sediments through the use of adequately sized sediment sumps, slowing the water down to allow suspended solids to settle out within the ditch, adding geotextile fabric and rip rap covering the ditch bottom, establishing vegetation on the ditch sidebanks to prevent erosion, and implementing periodic maintenance through vacuum removal of collected sediments, the proposed activities will remove pollutants from the water flowing into the ditch and discharging into the marina basin and ultimately entering Sarasota Bay. Thus, it is reasonable to expect without sampling or monitoring that the proposed activities will improve water quality. In addition to identifying the positive benefits of the proposed activities, the evidence established that the proposed activities will not add a pollutant source to the receiving waters. This was not credibly disputed by Petitioner. Because the project does not generate pollutants, the proposed activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. There is no reason to require pre-construction or baseline sampling to compare with post- construction sampling, as no pollutants will be generated. The removal of sediments and ongoing ditch maintenance will result in an improvement in water quality. Therefore, it can be reasonably assured without requiring sampling or monitoring that the activities will not result in any violations of state water quality standards. Secondary Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f) and BOR section 3.2.7 require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. As originally proposed, the project included activities extending beyond the end of the ditch and into the marina basin, where seagrasses and oyster beds are present. By avoiding impacts to these resources, the project also avoids any secondary impacts to manatees that may frequent Sarasota Bay. Turbidity control measures to be used during construction will also avoid secondary impacts to these resources. Petitioner provided no evidence that secondary impacts would occur as a result of the project. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not result in any secondary impacts to the water resources. Public Interest Test Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that activities to be located in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, as determined by balancing certain criteria, or if such activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the activity will be clearly in the public interest. The proposed activities are not located within Sarasota Bay, a designated OFW. Petitioner provided no evidence that the proposed activities would significantly degrade that body of water. Therefore, the County need only demonstrate that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. The parties have stipulated that rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)6., which governs historical and archaeological resources, is not applicable to this matter. The remaining criteria at issue are whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values of marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The evidence establishes that the project will reduce flooding during normal stages and remove sediments. By reducing the potential for roadway flooding and improving water quality through sediment reduction, the project will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others. Efforts were made to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters in the design of the project. Proposed activities will involve the removal of some of the existing mangroves. Based upon an analysis conducted pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Manual, the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will result in a functional loss score of 0.08. Unavoidable wetland and other surface water impacts anticipated from the project will be appropriately mitigated through the use of a 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA). The evidence demonstrates that the project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to conservation of fish and wildlife, including any endangered or threatened species, or their habitats and will actually result in an improvement in wetland and other surface water functions and habitat. The evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water and will not cause erosion or shoaling. The ditch reconstruction will prevent the possibility of shoaling at the downstream end of the ditch adjoining Petitioner's submerged lands by increasing the width of the ditch, slowing the water down, removing sedimentation along the ditch bottom, and reducing erosion through the planting of salt-tolerant sod and other vegetation along the ditch side banks. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. No adverse impacts are expected to occur with respect to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed activity. By removing sediments, the project will provide an improvement to fishing and recreational activities in the marina basin and Sarasota Bay. Petitioner raised concerns regarding the amount of floatable material that will be discharged from the ditch as a result of removal of mangroves. As provided in the permit plans, significant portions of the mangroves will remain undisturbed. Under current conditions, the ditch and mangroves do not prevent or trap all trash and floatables entering the ditch. On-site observations of existing conditions confirmed there is not a large amount of trash and floatables currently being retained by existing mangroves. Any temporarily retained floatables within the ditch area ultimately float out to Sarasota Bay with the tide. The evidence establishes that even with the removal of some mangroves, the project is not expected to result in an easier flow or increased amount of floatables entering the marina basin. Finally, because the project activities do not add floatable materials to the ditch, requiring the County to implement design changes to remove floatables would exceed what is necessary to meet the conditions for permit issuance. Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the levels of fecal coliform and the possibility of illicit connections to the stormwater collection outfalls to the ditch. The ditch is part of a MS4 permit that is regulated pursuant to NPDES Permit No. FLS000004 issued to the County. The NPDES permit governs stormwater discharges within the unincorporated portions of the County, the municipalities within the County, and that part of Longboat Key that is in Manatee County. The primary function of the MS4 permit is to address issues of water quality as they relate to stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit requirements would be the appropriate regulatory framework to address elevated fecal coliform, illicit connections, or other water quality concerns in the stormwater emanating from the drainage basin served by the ditch, and not the ERP regulatory program. Having weighed and balanced the six applicable criteria, and based upon the evidence presented, the County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on wetlands and other surface waters, as further described in BOR sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.8.2. BOR section 3.2.8 provides that if an applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, then the regulated activity is considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts upon wetlands will be provided through the use of the 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek ROMA. The evidence establishes that the proposed mitigation fully offsets the impacts and is within the same drainage basin as the proposed impacts. No adverse cumulative impacts will occur with the project. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence of adverse cumulative impacts. Impaired Receiving Waters Petitioner contends that the project does not comply with the requirements of rule 40D-4.301(2) and related BOR section 3.2.4.5, which are applicable when existing ambient water quality does not meet state water quality standards. Rule 40D-4.301(2) provides that if an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant shall meet the requirements of BOR section 3.2.4.5 and related sections cited in that provision. Together, these provisions require that where existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant must demonstrate that for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards, the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If it does contribute to the existing violation, mitigation measures will be required that result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for the parameter that does not meet standards. The marina basin that is the receiving waters for the ditch has been identified by DEP as impaired due to levels of mercury in fish tissue. The evidence demonstrates that the project will not contribute to this water quality violation. Although not required to implement mitigation measures that will cause a net improvement of the levels of mercury in fish tissue, the evidence establishes that to the extent existing sediments contain mercury deposits, removal of the sediments reduce a source of mercury that can be ingested by fish in the receiving waters. Water Quality Certification Petitioner contends that Specific Condition No. 9 of the proposed permit, which expressly waives certification of compliance with state water quality standards, is contrary to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, and inconsistent with the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j). As explained by unrefuted testimony of the District, the water quality certification provisions of Section 401 allow states an opportunity to address the water resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States unless the affected state has granted or waived Section 401 certification. A state may grant, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification allows the federal permit or license to be issued. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiving certification allows the permit or license to be issued without state comment. Pursuant to rule 40D-4.101(4), an application for an ERP shall also constitute an application for certification of compliance with state water quality standards where necessary pursuant to Section 401. Issuance of the permit constitutes certification of compliance with water quality standards unless the permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provision of section 373.414(1), or the permit specifically states otherwise. By letter dated February 2, 1998, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, DEP has delegated to the state's five water management districts the authority to issue, deny, or waive water quality certifications under Section 401. DEP has also established categories of activities for which water quality certification will be considered waived. Under the DEP delegation, water management districts may waive water quality certification for four situations, one of which is when the permit or authorization expressly so provides. This is still current DEP direction. The types of permitting decisions which constitute the granting of water quality certification and the types of activities for which water quality certification could be considered waived are also addressed in the current Operating Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DEP, and the five water management districts. According to both DEP guidance and the water management district agreement with the USACE, water quality certification will be considered waived when the permit or authorization expressly so states. The District most often expressly waives water quality certification for permits issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions and for projects that discharge into impaired waters. Proposed Specific Condition No. 9 of the permit expressly waives water quality certification due to the fact that the receiving waters are listed by DEP as impaired. Conditioning of the permit in this manner is consistent with DEP guidance and District practice under these circumstances. Although water quality certification for federal permitting review purposes is waived, the project must still comply with water quality requirements by demonstrating that the proposed activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards or if the activities contribute to an existing violation, that a net benefit is provided. The evidence establishes that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards and is not expected to contribute to the receiving water impairment of elevated mercury levels in fish tissue. While not required, the project is nevertheless expected to have a positive benefit on overall water quality and likely will reduce mercury levels in fish tissue by removing the sediments that contain metals such as mercury. The District's waiver of water quality certification is consistent with Section 401, the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j), and applicable regulatory practices for Clean Water Act water quality certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondents are guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed on February 6, 1991, as amended and, if so, what corrective action should be ordered and what penalties imposed; and whether Paul Ayers is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Denial of Operator Certification dated June 3, 1991, and, if so, whether the Department's action denying renewal of Mr. Ayers' wastewater treatment plant operator certification was correct.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Paul Ayers holds operator certificates issued by the Department in both drinking water treatment (Class C, No. 4360) and wastewater treatment (Class B, No. 3375). The Department's Notice of Denial of Operator Certificate, which forms the basis for the Division of Administrative Hearings case No. 91- 3861, identifies the wastewater treatment certificate number as Class B, No. 3375. Paul Ayers did submit certain Drinking Water Treatment Plant Daily Operation Summaries in which he identified his water treatment certificate as Class C, No. 4360 (Department Exhibit 8). Ms. Judy Devores is a Department certified Class C water treatment plant (WTP) operator (Certificate No. 4885) and a Class C wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operator (Certificate No. 4753). Mr. Ayers and Ms. Devores are president and vice president, respectively, of Paul Ayers Utilities, Inc., a company that contracts with the owners of drinking water and wastewater treatment plants to operate them. Ms. Devores is sometimes known as Ms. Ayers (Department Exhibits 25 and 26). The office of the utilities company is in the home they share. The utility company has a handful of employees. The Department's Amended Complaint alleged that during the calendar year 1990, Respondents operated the following public water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants: ST. LUCIE COUNTY WATER WASTEWATER Coggin Osteen Auto Dealership Coca Cola Foods Distribution Center Demarco's Restaurant Floresta Elementary School Floresta Elementary School Florida Power & Light Distribution Center Fontenelle Plaza Glendale Commons Subdivision Glendale Commons Subdivision Lakewood Park Subdivision Lakewood Park Subdivision Johnny's Restaurant Lakewood Park Plaza Loyal Order of Moose #248 Orange Co. of Florida, Orange Co. of Florida, Grove Grove Operations Complex Operations Complex Orchid Acres Mobile Home Orchid Acres Mobile Home Park Park Port St. Lucie Port St. Lucie Convalescent Center Convalescent Center Quick and Easy Convenience Store Raven Parc Industrial Park Rainbow Trailer Park Teacher's Place Child Care Visa St. Lucie Condominiums Vista St. Lucie Condominiums Whispering Creek La Buona Vita Lakewood Park Elementary Port St. Lucie Medical Center MARTIN COUNTY WATER WASTEWATER Lobster Shanty Restaurant Regency Mobile Home Park Regency Mobile Home Park Vista Del Lago Condominiums Vista Del Lago Condominiums Yankee Trader Plaza INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER WASTEWATER Citrus Elementary School Fellsmere Elementary School Fellsmere Elementary School Sebastian River Middle School Sebastian River Middle School OKEECHOBEE COUNTY WATER WASTEWATER Barlow's Fish Camp Big "O" R.V. Campground Barlow's Restaurant Four Acres Mobile Home Park Bob's Big Bass RV Park Pier 2 Motel Circle K Taylor Creek Lodge Crossroads Restaurant Town & County Mobile Home Martha's House Zachary Taylor Mobile Home Moose Lodge #1753 Town Star Convenience Store GLADES COUNTY WATER Old River Run Many of these water and wastewater treatment plants were acknowledged during the hearing as being operated by Paul Ayers Utilities, Inc. Some were not mentioned during testimony, but show up on various exhibits. Department's Exhibit 16, the minutes of a meeting held between the Department and Ms. Devores, contain a partial list of plants operated by Respondents. Lakewood Plaza On September 30, 1990, Paul Ayers and his employee, Danny Runyan, removed a water pump, flow meter, and chlorine feed pump from the Lakewood Plaza water treatment plant. This action interrupted potable water service to the facility until October 3, 1990. Ms. Devores contended that the owner of Lakewood Plaza had not paid Respondents for the equipment, and that she notified Jerry Toney of the Department prior to removal of the equipment, who told her "to take it if it was ours." Mr. Toney's contradiction of Ms. Devores' account is more believable. He first heard of the disabling of the Lakewood Plaza water treatment plant in a phone call from Wayne Dampier on October 1, 1990, notifying Mr. Toney that Mr. Dampier would replace the water pump that day, but no chlorinator pump could be installed until the next day. Ms. Devores' call to Mr. Toney was made after the equipment had been removed and after Mr. Dampier's call. A contemporaneous entry into the Department's records also indicates that Ms. Devores called the Department on October 1, 1990, after the water treatment plant had been disabled. Expert testimony established that disabling a water treatment plant is a potential public health hazard, and that deliberate disabling of a water system by an operator is not the same as accidental interruption of operations. Rule 17-555.350(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires an operator to receive written permission from the Department prior to altering or discontinuing water purification. This forms a basis for the operator's duty to avoid unilateral action. Removal of essential parts of a water treatment system as a remedy for nonpayment of bills for operator services threatens not only the owner of the system but also the public health, and is contrary to the Rule and to standard operating practices. Even were the testimony of Ms. Devores credited, oral notification to the Department before removal of equipment, or even oral acquiescence by an employee of the Department to removal undertaken to enforce collection of bills for services by disabling a public water system would not justify that action, which is inappropriate under Rule 17-555.305(3), Florida Administrative Code. Licensees have a duty to know the rules controlling their regulated activity. Mr. Ayers had been notified by the Department in 1986 that removing equipment (a gas chlorinator) from a public water system at Sand Dollar Villas was a serious violation of the duties of a certified operator and could result in revocation of his operating certificates. (Department Exhibit 13) The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondents did not notify the Department prior to removing the equipment. Deliberate disruption of a public water supply by a certified operator constitutes gross neglect and incompetence in the performance of the duties of a certified operator, with potential public health consequences. Both Mr. Ayers and Ms. Devores are responsible for this misconduct, as both participated in it. Use of Uncertified Personnel Danny Runyan was employed by Respondents during the period from approximately 1983 to May 1991. Mr. Runyan acknowledged that he never has been certified to operate water or wastewater treatment plants, but that during calendar year 1990, he fulfilled certified operator duties at Coggin O'Steen, Fontenelle, FPL Distribution Center, J & S Fish Camp, Johnny's Restaurant, PSL Medical Center, Quick & Easy, Rainbow Trailer Park, Raven Parc, Teachers' Place, Cinnamon Tree, Floresta Elementary School, Glendale Commons, Port St. Lucie Convalescent Home, and Vista del Lago plants under the direction or instruction of Paul Ayers or Judy Devores. Donna Anderson was employed as secretary and office manager at Respondents' business and to perform domestic work for Respondents who ran their business out of their home, for two years and nine months from 1988 to approximately October 1990. Her testimony corroborated Runyan's admissions, as did the testimony of Wayne Dampier, who is a certified operator for both water and wastewater treatment plants and who was employed by Respondents during a period from approximately October 1985 to August 1990. Ms. Anderson heard Paul Ayers or Judy Devores direct Danny Runyan to operate plants; it was common knowledge among Respondents' employees that Mr. Runyan operated plants. Mr. Dampier heard Paul Ayers direct Danny Runyan to operate plants, and Paul Ayers also directed Mr. Dampier to direct Danny Runyan to operate plants. Respondents contended that they did not know that Danny Runyan was operating plants, and that if he was doing so it was solely on the instruction of Wayne Dampier, a field manager for Paul Ayers Utilities, Inc. This is not believable, because the same pattern was followed with the work of another employee, John Canard. 2/ John Canard was uncertified, but received direct instructions about which plants he was to operate from Wayne Dampier. Mr. Canard believed that the instructions originated with Respondents, who were aware that he was operating water treatment plants before he was certified. Mr. Canard's belief is supported by Mr. Canard's time sheets (Respondents' Exhibit 26) which shows that between December 29, 1989, and January 19, 1990, while Mr. Canard was not yet certified in water treatment operations, he visited the following water treatment plants which Respondents serviced: 12/29/89 12:00 Lobster Shanty 12:15 Yankee Trader 2:15 Teachers Place 4:45 Fontenelle Plaza 1/2/90 3:00 Lobster Shanty 3:30 Yankee Trader 1/3/90 11:45 Yankee Trader 1:45 Teachers Place 4:00 Fontenelle Plaza 1/4/90 10:00 Johnny's Restaurant 12:15 Lobster Shanty 1:00 Yankee Trader 1/5/90 1:00 Yankee Trader 3:30 Teachers Place 5:15 Fontenelle Plaza 1/8/90 1:30 Teachers Place 3:15 Yankee Trader 5:45 Fontenelle Plaza 1/9/90 10:30 Lobster Shanty 11:15 Lobster Shanty 12:00 Yankee Trader 2:30 Johnny's Restaurant 3:30 Fontenelle Plaza 1/10/90 12:45 Teachers Place 1:15 Fontenelle Plaza 5:00 Yankee Trader 1/11/90 2:45 Yankee Trader 4:00 Fontenelle Plaza 1/12/90 1:15 Lobster Shanty 3:30 Yankee Trader 4:00 Fontenelle Plaza 1/15/90 4:00 Yankee Trader 1/16/90 1:00 Yankee Trader 1:30 Lobster Shanty 5:30 Fontenelle Plaza Respondents maintained that John Canard operated the Rainbow Park water treatment plant and offered his time sheets as evidence, which show that he did so prior to May 1990. Mr. Canard's time sheets show several entries for Rainbow Park prior to certification, including 3/27/90 at 1:00 p.m.; 4/5/90 at 2:00 p.m.; 4/10/90 at 1:15 p.m.; 4/12/90 at 3:45 p.m. and 4/17/90 at 12:30 p.m. The evidence establishes a pattern of using uncertified operators which Respondent knew or should have known about, based on the employee time sheets. It is not credible that Mr. Canard visited these plants on such a regular basis without providing operator service, or that Respondents did not see the time sheets in the regular course of their business. Respondents had to know that their employees were operating plants for which they were not certified. Respondents' contention that all irregular practices originated with Wayne Dampier, and that they knew nothing about them until they met with the Department in June 1990 is undermined by the testimony of Lowell Polk. Mr. Polk was an employee of Respondents for a nine-month period during 1988. At that time, Mr. Polk was certified in water treatment plant operation only, not wastewater plants. 3/ While employed, Mr. Polk told Judy Devores that Wayne Dampier had asked him to operate a wastewater treatment plant when Mr. Polk was not certified as a wastewater treatment plant operator. Ms. Devores replied "don't worry about it, just do it." He did so, until he was discovered by the Department, and then told Ms. Devores that he did not want to do it anymore. This incident exemplifies the casual attitude the Respondents had toward regulations governing their business. The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence the allegations of Count III of the Amended Complaint. During calendar year 1990, Respondents employed Danny Runyan, a person uncertified in either water or wastewater treatment plant operation, to fulfill certified operator requirements at water and wastewater treatment plants, a practice which can result in a threat to public health. Raven Parc - No Certified Operator Jerry Toney inspected the Raven Parc water treatment plant on February 16, February 19, February 20, February 21, February 22, and February 23, 1990. Through February 23, 1990, there were no entries in the on-site operation and maintenance log. The absence of entries indicated no visits by an operator on any of those days. When he inspected again on February 26, 1991, all the data had been backfilled by someone using the initials "J.D." as certified operator. Danny Runyan admitted that although he was the de facto operator of the Raven Parc plant, he did not visit the Raven Parc water treatment plant during the period from February 16 through February 23, 1990. The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence the allegations of Count II of the Complaint that no certified operator, or indeed any operator, visited the Raven Parc water treatment plant during the period from February 16 through February 23, 1990. Use of an individual to provide operator services at a water treatment plant who is uncertified, and failure to provide any operator coverage at all for a week each constitute serious inattention to operations which could result in a hazard to public health. Raven Park - Backfilled O & M Log, False Use of Initials Certified operators are under a duty to "maintain an operation and maintenance log for each plant . . . current to the last operation and maintenance performed . . . . The log, at a minimum, shall include . . . the signature and certification number of the operators." Rule 17-602.360(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. It is the practice in the industry for certified operators to initial rather than fully sign each entry in the O & M log. Mr. Runyan entered the initials of Judy Devores, a certified operator, after the fact in the O & M log for February 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1990. Mr. Runyan "backfilled" and used the initials "J.D." at the instruction of Respondents. Respondents' denial that they ever instructed Mr. Runyan to use their initials and backfilled O & M logs is not credible in light of Mr. Runyan's admission and the corroborating testimony of John Canard, who also testified that he was instructed by Paul Ayers to backfill O & M logs. The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence the allegations of Count II of the Amended Complaint that a certified operator initials, namely Judy Devores' initials, were "backfilled," or entered after the fact, at the Raven Parc plant during February 1990. This was done with the knowledge and approval of Respondents. The practice of "backfilling" is contrary to standard operating practice for water treatment plant operators. Raven Parc - Inadequate Chlorine Residuals When Jerry Toney visited the Raven Park plant on February 7, February 14, February 22, February 23, and February 26, 1990, he took chlorine samples and found inadequate chlorine residuals, that is, a free chlorine residual of less than 0.2 milligrams per liter (mg/1). Chlorine residuals are an assurance that no biological or bacteriological contamination will taint the water supply. The readings were taken after Mr. Toney had "flushed" the system at full tap for three minutes, which is a remedy for a low chlorine residual. Chlorine residuals in treated water can vary over the course of time, and a reading taken by a Department inspector on a particular day might not match exactly the chlorine residuals obtained by an operator at a different time on the same day. Rule 17-550.510(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code, requires "a minimum free chlorine residual of 0.2 milligrams per liter or its equivalent throughout the distribution system at all times." On February 7, 14, 22, 23 and 26, 1990, the chlorine residuals documented by Jerry Toney at the Raven Parc Water Treatment plant did not meet the requirement of Rule 17-550.510(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code. These inadequate chlorine residuals on February 22 and 23, 1990, the dates alleged in the Amended Complaint, were a direct result of gross neglect by Respondents in the operation of the plant, by failing to visit it over an extended period of time, and resulted in a condition which was a potential public health hazard. This aspect of Count II of the Amended Complaint has been established by clear and convincing evidence. Raven Parc - Falsified Chlorine Data Rules 17-550.730(1) and 17-601.300(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, require monthly operating reports to be submitted to the Department for drinking water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants. With regard to water treatment plants, and specifically, the Raven Parc water treatment plant, it was the practice of Paul Ayers Utilities, Inc., to keep a "Drinking Water Treatment Plant Daily Operation Summary" worksheet [DER Form 17-1.208(5)] at the plant on which to record certain measurements such as flow, pH and chlorine residuals. The Daily Operation Summary worksheet is also known as an MOR (monthly operating report) worksheet. At the end of each month, the MOR worksheets would be brought into the office, where the information on the worksheet would be transferred to the "official" monthly operating report [DER Form 17-555.910(2)], which would be signed by the lead operator to certify to its accuracy and sent to the Department. The information on the worksheets was the best and most accurate information available for flows, pH, and chlorine residuals on any particular day. The chlorine residual values certified to the Department by Ms. Devores for February 19, 21 and 23, 1990, are different than the values recorded in the on-site MOR worksheet. The on-site entry for each of those days shows the chlorine residuals (in mg/1) were 1.0 at the plant and 0.3 at the remote tap each day, but the MOR as submitted shows 1.8 and 0.8 respectively on those days. These MOR entries are false. Department Exhibit 4, the certified MOR for Raven Parc for February 1990 signed by Ms. Devores, shows that the entries for February 6, 9, 12 and 16, 1990, have been whited-out and reentered. The original entries on Department Exhibit 4, the certified MOR, had higher values than recorded on Department Exhibit 3, the MOR worksheet. Those higher values had originally been entered to satisfy the concerns expressed by Jerry Toney in a note left on the Raven Parc MOR worksheet on February 16, 1990: "Judy, the DER classifies .3 - .4 chlorine as 'marginal.' We would like to see it higher. Also, the system requires a weekend visit. Thanks, Jerry 878-3890" (Department Exhibit 3). The higher values were whited-out and changed back to the lower values actually recorded on the on-site MOR worksheet, because Respondents realized that Mr. Toney had seen the on-site MOR worksheet for all dates up to February 16, 1990, when he made the dated notation on the worksheet. This conclusion is supported by the appearance of the document itself and by Donna Anderson's testimony that, while she generally transferred the information from the MOR worksheet to the MOR for submission to the Department, she never whited-out data on an MOR, and that she did not do so in this instance. Ms. Anderson testified that after she had typed in the MOR header information and transferred data from the MOR worksheet, it was routine practice for Respondents to take the MORs and "fill in for days that were missing." All of the chlorine values recorded and reported on the official form fall within acceptable values established in Rule 17-550.510(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code. This is not surprising, since they were all made up at the time they were backfilled on the worksheet. Danny Runyan admitted that he did not actually visit the plant during the period from February 16 to February 23, 1991, Findings 23 and 24, above. All information recorded for those days on both the MOR worksheet and the MOR submitted to the Department were fabricated. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the chlorine data on the MOR submitted to the Department for the Raven Parc water treatment plant for February 16-23, 1990, and certified by Ms. Devores as correct, were knowingly falsified. The Department has proven the allegations of Count VII of the Amended Complaint. Raven Parc - Falsified Flow Data Judy Devores and Paul Ayers respectively signed and submitted the February 1990 and March 1990 MORs for Raven Parc. They each reported at least twenty-four daily entries of "Total Water Treated in Gallons," that is, flow of treated water. It was admitted that the flow meter at Raven Parc was inoperative. By tracking the amount of time a water pump operates with an elapsed time clock, an operator may calculate flows of treated water. An elapsed time clock was installed at Raven Parc at some point. The issue raised by the Department is whether the elapsed time clock was available and used to calculate the treated water flows certified by Respondents in February and March 1990. Respondents claimed that an elapsed time clock was installed at Raven Parc on February 8, 1990. In support of this contention, Respondents offered a photocopy of a work order in Danny Runyan's handwriting, indicating the installation of an elapsed time clock at Raven Parc. The date on this document is obscured and cannot be read. Even Paul Ayers had trouble trying to decipher a date on the exhibit at the hearing (Respondent's Exhibit 25). Jerry Toney in February 1990, and Wes Upham and Jerry Toney together, on June 25, 1990, looked for an elapsed time clock at the Raven Parc water treatment plant found none. Mr. Runyan and Mr. Dampier both testified that the elapsed time clock was installed "in June" and "after the meeting with the Department," which took place on June 25, 1990. Ms. Anderson also believed that elapsed time clock was installed in June, although she was "not sure." Her belief is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Runyan and Mr. Dampier. Taken together, this testimony is highly persuasive. Mr. Runyan testified that he was instructed by Wayne Dampier to put the time clock "at the breaker panel in the top part of the panel under the top of the lid" because "they didn't want DER to see it." Mr. Dampier admitted relaying instructions from Paul Ayers to "put it in an inconspicuous area to where it wouldn't be as noticeable so if the DER come out looking for it they wouldn't find it just right offhand." Determining water flows by the use of an elapsed time clock requires multiplication of the time the water pump was operating by the capacity of the pump. Neither the MOR worksheet, nor the O & M log for Raven Parc contained such calculations. Even according to Mr. Ayers' contentions, the elapsed time clock was not installed until February 8, 1990, at the earliest. The MOR submitted to the Department for February 1990, signed by Judy Devores, includes entries for "Total water Treated in Gallons," i.e. flow, for February 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, 1990, as well as for the rest of the month. It has already been established that no one visited the plant between February 16 and February 23, 1990, but flows are entered for February 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1990. (Department Exhibit 4). These facts wholly undermine the claim that flow was measured by an elapsed time clock and accurately recorded and certified to the Department by Respondents. Viewing the evidence as a whole, the Department has presented clear and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of Count VI of the Amended Complaint, that no means to measure or to estimate flow data was available at Raven Parc during this period. The flow data submitted on the Raven Parc MORs for February and March 1990, by Paul Ayers and Judy Devores were falsified. Raven Parc - Failure to Fulfill Duties of "Lead Operator" On June 25, 1990, the Department and Judy Devores met to discuss the operation of Raven Parc plant. At that meeting, Ms. Devores stated that she did not operate the Raven Parc plant, and in testimony, Ms. Devores stated she did not visit Raven Parc. Ms. Devores signed the Raven Parc MOR for February as lead operator, however, and the initials "JD" are the only initials which appear on the Raven Parc O & M log for February 1990 (Department Exhibits 1 and 4). Ms. Devores exhibited a lack of familiarity with the actual conditions at Raven Parc during the June 25th meeting. This was inconsistent with a person who properly functioned as its lead operator. According to the Department's expert, the lead operator is "the individual with the most knowledge of the workings of that treatment plant and its condition at any given point in time." (Tr. Day 1, p. 69) At a minimum, a lead operator personally should provide once-a-week on-site supervision to a certified operator, and should never delegate the operation of a water treatment plant to an uncertified operator. Danny Runyan was the de facto operator of the Raven Parc plant, and admitted that he did not visit the plant from February 16 through February 23, 1990. Rule 17-602.200(11), Florida Administrative Code, defines "lead or chief operator" as "the certified operator whose responsibilities include the supervision of all other persons who are employed at a plant, performance of on- site treatment plant operation and whose responsibility it is for the effectiveness and efficiency of the overall treatment plant operation." While Ms. Devores may not have ever gone to the plant, she was responsible for its operation as the lead operator, and should have done so. The Department has presented clear and convincing evidence to substantiate the allegations of Count IX of the Complaint that Judy Devores did not fullfil the duties of a lead operator for the Raven Parc water treatment plant. Raven Parc and Moose Lodge - O & M Log Falsification The Loyal Order of Moose #248 water treatment plant is located in Fort Pierce, and is 12.0 miles away from the Raven Parc plant. Travel between the two plants takes approximately 20 minutes. An operator with the initials "JD" arrived at each plant on February 20, 1990, at 4:15 and left each plant at 4:30, according to the O & M logs at each of the two plants. Similarly, on February 22, 1990, "JD" left the Moose Lodge at 4:30 and arrived at Raven Parc at 4:30. The handwriting on the logs appear to be the same, but the initials do not appear to be in the handwriting of Judy Devores. (See the signature on Department Exhibits 4 and 16, and the initials in the entries for August 21 to August 25 on Department Exhibit 33.) The O & M logs for Raven Parc and Moose Lodge are documents required to be kept by the operator "current to the last operation and maintenance performed." Rule 17-602.360(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. They are falsified for February 1990. The facts alleged in Count VIII of the Complaint are true. The false O & M log for Raven Parc for February 1990, was maintained by Danny Runyan, with the authorization and under the direction of Judy Devores. Other Falsified O & M Logs The Amended Complaint alleged in Count X that initials of Judy Devores were entered in O & M logs for days she did not visit facilities, and could not have visited facilities because she was out of town. Specific instances are tabulated below: JUDY DEVORES Big O WWTP July 18, 1990 (10-10:30 AM). Glendale Commons WTP July 1990: 18th (3-3:30 PM) 23rd - 25th, 30th and 31st, August 1990: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 10th, 13th and 14th. Johnnies Restaurant WTP June 11th and 12, 1990. Pier II Motel WWTP July 18th, 1990 (10-10:25). Rainbow Trailer Park WTP July 24th and 27th, 1990. Zachary Taylor WWTP July 18th, 1990 (12:15 - 12:45 PM). The Department introduced at hearing copies of the relevant O & M logs (Department Exhibits 27 through 35), and airline ticket receipts which show that the Respondents were out-of-state on the relevant dates (Department Exhibits 24 through 27), and the testimony of Danny Runyan, who admitted that he had signed those O & M logs. Judy Devores characterized Danny Runyan's testimony as erroneous. She was not sure whether or not she used the ticket introduced as Department Exhibit 25, and maintained that she used the ticket introduced as Department Exhibit 26, but left on July 19, 1990, rather than July 18, the departure date noted on the ticket receipt. Judy Devores also asserted that she went to all five plants listed in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint as having been visited by "J.D." on July 18, 1990 because "Wayne was on vacation. Paul and I had to cover the plants." She could not blame Wayne Dampier for false entries on those days. She swore that she went to the West Palm Beach airport and "missed the plane" scheduled to leave at 9:34 a.m. on July 18, 1990, and by 10:00 a.m., after having taken the time to make arrangements to pay an extra $75.00 and be reticketed for a next-day departure, arrived at the Big O water treatment plant in Okeechobee County (Department Exhibit 29). This is not believable. Ms. Devores would have had to miss both flights (or used neither of the non-refundable tickets offered as Department Exhibits 25 and 26) in order to establish her presence at the various water and wastewater treatment plants on the dates her initials appear. Ms. Devores hinted, but offered no proof, that Wayne Dampier falsified initials on O & M logs, presumably to get them in trouble. The testimony of Judy Devores is not credible, and her evidence inadequate to overcome the Department's proof, especially in light of Danny Runyan's admission. The initials entered showing Judy Devores performed services at the facilities listed in Finding 63 above are false. The allegations of Count X have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Falsified BOD and TSS Data The Department's Amended Complaint alleged in Count IV that during calendar year 1990, Respondents reported biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) data in the wastewater treatment plant MORs for the Town & Country wastewater treatment plant and other facilities operated by them, for which no analyses were performed. BOD and TSS and measurements of the treatment efficiency of wastewater plants, and maximum counts for BOD and TSS are established by the Department in Rule 17-600.420, Florida Administrative Code, which sets minimum treatment standards. Measuring and reporting BOD and TSS values is required for the protection of public health. Rule 17-601.300, Florida Administrative Code, requires monthly monitoring and reporting of BOD and TSS. The MOR, which is the reporting format for BOD and TSS, must be signed by the "lead operator in charge of operating the treatment facility." While the Rule imposes a duty on "wastewater treatment facilities" to monitor effluent for compliance with the rules, the common practice in the industry is for the operator to be responsible to collect samples, forward the samples to a laboratory for analysis, receive the lab report and report the laboratory results to the Department. Respondents did not deny that monitoring of BOD and TSS was part of the operating services they had contracted to perform. In support of the allegation that BOD and TSS analyses were not done, the Department submitted MORs for each month in 1990 for six wastewater treatment plants: Town and Country Mobile Home Park, Big O RV Park, Four Acres Mobile Home Park, Motel Pier II, Taylor Creek Lodge, and Zachary Taylor RV Camp (Department Exhibits 19a-19f). Each of these MORs has a value entered in the space labeled "BOD (mg/1) EFFLUENT" and "TSS (mg/1) EFFLUENT." All are signed by Paul Ayers or Judy Devores. In the course of discovery, the Department asked Respondents in deposition which laboratories Respondents used for analysis of BOD and TSS. The labs identified as performing analyses for Respondents were East Coast Laboratories, Bioservices, and Envirometrics, with Envirometrics being the lab mainly used. Affidavits from the directors of Bioservices and East Coast Laboratories indicate that neither of those laboratories performed any BOD or TSS analyses for Respondents. 4/ Proof of the non-existence of reports by those labs is admissible under Section 90.803(7), Florida Statutes (1991). The Department subpoenaed and copied the records of Envirometrics, and Francisco Perez prepared a summary of the documents, which the director of the laboratory confirmed in an affidavit to be accurate, with certain corrections. The summary shows only 11 rather than 72 instances of lab analyses (six plants times 12 months of MOR entries) for the plants listed in Finding 75: Big O - 2; Town & Country - 2; Four Acres - 2; Motel Pier II - 3; Zachary Taylor - 2; and Taylor Creek Lodge - 0. While Donna Anderson was employed, there was no procedure for collecting monthly effluent samples from the approximately 21 wastewater treatment plants operated by Respondents. Ms. Anderson did not receive regularly 21 sets of lab reports for BOD and TSS, and she saw no evidence at Respondents' office/home that 21 sets of such samples routinely were being collected, stored, or delivered to any laboratory for analysis. John Canard and Danny Runyan each testified that they did not regularly collect effluent samples from wastewater treatment plants they maintained. Applying the standard of clear and convincing evidence, the Department has proven that the BOD and TSS analyses were not performed, although both Paul Ayers and Judy Devores certified they had been in Department Exhibits 19a-19f. The Department's evidence is not rebutted by Respondents' bare assertions, with no supporting documentation, that the required laboratory analyses were performed. Their refusal to identify the lab or lab technician they maintain ran the tests for them renders their testimony highly suspect, and the evidence of other falsifications make their testimony unbelievable. See Finding 130(a), below. Falsified Bacteriological Data Rule 17-550.510(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires at least monthly monitoring of each regulated water system for coliform bacteria (bacteriologicals). One representative raw sample and two samples from the distribution system (sometimes identified as remotes) are required. Rule 17- 550.730(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires monthly reporting of the bacteriological results to the Department. Respondents undertook the sampling and reporting requirements as part of their operating service agreements but did not follow appropriate sample collection methods. Wayne Dampier, Danny Runyan, and Donna Anderson each testified that for the month of October 1990 unlabeled samples were brought into the office, and Paul Ayers, Danny Runyan and Donna Anderson assigned arbitrary and false identifications to the bacteriological samples, identifying them as various facilities operated by Paul Ayers Utilities, Inc. These falsely labelled samples were then submitted to a laboratory for analysis and the results were reported to the Department. The practice of intentionally submitting mislabeled bacteriological samples and reporting false results constitutes submission of fraudulent data, gross neglect in the performance of the duties of a certified operator which can result in adverse public health consequences, and violates standard operating practice for plant operators. Paul Ayers simply denied that he ever collected samples from one location or misalabeled unlabeled samples, and called Donna Anderson's testimony untrue. This testimony is not credible. The allegation of Count XI of the Amended Complaint, that bacteriological samples were mislabeled during the month of October 1990 to seem to have come from other treatment plants, has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Floresta Elementary - Inadequate Operator Visits The Amended Complaint alleged in Count XII that Respondents failed to provide the Floresta Elementary School water treatment plant the required five visits per week plus one weekend visit for the period from August 22, 1990, through April 23, 1991. The Department offered copies of the on-site O & M log for the relevant period showing inadequate coverage (Department Exhibit 39), and the testimony of Wes Upham. A letter from the school, dated July 26, 1991, states that "Present Operator Paul Ayers Utilities states they have been operating the plant at least 5 days per week for the past several months since Department notice to that effect." The "Department notice" referred to is the notification Wes Upham gave to the school board after his inspection on April 26, 1991. From April to July is "several months" of five day per week operator coverage. The letter does not establish adequate operator coverage for the period at issue: August 22, 1990, to April 23, 1991, and so does not exonerate Mr. Ayers. Kevin Prussing serviced Floresta Elementary for Paul Ayers Utilities, Inc. He was asked by counsel for Respondents whether Paul Ayers called him in April of 1991 to tell him to start going to visit Floresta. Mr. Prussing replied that he did not remember the exact date, but it was after "the question came up about how many visits" and after "it was settled amongst Paul and whoever. . . " (Tr. Day 2 p. 179), which was after the Department's Notice of Noncompliance dated July 10, 1991, was sent to the school board. Paul Ayers did not deny that prior to April 23, 1991, operator coverage was less than five day per week plus one weekend visit. He asserted that his company entered into a contract with the school board which called for three day per week coverage, and that prior to plant modifications in August 1990, only three day per week coverage was required for the Floresta Elementary School water treatment plant. Mr. Ayers acknowledged that he knew five days per week with one weekend visit was required after the plant modifications were completed in August 1990, and that he informed a representative of the school board of that fact. Mr. Ayers claimed that the school board representative refused to pay for additional operator coverage until he was notified by the Department of increased operator coverage requirements. The Department established through the testimony of Rim Bishop, Wes Upham and Kevin Prussing that a licensed operator and the owner of a water treatment plant each have an independent responsibility to know and comply with the plant coverage requirements, which are designed to protect public health. Both Rim Bishop and Kevin Prussing, certified water treatment plant operators, testified that they would not accept a customer who wanted them to provide less than the required operator coverage. The Invitation to Bid circulated by the school board on May 9, 1990, to which Paul Ayers responded on May 23, 1990 (Department Exhibit 37), has a set of "Special General Conditions," which include the following for Floresta Elementary School: "Provide service for both water and wastewater treatment plants, as required by current DER regulations." This specification indicates that the school board intended the operator to make the judgment about appropriate operator attendance requirements. No specific number of days was required in the school board's bid documents. Other operating companies (not including Respondents) contacted the Department to find out how many visits per week would be required at Floresta. For some time before completion of the modifications to Floresta Elementary's system, the school's water supply was such a problem that the school board was required to supply bottled water for cooking and drinking, and to post warnings that bathroom water was not potable. From the time Mr. Ayers became the operator of the Floresta Elementary School water plant, he knew or should have known that water quality was a problem and that extensive treatment modifications were forthcoming. The plant's system, as modified in August 1990, included aeration, gas chlorination, multimedia filtration and ion exchange softening. Proper operation of this system requires blending of raw and treated water. Andrew Helseth, the plant engineer, pointed out that this plant "was only the second one that has had filters and softeners on it". Kevin Prussing, the current operator of the Floresta plant, testified that the plant modifications caused the plant to be "unusual" and "pretty complex" and stated that the engineer was still "very heavily" involved in making corrections. The O & M logs for Floresta Elementary School indicate a period in early 1991 when the plant was visited only twice a week by Respondents. An examination of the O & M logs show that during the week of February 24 to March 2, the plant was visited only twice; from March 3 to March 9 only once; from March 17 to March 23 twice; from March 24 to March 30 twice. The plant was not visited at all from February 28 to March 9, 1991, a period of nine days. This plant is located at a public elementary school. It had a history of water quality problems, and the unique combination of treatment processes. It was gross negligence for an operator to provide less than the three visits per week arguably covered by contract, and less than the required coverage of fives days plus one weekend visit which Mr. Ayers acknowledged, and to leave the plant unattended for nine days. Respondents' claim that the owner of the facility is responsible for ensuring operator coverage is inadequate to overcome the Department's clear and convincing proof with regard to Count XII of the Amended Complaint, that Paul Ayers failed to provide the required operator coverage at the Floresta Elementary School water treatment plant between August 22, 1990, and April 23, 1991. Floresta Elementary - Monitoring Requirements It is essentially undisputed that Respondents failed to monitor the Floresta Elementary plant on each visit for turbidity and water hardness at the water's point of entry into the system, and failed to measure on each visit the raw, bypass and finished water flows. In their defense, Respondents showed that there is no specific permit requirement or rule which mandates such monitoring. The Department established by clear and convincing evidence, including the testimony of Rim Bishop, Wes Upham, Kevin Prussing and Andrew Helseth, and the construction permit issued for the Floresta Elementary School water treatment plant (Department Exhibit 38) that this monitoring is essential to the operation of this type of plant, which includes mixed media filtration, ion exchange and raw water blending, and which had a history of water quality problems. The modifications to the Floresta plant included a turbidometer and additional flow meters beyond the normal flow meters, but Mr. Ayers contended that the presence of this additional monitoring equipment did not imply that additional flows for which gauges had been installed should be measured. Standard operating practice in the industry would indicate to a operator exercising ordinary care in performing his duties that such measurements must be taken. The Amended Complaint further alleged in Count XIII that Respondents failed to monitor monthly for nitrate, chloride, pH, specific conductance, total dissolved solids and fecal coliform, as required by specific condition 13 of the Floresta water treatment plant construction permit (Department Exhibit 38). This allegation was not denied. Paul Ayers defended his conduct by contending that the school board was responsible for the failure to monitor, even though the Invitation to Bid states: "Special General Condition (A). Floresta Elementary (B). Perform all analysis on water and wastewater as required by current D.E.R. regulations" and "General Conditions (2). Contractor agrees to sub-contract laboratory analysis on samples in accordance with the analytical procedure acceptable to the Department of Environmental Regulations (sic)" Mr. Ayers' own bid response states "The charge for the above-described services per school will be, Floresta Elementary water $310, waste water, $210 per month to include all DER required lab analysis and labor service as described herein" (Department Exhibit 37). Standard operating practice requires that a water treatment plant operator be familiar with the terms of a plant's permit, and operate the system in compliance with the permit's terms. Even if the school board had an independent duty to assure compliance with the special monitoring requirements set out in Specific Condition 13 of the construction permit, Paul Ayers failed to comply with standard operating practice with regard to these monitoring requirements. The allegations of Count XIII have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Failure to Supply Chlorine at Armadillo Warehouse The Amended Compliant alleged in Count XIV that Respondents failed to supply chlorine to the Armadillo warehouse water treatment plant after becoming aware that its on-site cholrine reservoir was empty, which caused an inadequate chlorine residual. The Department's evidence on this count included testimony from Francisco Perez, Donna Anderson, Wayne Dampier and Lowell Polk. Lowell Polk testified that he was given a list of plants to operate, which included the Armadillo plant. Despite his efforts during four or five visits to the plant, he "could not get satisfactory operation out of the [chlorine] feed pump." (Tr. Day 2 p. 141-142) As a result, "There was no chlorine in the water" (Tr. Day 2 pp. 141 and 149). Mr. Polk informed Ms. Devores about the inadequate chlorine situation, and she told him "don't worry about it." The plant was so small it did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Department, but was supervised by the local county public health unit. Respondents maintain that they had no contract to provide operator service, and that their only responsibility at Armadillo was "for a monthly bacteriological to be picked up" according to Ms. Devores (Tr. Day 2 p. 206), although Mr. Ayers believed it was a "quarterly sample" (Tr. Day 2 p. 258) for the public health unit. Despite the appearance of the Armadillo warehouse in Lowell Polk's list of plants to be serviced, the evidence about the contractual obligation of Respondents to provide any services to the Armadillo warehouse is too vague to support a finding that Respondents failed to perform services they had agreed or were required to perform for the public health unit. The Department has failed to prove the allegations of Count XIV of its Amended Complaint. Port St. Lucie Convalescent Center Count XV alleges that no operator certified in wastewater provided the minimum number of visits to the Port St. Lucie Convalescent Center wastewater treatment plant during the period from approximately June 1, 1989, through November 30, 1989. At the hearing, Lowell Polk, an operator certified in water only, testified that he operated the Port St. Lucie Convalescent Center plant during the period that he worked for Respondents, which was in 1988, not 1989. Mr. Polk's testimony does not support the allegations of Count XV, since that count specifically alleged misconduct by Respondents during 1989. Mr. Polk's testimony tends to corroborate, to some extent, the allegations of Count III, that uncertified operators were used by Respondents, and negates Respondents' assertions that they were unaware that any plants were being operated by uncertified operators. Mr. Polk told Judy Devores that Wayne Dampier asked him to operate a plant for which he was not certified, and Ms. Devores responded, "don't worry about it, just do it." (Tr. Day 2 p. 140) The Department has failed to prove the allegations of Count XV of its Amended Complaint. Costs The Department incurred costs and expenses in its investigation of the violations alleged in the amount of $15,512.60, which it seeks to recover in Count XVI. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE Respondents have attempted to impeach the credibility of Donna Anderson and Wayne Dampier as witnesses against them, alleging bias. They claim Ms. Anderson was fined because she had been embezzling funds from petty cash, and Mr. Dampier was personally responsible for improprieties alleged by the Department. Both witnesses, according to Respondents, are lying because they are disgruntled ex-employees. Danny Runyan, another ex-employee, admitted lying under oath during a deposition taken while he was still employed by Respondents, and explained that he lied under instructions from Respondents in order to keep his job. I have listened to the testimony, read the transcript, examined the documentary evidence and considered the various allegations of interest, motive and bias. I have observed the witnesses and evaluated their opportunity to have observed the matters they testified about, their ability to remember the facts, their ability to articulate details of their recollection, and any reason they had to shade or avoid the truth. Based on these observations and review of the record, I find that the evidence offered by Ms. Anderson, Mr. Dampier and Mr. Runyan are for the most part corroborated by testimony from John Canard, Kevin Prussing and Lowell Polk; by testimony from Department employees; and by exhibits offered by both parties. Mr. Dampier, Mr. Canard and Mr. Polk all admitted misconduct involving activities which could jeopardize their treatment plant operations certificates, with no evidence of any "grant of immunity" or agreement by the Department not to take enforcement action against their certifications. I simply do not believe that Ms. Anderson, Mr. Dampier and Mr. Runyan have perjured themselves for the purpose of revenge, or for any other reason. Many details in the testimony, while not alleged as to specific counts, and which do not in themselves support a finding of gross neglect in treatment plant operations, tend to corroborate the Department's specific allegations about false entries in required reports. For example, Donna Anderson said Respondents had instructed her to "stagger between 6.8 and 7.2" the pH values as she filled out the MORs; Wayne Dampier testified that Respondents told him "definitely not to take a raw sample because its too likely they will flunk" and to "make sure you got a good chlorine residual so that the samples would pass." During cross examination, Donna Anderson remembered Respondents asked her "to put in times and dates and stagger information of these particular logs . . . They had me make up these so called O & M logs that were missing from plants. They didn't have any." This is consistent with the statement made by Respondents in their written response to the Department's Notice of Noncompliance. In paragraph 3, of Department's Exhibit 15, Respondents state: "When the laws concerning the O & M logs were enforced, Paul Ayers Utilities immediately complied." It appears that Respondents "immediately complied" by having Donna Anderson manufacture O & M logs. Past questionable reports submitted by Respondents offer some slight corroboration of the charge of false labeling of samples. In 1986, the Department was notified by an HRS laboratory that samples submitted by Respondents were questionable, in that all samples, although labeled from different plants, had the same coliform bacteria counts. Respondents were advised at that time to take care in the handling of samples, just as they were warned in 1986 that removal of components of a treatment plant was considered by the Department to be "gross neglect in the performance of duties as a certified operator." The evidence of the fraud in the samples the Department charged in the Amended Compliant is itself highly persuasive even without this evidence. Statements, admissions and actions by Respondents have undermined their own credibility. For example: Respondents alleged that the nonexistent BOD and TSS analyses had been performed by a "moonlighting" lab technician in Okeechobee County who had been paid in cash. This entire line of testimony was not credible and damaged Respondent's credibility generally. Ms. Devores testified that the initials "J.D." which appear on the Zachary Taylor plant O & M log (Department Exhibit 33) for August 21 through 26, 1990, are in her handwriting, and that the initials "J.D." which appear on the same document on the dates July 17 and 18, 1990, are also in her handwriting, even though the handwritings are distinctly dissimilar, and even though Danny Runyan admitted that he had entered the latter set of initials. This further undermined the trustworthiness of Ms. Devores' testimony. Respondents tried to implicate Wayne Dampier in the allegations involving Floresta Elementary School, but the Floresta allegations all relate to a time period after Wayne Dampier's employment had terminated. Ms. Devores was unable to explain how her initials, "J.D." appeared in the Big O Water Treatment Plant at 10 a.m., on 7-11-90, and simultaneously at the Pier II WWTP, except that she "didn't have on my watch". Similarly, she was unable to explain how her initials show her to be simultaneously at Moose Lodge and Raven Parc on February 20, 1990. Respondents were unable to explain why they never noticed that their initials repeatedly were being used at plants they contend they did not operate. Ms. Devores kicked and threatened Ms. Anderson with bodily harm when she saw Anderson in the hall of the Palm Beach County Courthouse during the proceedings (Tr. Day 2 p. 96-99).
Recommendation Paul Ayers' and Judy Devores' water and wastewater treatment plant operator certifications referred to in Finding 1 should be permanently revoked. They should surrender those certificates to the Department within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the final order. Respondents should no longer accept employment in a capacity requiring water or wastewater treatment certification nor represent themselves as holding such certifications. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of May 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Southwest Florida Water Management District had permitting authority for the issuance of consumptive use permits in the area in which Respondent, El Jobean, proposes to sink its irrigation well. On December 12, 1988, El Jobean submitted a consumptive use permit application to sink a new well for the purpose of irrigation of a golf course to be developed on the property it owns in Sarasota County. The well is to be located in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 365, Range 20R, in Sarasota County, Florida near the southern boundary of an irregularly shaped piece of property consisting of approximately 855 acres, owned by the applicant, which extends over Sections 28, 29, 32 and 33, Township 365, Range 20E. Respondent proposed to sink a 10 inch diameter well to a total depth of approximately 900 feet with casing in the well now to extend down to 300 feet, with a pump capacity of 1,000 GPM. The golf course to be irrigated is to encompass approximately 190 acres. The applicant requested authority to withdraw an average of 600,000 GPD with a limitation of a maximum of 1,440,000 GPD. The application was properly staffed by the District. In the staff report on the application, the average daily use limitation was expanded to 707,000 GPD; consumptive use was raised from 0 to 139,000 GPD; and maximum daily consumption was reduced from 1,440,000 GPD to 1,240,000 GPD. These changes were due to correction of arithmetic errors in the application and were accepted by the applicant. The ultimate recommendation of the staff was for approval of a 6 year permit, subject to certain conditions outlined in subparagraph I of the staff report. These special conditions require the provision and use of flow measuring devices to maintain an accurate record of the water withdrawn; the maintenance of flow records and the providing of periodic reports to the District; the collection and analyzing of water quality of samples taken from the well to measure the appropriate parameters for chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids; the reporting of the results of these samplings and a description of the sampling and analytical methodologies employed; and a requirement that the permittee investigate the feasibility of supplementing and/or substituting drawn water with treated sewage affluent. After the staff report was submitted, proper notice of the District's intent to issue the permit was published. Based on that notice, protests were filed both by Miakka and Mr. Bishop. The area in question is located within the Manasota Basin which, itself, is located within the Southern West-Central Florida Ground Water Basin, (SWCFGWB), which encompasses all of Pasco, Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota, Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto Counties, and parts of Lee, Glades, Charlotte and Highlands Counties. The SWCFGWB sits atop several aquifers which include the Floridian Aquifer, two Intermediate aquifers, and the Surficial Aquifer. The Floridian Aquifer is the deepest and the Surficial Aquifer is on the top. The Miakka Community Club is a Florida corporation made up of residents of the pertinent area whose primary function is to preserve and conserve the rural nature and spirit of the Northeast section of Sarasota County. The club performs this function through educational programs, community activities, and participation in the legislative process. Miakka urges denial of the permit sought by El Jobean based on its membership's belief that the property owners whose property is in the immediate vicinity of the proposed well will be adversely affected if El Jobean is permitted to sink its well and withdraw water from it. The club membership believes that approval of El Jobean's well will result in contamination of existing personal water wells due to excessive use by El Jobean; potential contamination of Sarasota County's future drinking water sources which include the capital Ringling,/MacArthur tract and the Myakka River; reduction of property values; and destruction of personal resources. Petitioner also urges that since the proposed golf course will be a part of a private club for the use of members only, in which membership will be limited, there is no public benefit derived from the approval of and sinking of the well in question. Petitioner also contends that during the periods of severe water shortage as are being currently experienced, permission to sink a well of this size to draw water in of the magnitude expressed in the application, would be counterproductive and detrimental to the interests of the other property owners in the area. In support of its claim, Petitioner presented the testimony of two homeowners from the area, Mr. Richardson and Ms. Mustico. Mr. Richardson, whose well is 183 feet deep, has had several problems with his well even without the instant drilling. In 1974, and subsequent thereto, he has had to go deeper with a suction pipe because the water has dropped below the level of the tail pipe. Ms. Mustico's 160 foot deep well, with 80 feet of casing, is used to supply water for the home. She also has other wells for watering her lawn and for livestock, one of which goes down 500 feet. She is concerned that the well proposed by El Jobean will adversely impact her ability to draw water from her wells because, she believes, the water level from which her water is drawn will drop. In the past, her primary well has gone dry and the wells of several neighbors have gone dry as well. Through maps and other documentation taken from the Ground Water Resource Availability Inventory for Sarasota County, Florida, prepared by the District in March 1988, Petitioner has established that areas of significant groundwater withdrawal within the SWCFGWB occur in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee, DeSoto and Highlands Counties. With the exception of an extremely small portion of Sarasota County located contiguous to Manatee County, there appear to be no areas of major ground water withdrawal currently existing in Sarasota County. The majority of the major municipal well fields within the pertinent basin that are located within Sarasota County, extend down to the Intermediate and Surficial Aquifers with only 3 extending through the lower Intermediate into the Floridan Aquifer. These include the Verna well field located in the northeast corner of Sarasota County where it abuts Manatee County; the Sarasota County well field located in northwest Sarasota County near the Manatee County line; and the Sorrento Utility, Inc., well field which is located near the Gulf Coast, approximately two-fifths of the way down between the Manatee and Charlotte County lines. With the exception of the Verna well field, all the municipal well fields in Sarasota County appear to be reverse osmosis systems and as of 1987, there were 28 reverse osmosis systems located within Sarasota County. Most are relatively small in their output measured in millions of gallons per day. With the exception of 3 public supply wells, 2 of which are permitted an average annual pumpage greater than 100,000 GPD and 1 of which is permitted less, all of the permitted public supply well fields in Sarasota County are located west and south of 1-75 as it extends from the Manatee County line in the north to the Charlotte County line in the south. The El Jobean well would be located east of the line, in that area occupied by the 3 public supply wells. Generalized recharge areas for the upper Floridan Aquifer in the groundwater basin in issue here have been categorized from "high", with a rate of more than 10 inches per year, to "Generally none", with a recharge rate at 0. In 1980, the high recharge rates existed in the north-central part of Pasco, the eastern part of Polk County, and the northeastern part of Highlands County. Sarasota County is in an area wherein the recharge rate was either very low or generally none. In September 1986, the high recharge rate was found in a very small area of northeastern Pasco County, and small areas in both Polk and Highlands Counties. Sarasota County, for the most part, was classified as having no recharge. In May 1987, the high recharge rates were, again, a small area in eastern Pasco County, a small area in northeastern Hillsborough County, a small area in southeastern Polk and northwestern Highlands Counties, and a minuscule area in central Pinellas County. Again, Sarasota County had a recharge rate of 0. Generalized estimated, calibrated, model-derived recharge and discharge values for the upper Floridan Aquifer in the ground water basin in issue here, as they pertain to Sarasota County, reflect positive 2 recharge to negative 1 discharge inches per year. Historically, however, the northeast portion of Sarasota County, where the El Jobean well in question would be located, evaluated by various individuals or agencies periodically from 1980 through 1988, reflects a recharge of anywhere from 0 to 2 inches per year. None of this documentation was supplemented, however, by direct testimony by an individual knowledgeable in this area, and Petitioner's main thrust appears to be an unsubstantiated fear that the sinking of El Jobean's well will have a negative impact on its membership's wells. Admittedly, the residents in the area in question all rely on private wells for the majority of their water supply, other than through the catchment of rainwater, which is insignificant. It was also established that the area has been undergoing a severe water shortage and that conservation measures have been mandated. On the other hand, El Jobean presented the testimony of a hydrogeologist, Mr. Moresi, who has extensive experience with the modeling process used to determine water consumption and recharge in southwest Florida and Sarasota County. The aquifer system in Florida is made up of water bearing limestone layers below the surficial sand base. This aquifer system underlays the various zones throughout the state and reflects a surficial aquifer extending from ground level down approximately 70 feet to a confining bed which separates it from the lower strata. This top confining bed is approximately 20 feet thick, and below it is the Tamiami-Upper Hawthorn Aquifer, which is between 100 and 200 feet deep and which rests on another confining bed somewhat thicker than the upper one. Below the second confining bed is the Lower Hawthorn-Upper Tampa Aquifer which extends approximately from the 250 foot to the 450 foot level at the Manatee County line, and between the 320 foot and the 710 foot level at the Charlotte County line. Another confining bed lays between this aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer which starts at the 500 foot level and goes down well below the 900 foot level in the north and extends from the 730 foot level down in the south. The confining bed below the surficial aquifer is made up of a clay material which retards the movement of water from one aquifer to another. The surficial aquifer is porous and saturated with water from the water table down. Since the confining beds are far less porous than the aquifers they separate, water moves much more slowly through them. The lower aquifers are made up of limestone and are also porous and contain water. The Tamiami-Upper Hawthorn formation consists of limestone and clay, but is water bearing. The Lower Hawthorn-Upper Tampa formation is similar and both make up the intermediate aquifer below which is the lower confining bed followed by the Floridan aquifer. Respondent's well would be cased in steel down to an area approximately 100 feet into the Floridan Aquifer, through the Lower Hawthorn- Upper Tampa Aquifer and through the lower confining bed. Since the well would be cased to well below the lower confining bed, water existing in the upper aquifers, would be prevented from being drawn down by operation, of the Respondent's well either directly or by settling down to replace the water drawn out. Generally, the deeper a well is drilled, the worse the quality of the water, and it becomes less potable. The Floridan Aquifer produces far more copious quantities of water than do the intermediate aquifers. However, since it is cheaper to drill to the intermediate zones as the wells need not be so deep, and since the water there is better, most domestic wells go no deeper than these aquifers. They go down approximately 150 to 180 feet. The pressure in each level is separate from and different from that in the other aquifers. The upper intermediate system generally has a lower pressure than the lower intermediate system. As a result, water from the lower intermediate system tends to leak upward toward the upper intermediate aquifer, rather than the reverse. In addition, a recent survey tends to show that the Floridan aquifer also tends to leak upward into the lower intermediate level. It also shows that leakage through the confining beds amounts to .002 GPD per cubic foot of aquifer. Petitioner claims that since the lower water is of lesser quality, and since withdrawal of water from the upper layers would promote leakage upward, thereby adding lower grade water to the better grade upper water, there could be a diminishment in upper level water quality as a result of water being drawn from the upper levels. However, according to Mr. Moresi, the .002 figure is so small it would result in an infinitesimally small drawdown of water level from the upper intermediate level aquifer and the potential for compromise of the water quality therein is remote. Clearly, this is not the result of drawing water from the Floridan Aquifer as the well in question would do but more the result of the residential wells extending into the upper levels. The District ran a model for the proposed El Jobean well (a Jacob- Hantush model) which showed that drawdown at the wellhead would be just over 2 feet. This means that use of the Respondent's well would reduce the water level in the Floridan Aquifer at the well head by 2 feet. However, this drawdown is shown to decrease rapidly out to where, at distance, it is almost immeasurable. In fact, drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer at 24,000 feet from the well head (approximately 4.5 miles) would be .1 feet, slightly or 1 inch. The .1 foot drawdown relates to the lowest (Floridan) aquifer and the resultant drawdown in the upper intermediate aquifer, into which the majority of residential wells are sunk, would be relatively undetectable. Since the Petitioner's wells, at their deepest, go only into the upper intermediate level, and would be separated by 2 confining beds from the Floridan Aquifer, the impact on the domestic wells at 2 miles from the El Jobean wellhead would be immeasurable. Even at 1 mile, there would be minimal drawdown in the Floridan Aquifer and almost none in the upper intermediate aquifer. The potentiometric surface of the intermediate layer would not be adversely affected, nor would that of the surface water. Recognizing the potential for saltwater intrusion which occurs all along the coast, based on his studies, Mr. Moresi concluded that the well in question here would not induce significant saltwater intrusion. He concluded as well that the permit is consistent with the requirements of the District rule; that the amount permitted for the use of irrigation of the golf course is reasonable, assuming a golf course is a reasonable and appropriate use of water; that the withdrawal by the well in issue would not have an adverse impact on users outside the property on which the well was located; that it would not impact existing users; that there is no other water available for the purpose intended; that the water taken from the Floridan Aquifer under this permit may be potable but is of poor quality; and that the applicant met rule standards. Mr. Moresi also discussed the possible cumulative impact of the proposed well when operated along with the currently existing wells. If there are other drawdowns from the same cone into which El Jobean's well would be sunk, the withdrawals would be cumulative. However, as best he can determine, the only other significant drawdown from the cone pertinent here is that of the Verna well field. In his opinion, that well field's drawdown, which is from the northeast, would not be significant even when considered with the El Jobean well. Mr. Moresi was also satisfied that while the confining bed separating the surficial aquifer from the next lower level might be disturbed, the deeper one goes, the less likely there is to be mixing of aquifers. The only instance where water could move from one level to another as a result of the well is where there is no casing on the bore hole. In the instant case, plans call for, and permit conditions require, the well to be cased to below the lowest confining bed. Consequently, there should be no upward or downward flow of water as a result of the bore. Mr. Tyson, who worked on the evaluation of El Jobean's application for permit, was of the opinion that the amount of water requested by El Jobean in its application was appropriate for a golf course. This does not mean that a golf course is an appropriate use of the property. The special conditions imposed on the granting of the permit by the District are designed to reduce any impact possibly caused by the permitted activity. The Jacob-Hantush model used in analysis of the instant application is considered to be a conservative tool and showed minimal drawdown at all property boundaries. The use of other models in this case was considered neither necessary nor appropriate. Mr. Tyson considers the proposed permit a reasonable beneficial use as defined in the Florida Administrative Code and statutes because it proposes use of reasonable amounts of water and the models indicate no unfavorable impact. Based on the past practice of permitting golf courses with subdivisions, he feels the proposed use is reasonable. He concludes, therefore, that it is in the public interest to grant this permit. In his opinion, the permit will not interfere with legal existing uses and meets all statute and rule requirements. Considering the evidence as a whole, it is found that petitioner has presented insufficient evidence to support its claim that approval and operation of El Jobean's well as proposed would have an adverse impact on the property owners. It's concerns are no doubt sincere, but these concerns are not sufficiently confirmed by evidence of record. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that if the permit were granted, it would be modified by the addition of two conditions: The proposed well shall be constructed with a minimum of 600 feet of casing so as to prevent the unauthorized interchange of water between water bearing zones in order to prevent the deterioration of water quality in the shallower zones. If the well cannot be properly completed to prevent such an unauthorized interchange of water, the well shall be abandoned and plugged in accordance with Rule 17-21.10(2)(c), F.A.C.. Upon completion of the well, a copy of the well construction completion report shall be sent to the District. The permittee shall line the bottom of the pond that will be used as the irrigation source, with clay to a thickness equal to 1.5 feet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order issuing Consumptive Use Permit Number 209458, as modified by the conditions stipulated to at the hearing held herein on June 7, 1989, and outlined in Finding of Fact Number 27 herein, to El Jobean Philharmonic Group, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1176 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of the ultimate issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as indicating original conditions. The parties stipulated to additional conditions at the hearing. Accepted. 15 & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-33. Accepted and incorporated herein as pertinent. 34 & 35. Accepted. 36 & 37. Accepted. 38 & 39. Redundant. 40-43. Accepted. 44. Accepted. 45-51. Accepted. 52 & 53. Accepted. 54-56. Accepted. 57 & 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59-66. Accepted. 67-75. Accepted and incorporated herein. 76 & 77. Accepted and incorporated herein. 78. Accepted. 79-84. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. 87 & 88. Accepted. 89-93. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted in the natural source sense suggested by Petitioner. 96-99. Accepted and incorporated herein. 100 & 101. Accepted and incorporated herein. 102-105. Accepted and incorporated herein. 106. Accepted. 107 & 108. Accepted. 109 & 110. Accepted. For the Respondents: 1 & 2. Stipulation between the parties accepted and incorporated herein. 3-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence except for the second sentence which is incorporated herein as a Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted. 13-16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 22-26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29. Accepted. 30-32. Accepted and incorporated herein. 33-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Becky Ayech Personal Representative Miakka Community Club 421 Verna Rd. Sarasota, Florida 34240 Douglas Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 6899
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 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 The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's employment position was properly reclassified from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Beginning on April 23, 2001, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Hillsborough County Health Department as a Professional Engineer III, a position requiring state registration in accordance with Chapter 471, Florida Statutes (2001). The job announcement related to the Petitioner's employment states that the position "oversees" the drinking water program and engineering-related activities. The position was responsible for management of "Safe Drinking Water" permitting and compliance enforcement program entailing a variety of duties, including planning, organizing, and coordinating work assignments. According to organizational charts before and after the date of the reclassification of the position, the Professional Engineer III position had direct supervision of four employment positions, and indirect supervision of eight additional positions that reported to one of the Petitioner's direct employees. The position of Professional Engineer III includes a substantial amount of engineering review responsibilities, and is charged with direct supervision of the Safe Drinking Water Act program staff and Limited Use Drinking Water program staff. The position description categorized the job responsibilities as "regulatory," "supervising/training," "enforcement," "policies and procedures," "record keeping," "education," and "committees/other duties." Review of the specific duties indicates that the Petitioner's supervisory responsibilities were included within several of the categories. Included within the "regulatory" category was "[e]nsures staff conduct field inspections of public water systems. . . . Supervisor is responsible and accountable for field staff." Included within the "supervising/training" category were the following duties: Supervises Engineers to ensure all programs in the Safe Drinking Water Program are completed according to the agreement with DEP and the policies and procedures of the Department of Health. Supervises an Environmental Supervisor II to ensure that all programs in the Limited Use Drinking Water Program and Private Drinking Water Program are completed according to the F.S., F.A.C. and county regulations. Supervises staff review of engineer's plans. Supervises and reviews the preparation of non-compliance letters written by staff regarding enforcement actions. Provide training to new Health Department staff in all aspects of EHS at least once a year (standardized presentation). Perform field inspections (documented) with personnel on a quarterly basis to evaluate staff performance and for Quality Improvement (QI) in accordance with office policy. Telephone regulated facilities each quarter to determine customer satisfaction . . . in accordance with office policy. Develop training modules for specific program areas (public drinking water systems) and maintain them accurate and current. Provide those training modules to new EH staff and twice a year to existing EH staff. Assign staff to special work areas as necessary and perform field inspections (staff shortages, vacation/leave time, and natural disaster). Evaluate personnel's work, plan work load, special tasks to include efficiency. Included within the "enforcement" category were the following duties: Reviews appropriate enforcement activities generated by staff and assure timely progress of formal enforcement from compliance to enforcement. Ensures the time progress of enforcement cases by working closely with the compliance section of the Public Drinking Water Program in bringing non-compliant clients into enforcement. Follow up on violations of FAC and/or FS and ensure compliance is achieved or enforcement action is taken. Included within the "policies and procedures" category was the responsibility to "[r]eview daily activity reports and corresponding paperwork each day." The Petitioner was responsible for managing the daily workflow of the office. He planned, directed, and reviewed the work performed by his employees. The Petitioner was responsible for the evaluation of all employees under his direct supervision, including newly hired probationary employees. The Petitioner was responsible for review of the evaluations for employees for whom he had indirect supervisory duties, and he also provided his own independent evaluation of their performance. The Petitioner was responsible for the discipline of employees. At one point he had to counsel an employee who was consistently late to arrive for work. The Petitioner was also responsible for seeking qualified applicants for position openings. He was responsible for initiating the employment process. He chose the panel that interviewed applicants, designed the interview questions, participated in interviews, and made the final recommendation as to the person hired. He had the authority to decline to fill an open position if he deemed that the applicants lacked sufficient qualification. The Petitioner claims that the majority of his time was spent in review of permit applications and related engineering tasks. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The Petitioner's claim appears to essentially relate to a period of time subsequent to the July 1, 2001, reclassification of the position. During the time between his initial employment and the date of the position reclassification, the Petitioner was primarily a supervisory employee and had little, if any, permit review responsibilities. The office was fully staffed with other employees who were directly responsible for review of permit applications and related field reviews. In autumn of 2001, after the position was reclassified, the office began to lose employees, resulting in an increased workload for the remaining workers. At this point, the Petitioner began to undertake a substantial role in the actual review of permit applications in addition to his supervisory duties. Nonetheless, the Petitioner remained responsible for supervision of remaining employees. The Petitioner was also responsible for filling the vacant positions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a Final Order finding that the "Professional Engineer III" position held by Raymond Van Loon on July 1, 2001, was properly classified into the Selected Exempt Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen W. Foxwell, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Aaron J. Hilligas, Esquire AFSCME Council 79 3064 Highland Oaks Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Boulevard Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33606 Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham Post Office Box 4289 315 Beard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32315 William E. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
