The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 61G15- 21.009(1)(b) and (3) and 61G15-20.0015(3) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated facts submitted by the parties and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers ("Board") is the state agency responsible for the licensure and regulation of professional engineers in Florida. §§ 471.007, 471.008, 471.013, and 471.031, Fla. Stat. (2005).1 Mr. Hursh is an individual who applied for licensure by endorsement with the Board to be licensed as a professional engineer. Mr. Hursh is licensed in another state, so he applied for licensure by endorsement pursuant to Section 471.015(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Mr. Hursh failed to pass the required Principles and Practice Examination, provided by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors ("NCEES") five times since October 1, 1992, in an effort to become licensed as an engineer in Florida. In April 2004, Mr. Hursh passed the NCEES examination in Delaware, met Delaware's other licensing criteria, and, on July 14, 2004, was issued a license to practice engineering by the State of Delaware. In August 2004, Mr. Hursh filed his application for licensure by endorsement with the State of Florida and subsequently provided all supporting documentation as requested by the Board, including a Verification of Licensure from the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers. Mr. Hursh did not provide a copy of the Delaware licensing requirements. On January 19, 2005, the Application Committee of the Board denied Mr. Hursh's application, citing as the reason "5 time failure - need 12 hrs. of courses prior to endorsement." Delaware's licensing criteria was never reviewed by the Board to determine if the Delaware licensing criteria was substantially the same as Florida's licensing criteria. On February 10, 2005, the Board filed a Notice of Denial of Mr. Hursh's application for licensure by endorsement, citing as the basis for the denial that Mr. Hursh had failed the examination five times and needed to meet the additional college credit requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15.21.007.
The Issue Whether the South Florida Water Management District’s (“District”) intended award of a contract for aerial spraying services, granular application services, and aerial transport services, to Coastal Air Services, Inc. (“Coastal”), is contrary to the District’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the bid specifications; and, if so, whether the decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The District is an independent taxing authority created pursuant to section 373.069, Florida Statutes, with the authority to contract with private entities to maintain real property controlled by the District. See § 373.1401, Fla. Stat. HAI is a Florida corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida with a business address of 1090 Airglades Boulevard in Clewiston, Florida. Coastal is a Florida corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida with a business address of 7424 Coastal Drive in Panama City, Florida. The RFB On February 7, 2018, the District issued the RFB, soliciting bids for qualified respondents to provide the following: [F]urnish all labor, equipment, perform data entry and perform all operations for spraying of aquatic, ditchbank and invasive vegetation by helicopter and provide aerial flight services for site inspection and plant surveys. Both HAI and Coastal submitted timely bids, which the District deemed responsive and responsible under the terms of the RFB. The District deemed Coastal the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for aerial spraying, granular application, and aerial transport services. The District deemed HAI the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for spot spraying services. On May 11, 2018, the District posted its Notice of Intent to Award the respective contracts to Coastal and HAI. HAI challenges the award to Coastal because it is not a responsible bidder under the terms of the RFB. HAI’s challenge focuses on two items required to document the bidder’s responsibility to perform the requested services. First, the RFB requires the bidder to provide at least two helicopters certified pursuant to 14 CFR Part 133, Rotocraft External-Load Operations; and 14 CFR Part 137, Agricultural Aircraft Operations (Part 137 Certificate). Second, the RFB requires the bidder to demonstrate its ability to obtain required insurance coverage. Part 137 Certificate HAI contends that Coastal’s bid does not meet the responsibility provisions of the RFB because it did not include sufficient Part 137 Certificates for its subcontractor, HMC Helicopters (“HMC”). HAI contends the Part 137 Certificates are required to expressly state that aircraft are certified to dispense economic poisons. Petitioner’s argument fails for three reasons. First, the RFB does not require the bidder’s Part 137 Certificate to expressly endorse aircraft to dispense economic poisons.3/ Second, assuming the express endorsement was required, the requirement does not apply to HMC. The RFB defines the term “Bidder” and “Respondent” as “[a]ll contractors, consultants, organizations, firms or other entities submitting a Response to this RFB as a prime contractor.” (emphasis added). In its bid, Coastal is listed as the prime contractor, and HMC as a subcontractor. The RFB requires each Respondent to list at least two aircraft which are Part 133 and 137 certified. The requirement applies to Coastal as the primary contractor, not to its subcontractor. Coastal’s bid listed five aircraft with both Part 133 and 137 Certificates, actually exceeding the requirement for two such certified aircraft. Third, assuming an express endorsement for dispensing economic poisons was required, and that the requirement applied to HMC, HMC’s Part 137 Certificate documents HMC’s authority to dispense economic poisons. Pursuant to 14 CFR 137.3, “Agricultural aircraft operation” is defined as follows: [T]he operation of an aircraft for the purpose of (1) dispensing any economic poison, (2) dispensing any other substance intended for plant nourishment, soil treatment, propagation of plant life, or pest control, or (3) engaging in dispending activities directly affecting agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation, but not including the dispensing of live insects. To obtain a Part 137 Certificate, the operator must pass a knowledge and skills test, which includes the safe handling of economic poisons and disposal of used containers for those poisons; the general effects of those poisons on plants, animals, and persons and precautions to be observed in using those poisons; as well as the primary symptoms of poisoning in persons, appropriate emergency measures in the case of poisoning, and the location of poison control centers. See 14 CFR § 137.19. However, if the operator applies for a Part 137 Certificate which prohibits dispensing of economic poisons, the applicant is not required to demonstrate the knowledge and skills listed above. See Id. HMCs’ certificates do not contain an express prohibition against dispensing economic poisons. The authorization for HMC’s aircraft to dispense economic poisons is inherent in its Part 137 Certificate. Coastal’s bid meets the solicitation requirement for at least two aircraft with Part 137 Certificates. Insurance Requirements The RFB requires each Respondent to “provide evidence of the ability to obtain appropriate insurance coverage.” Respondents may meet the insurability requirement by having their insurance agent either (1) complete and sign an insurance certificate which meets all of the requirements of Exhibit H to the RFB; or (2) issue a letter on the insurance agency’s letterhead stating that the Respondent qualifies for the required insurance coverage levels and that an insurance certificate meeting the District’s requirements will be submitted prior to the execution of the contract. In response to this requirement, Coastal submitted a letter from Sterlingrisk Aviation, dated March 6, 2018, stating, “All required coverage amounts are available to Coastal Air Service, Inc. to fulfill the requirements of this contract.” In the Re: line, the letter refers to the specific RFB at issue in this case. Coastal also submitted a certificate of insurance from Sterlingrisk Aviation demonstrating the levels of insurance coverage in effect at the time the bid was submitted, although the coverages are less than the amounts required under the RFB.4/ HAI takes issue with Coastal’s evidence of ability to obtain the required coverage because the letter from Sterlingrisk does not state “an insurance certificate reflecting the required coverage will be provided prior to the contract execution.” Based on the totality of the evidence, the undersigned infers that Sterlingrisk’s letter omits the language that a certificate “will be provided” prior to contract execution, because Sterlingrisk will issue an insurance certificate only when Coastal applies, and pays the premium, for the increased coverage limitations. The letter from Sterlingrisk substantially complies with the insurance requirements of the RFB, and constitutes competent, substantial evidence of Coastal’s ability to obtain the required insurance coverage. HAI introduced no evidence that Coastal obtained an economic advantage over HAI by failing to include language from its insurance agent that “an insurance certificate reflecting the required coverage will be provided prior to the contract execution.” Instead, HAI argued that by failing to enforce that provision of the RFB, the District cannot ensure the winning bidder will be responsible to undertake the contract. HAI argued that the District’s failure to adhere to this RFB requirement may create inefficiencies that “would result in the event that Coastal were unable to obtain the required insurance coverage” before execution of the contract. Coastal’s bid documents its eligibility for insurance coverage in the amounts required by the RFB. If Coastal does not provide said certificates, it will not be qualified for final execution or issuance of the contract.
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 dismissing Helicopter Applicator, Inc.’s Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2018.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should grant a dredge and fill permit which has been requested by the Respondent, William R. Cullen (Applicant). That proposed permit has been opposed by the Petitioners (who will be referred to collectively as Petitioners for convenience sake).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to issue permits pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, William R. Cullen, filed an application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a slip marina on June 4, 1985. The original request was subsequently amended to seek approval for a forty-two slip commercial marina. The project site for the Applicant's marina is located at Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The site is within Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay. The property is owned by Mr. Cullen and his family. All of the proposed improvements will be constructed on submerged lands or uplands owned or controlled by the Cullen family. The project site is located within a commercial area of Key Largo and contains frontage on both the water, Buttonwood Sound, and the highway, U.S. Highway 1. The project site has a basin which was created by the excavation of materials used for road construction from the shoreline and the installation of an L-shaped rock jetty which runs roughly perpendicular and then parallel to the shoreline. This jetty was installed during the late 1960s. The water depths within the basin range from 3 feet to approximately 14 feet. The water within the basin is subject to the same tidal considerations as the waters within Buttonwood Sound. There is no interruption of the flow of water in and out of the basin from those waters of the Sound. The water within this basin is within an Outstanding Florida Water as defined in Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant's plan calls for the excavation of appproximately 30,170 square feet of upland area and the dredging of the existing basin for approximately 18,460 dredged square feet. During the construction phases, the Applicant proposes to install turbidity curtains to limit the adverse effects expected during that time. The improvements are intended to be a permanent alteration to the basin design and will permanently modify the marine life habitat within that basin. The Applicant proposes to remove portions of the existing jetty to allow additional water to flow through the basin unimpeded by the jetty walls. The removal of the jetty walls will expedite the dilution and flushing of potential pollutants from the basin on a tidal frequency. That flushing is purported to assure that the water quality within the basin will not be diminished. However, such pollutants will be flushed into Buttonwood Sound. Stormwater accumulating on the upland project is to flow toward a lower upland area and should not to be dumped into the basin. The proposed marina is to have fueling facilities and the Applicant has agreed to design that system to limit inadvertent spillage. Further, as a condition of the permit, the Applicant has agreed to abide by the Department of Natural Resources' spill contingency plan requirements. The proposed marina is designed to provide portable sewage pumpout facilities for each slip. A permanent pumpout facilities will also be available. The Applicant seeks to attract boats in the range of 30 to 50 feet in length at this facility. While there are a number of other marinas in other areas of Key Largo which might accomodate that size boat, the marinas in the immediate vicinity of this project site are designed for smaller craft. The area within the basin consists of unvegetated bottom, submerged rip-rap, sea grasses, and hardbottom/algae communities--the predominant classifications being the latter two. The deeper hardbottom areas are to be filled and portions of the sea grasses will be dredged in order to configure the proposed docks. Additionally, other sea grass areas will be shaded, and thereby disturbed, by the construction of the docks. There are no historical or archaeological features relevant to the proposed site. The area has not been designated as a critical manatee area, however, manatees do frequent the project vicinity and have been observed feeding immediately adjacent to the basin. The permit proposed for this project requires a water quality monitoring plan. In addition to sampling for coliform, diesel by-products, oils, greases, detergents, oxygen, copper, lead and zinc, the plan requires sampling for aluminum, cadmium, and chromium. The monitoring stations are to be located both within the basin (2 stations) and outside the basin (2 stations). Liveaboards or others continuously docked at the marina will create additional shading which will disrupt and adversely affect the sea grass system. In order to provide access to the marina, the Applicant intends to dredge a channel in an area containing sea grass which is undisputedly within the Outstanding Florida Waters. The Department deemed the subject application was complete on February 23, 1988. The Department did not apply the Keys Rule found in Rule 17-312.400, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. The Department also did not apply the Mitigation Rule found in Rule 17-312.300, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. Michael Dentzau has personally reviewed and processed 250-300 dredge and fill permits during his tenure with the Department. Of those projects he has reviewed, he has not recommended that dense sea grass beds of the type located within this project site be dredged in order to construct a commercial marina. Phillip Edwards was responsible for executing the Intent to Issue in this case. In determining that this project had provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated, Mr. Edwards weighed the public interests criteria set forth in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Because he received letters purportedly from elected officials, Mr. Edwards presumed that the project was in the public interest. That assumption of fact has not been established by this record. According to Mr. Edwards, the adverse effects expected by this project could be adequately addressed by the permit conditions when weighed against the public interest in favor of the project. Since Mr. Edwards' assumptions as to the public interest in this project have not been established, his conclusion regarding the weight that interest should receive can be given little consideration. The project as proposed by the Applicant will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project as proposed by the Applicant will adversely affect fishing or marine productivity within the basin since it will permanently alter the basin biologically by destroying sea grass. The increased boat traffic within the Sound will also detract from the present recreational uses enjoyed by area residents. According to Mr. Edwards, it is very unusual for the Department to issue a permit when sea grasses will be adversely affected. In the 17 years in which he has reviewed permits, only two occasions merited approval when the destruction of sea grasses to the extent in this case would result. Neither of those cases were factually similar to the case at issue. In those cases, however, elected officials advised Mr. Edwards, as he presumed they had here, that there was a public need for the permit. Increased boat traffic will result in increased manatee mortality due to collisions. In order to assure water quality will not be degraded within a marina, the project should have a short flushing time comparable to healthy natural embayments. In this case, the flushing proposed by the Applicant is dependent, in part, on winds which may be inconsistent or relatively minimal during the summer months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by the Applicant. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3779 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, it is accepted that the Department deemed the application complete on February 23, 1988; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that the habitat within the basin is the same as the habitat throughout Florida Bay and that the basin is not "enclosed" hydrologically; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as argument, conclusions of law, or comment. The paragraphs do not recite facts pertinent to this case. Paragraphs 13, 14, and the first two sentences of paragraph 15 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph IS is rejected as argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 16 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument. To the extent that paragraph 19 accurately describes Van de Kreeke's assessment of the report it is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record. The report upon which comment is directed was not offered in this cause to prove its truth/accuracy. Paragraphs 20 through 22 are rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record-- see comment to paragraph 19 above. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are accepted. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted but is comment. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraph 50 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. The first three sentences of paragraph 52 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The first sentence and that portion of the second sentence of paragraph 53 that ends with the word "authenticity" is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 54 and 55 are accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. Paragraph 57 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 58 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 59 through 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 69 and 70 are accepted. Paragraph 71 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 72 is rejected as argument. The first sentence of paragraph 73 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 74 is accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are accepted. Paragraph 80 is rejected as repetitive. With the inclusion of the words "and hardbottom and algae" paragraph 81 is accepted. Paragraph 82 is accepted. Paragraph 83 is accepted. Paragraph 84 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 5l. Paragraphs 85 through 89 are accepted. With the substitution of the word "not" for the word "ever" in the last sentence of paragraph 90, it is accepted. Paragraphs 91 through 94 are accepted. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 96 through 100 are accepted. Paragraph 101 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 102 through 106 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The waters within the basin are of the same origin as they were prior to the creation of the jetty; no artificial body of water was created. With regard to paragraph 3 it is accepted that the jetty was constructed in the late 1960s. Paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that that is the applicants proposal no conclusion as to the likelihood of that is reached. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Inevitably, however, spills will occur and must be considered as an adverse affect of the project. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by competent evidence or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is inadequate to offset the adverse affects to manatees. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is inadequate to limit the adverse affects to sea grass. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through the first sentence of paragraph 6 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 7 through Il are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13 through the first sentence of paragraph 17 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraphs 21 through 26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 28 is accepted, the remainder rejected as speculative, comment, or unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 29 is accepted, the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted; however, sea grasses not disturbed by dredging will still suffer adverse affects from shading and silting. Paragraph 36 is accepted but see comment to paragraph 35 above. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45 is accepted but it should be noted that is not the extent of the proposal. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Presnell Garvin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles Lee Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Robert Routa P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Linda McMullen McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 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 Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water requested in the application should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500137 seeks an average daily withdrawal of 2.4 million gallons of water with maximum daily withdrawal not more than 2.88 million gallons from an existing well in order to process phosphate and reclaim land. This is an existing use for mining operations located southwest of Lakeland, Florida, on land consisting of 1531 acres. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Lakeland Ledger, on November 11 & 18, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit of publication were admitted into evidence without objection as Composite Exhibit 1, together with correspondence from James R. Brown, Vice President, Dagus Engineers, Inc., dated November 19, 1975 to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. No objections were received by the Water Management District as to the application. Mr. George Szell, hydrologist of the Water Management District testified that the application met the conditions for a consumptive use permit as set forth in Chapter 16J-2.11, Florida Administrative Code, except that the quantity of water requested to be withdrawn is 41.06 per cent over the maximum average daily withdrawal permitted under the water crop theory as set forth in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. However, the Water Management District witness recommended waiver of that provision since the mining operations will be concluded in several years and thereafter the water table and hydrologic conditions will return to normal. The Water District staff recommended approval of the application with the condition that a meter be installed on the well and that the applicant be required to take monthly readings thereof and submit quarterly reports of the readings to the District. The applicant's representative agreed to these conditions at the hearing.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500137 submitted by Poseidon Mines, Inc., for a consumptive water use permit be granted on the condition that a meter be installed on the applicant's well and that monthly readings be taken and submitted quarterly by the applicant to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It is further recommended that the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Rule 16J-2.11(5), for good cause, grant an exception to the provisions of Rule 16J-2.11(3), as being consistent with the public interest. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J.T. Ahern, Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Poseidon Mines, Inc. P.O. Box 5172 Bartow, Florida
Findings Of Fact Pal-Mar has filed application No. 29454 pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, requesting approval for a surface water management system known as Phase III of Pal-Mar Water Management District, to serve approximately 3,600 acres of residential land in Martin County, Florida. The project discharges to C-44, the St. Lucie canal. SFWMD's staff report recommends approval be granted for the proposed water management system based on considerations of water quality, rates of discharge, environmental impact and flood protection. Approval is subject to certain conditions which are not material to the instant cause. As background material to the staff report, the staff makes reference to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report entitled "Survey-Review Report of Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, Martin County," dated September 22, 1967. The Corps of Engineers' report was not used in the decision-making process but rather was included in the staff report to provide a comprehensive overview. Whether the Corps of Engineers' plans were ever implemented would not affect the recommendations of the staff. The land in question is currently zoned "IZ" (interim zoning) according to Martin County's zoning regulations. In this category, if the neighborhood is predominantly one classification of usage, then the zoning director is to be governed by the regulations for that class of usage in determining the standard zoning regulations to be applied to the interim zoning district. If no trend of development has been established in the neighborhood, the minimum standards of the R2 single family zoning district are to be complied with. Rule 16K-4.035, Florida Administrative Code, entitled Basis of Review of Applications for Construction of Works, provides in Section (2) that all applications such as the instant one shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the district's "Basis Of Review For Construction Of Surface Water Management Systems Serving Projects With Two Or More Acres Of Impervious Area Within The South Florida Water Management District - December, 1977." The Basis of Review provides in Part VI that before an application will be considered for the issuance of a permit, the proposed land use must be "compatible with the applicable zoning for the area." The evidence indicates that the land in question has a history of agricultural use. However, the evidence also discloses that far from being a trend towards agricultural use there is a trend away from it. A major portion of the neighboring lands will be devoted to Phases I, II, IV and V, of the Pal-Mar Water Management District. According to Florida Land Sales Board registrations, the land in question is subdivided into one-half acre, one acre, 1.4 acre and two acre lots. The average project density is one lot per acre. In addition, there is some mobile home usage within neighboring areas. If there is a trend, it is toward R2 zoning type usage. SFWMD's staff concluded that the proposed land use was compatible with the applicable zoning for the area. Martin County has failed to establish that such compatibility does not exist. In the Redraft of Order Permitting Change of Plan of Reclamation and Change of Name dated November 4, 1969, the Honorable C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Circuit Court Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, observes that the Petitioner in that case (herein Pal-Mar) "permanently and irrevocably withdrew its application to drain into the St. Lucie canal thereby removing all reasons for objections" to the proceedings in Circuit Court. However, there is no evidence to indicate that there exists a prohibition against drainage into the St. Lucie canal or that Judge Trowbridge's order is intended to preclude approval of Pal-Mar's present application.
The Issue Did Respondent, William D. Going, willfully and intentionally violate Florida Statutes and Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) rules regulating well construction? If he did, what corrective action is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact William Going is a licensed water well contractor. He has held License Number 1564 since 2007. Mr. Going is a managing member of Going Irrigation, Inc., and conducts business under that name. Mr. Going constructed four sand point irrigation wells at a residential property in St. Petersburg, Florida. He did not have and had not applied for a Well Construction Permit (WCP). 1 All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification unless noted otherwise. 2 The findings are based upon the evidence admitted at the hearing and the stipulations of the parties. Mr. Going did not call or otherwise contact the District to request a WCP. The District operates an online permitting system called the Water Management Information System (WMIS). The District will issue a WCP based upon a telephone call, an application on its website, a faxed application, a mailed application, or a hand-delivered application. The District routinely issues permits within two hours of receiving an application, often within ten minutes to half an hour. The District's application system operates from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. It is infrequently offline for a few hours. While quick, the process reviews significant information. It verifies that the well location is sufficiently distant from septic systems, verifies construction methods and materials, and verifies, if the well is for drinking water, that the well is not too close to a contamination site. Mr. Going is a registered and experienced user of WMIS. The District learned of the unpermitted wells on April 28, 2020, when it received an anonymous complaint. On May 5, 2020, approximately ten days after he constructed the wells, Mr. Going submitted WCP Application 889173 for construction of the four already completed sand point irrigation wells. He did not disclose that they were already completed. He falsely represented them as proposed. The District approved the application on May 6, 2020, and issued WCP 889173 to Mr. Going. On June 11, 2020, Mr. Going submitted four Well Completion Reports for the wells, falsely representing that each was completed on May 7, 2020. This was more than 30 days after Mr. Going completed the wells. Mr. Going claimed at the hearing that he tried to apply for a WCP for four or five days before constructing the wells but was locked out of the WMIS. Mr. Going said that his son usually obtained permits online for the company. He also claimed that he tried to apply online on April 24 and 25, 2019. His claims are not persuasive. There is no question that Mr. Going knew the requirements for obtaining a permit and reporting completion. In 2009, in Order No. SWF 09- 017, the District imposed a $500.00 fine and assessed five points against his license for an almost identical offense. In that case, Mr. Going also constructed a well without a permit from the District or applying for a permit. In that case, like this one, he sought to excuse failure to apply for a permit by claiming difficulties with the website. In that case he blamed his wife's unfamiliarity with computers, rather than his own, for failure to apply. In that case, like this one, he applied for and obtained a permit after constructing the well. Mr. Going knowingly and willfully constructed four unpermitted wells, filed a WCP application more than thirty days after he completed the wells, and misrepresented the dates of completion in the WCP completion reports that he filed with the District. Mr. Going tries to characterize his after-the-fact misrepresentations as mitigation. But they were not. Mitigation would have been contacting the District to advise it of the wells' unpermitted construction and the asserted justification for it. Furthermore, his misrepresentations deprived the District of the chance to prevent construction of the wells using improper materials or near a septic tank or contaminated location.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-10.041(3)(d) of the South Florida Water Management District (“the District”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Conservancy is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Naples, Florida. It has 6,200 members residing in Southwest Florida. The mission of the Conservancy is to protect the environment and natural resources of Southwest Florida. The Caloosahatchee River is an important focus of the Conservancy’s organizational activities and objectives. A substantial number of the members of the Conservancy use the Caloosahatchee River for drinking water, boating, fishing, wildlife observation, and scientific research. The proposed rules create a prospective reservation of water in the not-yet-operational Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Reservoir “for fish and wildlife.” The Conservancy’s interests would be substantially affected by the proposed reservation. The District is a regional water management agency created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2013). It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. Proposed rule 40E-10.041(3) states: (3) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir: All surface water contained within and released, via operation, from the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is reserved from allocation. The water reserved under this paragraph will be available for fish and wildlife upon a formal determination of the Governing Board, pursuant to state and federal law, that the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is operational. The reservation contained within this subsection and the criteria contained in section 3.11.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-2.091, F.A.C., shall be revised in light of changed conditions or new information prior to the approval described in paragraph (3)(b) above. Pursuant to subsection 373.223(4), F.S., presently existing legal uses for the duration of a permit existing on [RULE ADOPTION DATE] are not contrary to the public interest. The Conservancy challenges only paragraph (3)(d), contending that it modifies or contravenes the implementing statute, section 373.223(4).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a lease on a 160-acre tract of land along the northern boundary of Palm Beach County which has been zoned and used for several years to mine rock used in local road building operations. This tract of land is surrounded on the east, south and west by some 1,000 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Vanguard Farms. The Vanguard Farms property is used to grow citrus and sugarcane. The geology of the area in the vicinity of this application is such that some three feet of Everglades top soil overlies the limestone. The land surface is about fifteen (15) feet NGVD and the water level table fluctuates from twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet NGVD for the dry and wet seasons. The Vanguard Farms property, which surrounds Petitioner's property in Palm Beach County, is a wet area bordered on the west by Lake Okeechobee and on the east by high ground water elevation. The area has an excess of rainfall over evapotranspiration and excess water will always be generated. In order to render Vanguard Farms arable it is necessary to drain the property and pump excess water from the land. The existing rock pit is some 6.7 acres in area. In order to economically mine rock from this pit it is necessary to remove stable overburden and expose the limerock to provide a stable platform on which the mining equipment can be operated. Since the water table is generally above the top of this limerock, it is necessary to remove water from the pit to expose the rock to be quarried. During earlier operations water from the pit dewatering was pumped into a canal which flowed onto intervenor's property. In the application now under consideration, no water from the dewatering operation will be pumped off the 160 acres controlled by Petitioner. A 25-acre holding pond has been constructed on this site as well as a 9-acre overflow pond. The holding pond was constructed by piling the overburden, and possibly some limerock, in a rectangular shape some ten feet above the surface (25 feet NGVD). This material with which this 10-foot high levee is formed was excavated with a dragline and shaped with a tractor. Condition 28, of the conditions proposed by Respondent for the grant of this application, requires all dikes, levees and berms behind which water is to be retained to be inspected for structural adequacy. A report of such inspection and steps necessary to correct the deficiencies noted shall be submitted, and the report is to be signed and sealed by a Florida registered professional engineer. Perimeter ditches on the north, south and east sides of Petitioner's lands will intercept seepage from the retention pond and surface waters flowing onto this property. These perimeter ditches are connected to the rock pit to which such waters will flow. Water moving westward across the property will be intercepted by the rock pit. Without the rock pit excess water generated in this area will flow onto Vanguard's adjacent land. This condition will exist when the pit is not in operation. However, when the pit is in operation, the water will be retained on Petitioner's property by those limiting conditions requiring the maintenance of water level elevation in the perimeter ditch to be kept either equal to or below the water level elevation of Vanguard Farms. Under this condition, all water will be routed between the pit and retention pond. Conditions of the permit which Respondent proposes to issue include that the water level in the retention pond not exceed 18.5 feet NGVD, that the holding pond be interconnected with the overflow pond, that the water level in the perimeter ditches be maintained by use of a flashboard riser at 10.8 feet NGVD, that dewatering operations cease upon notification by District staff of any adjacent property owners experiencing water-related problems, and that a direct connection between holding pond and rock pit be established for emergency discharge of water from the holding pond back into the rock pit.
